Here are the facts about the "Age of Arthur." The Roman legions pulled out in 410 (over 50 years before this film's period). The Saxons were INVITED by King Vortigern in 449 as mercenaries against invading Irish, Scots and Picts (note: they were NOT called "Woads.") Saxons were NOT mono-syllabic troglodytes, but actually warrior-farmers with a sophisticated culture. After a few generations, the Angles and Saxons - led by Cerdic of Wessex - came into conflict with the Romano-Celts, led by Ambrosius Aurelianus. Artorius (Arthur) was apparently one of Ambrosius' generals. He fought ten battles against the Germanic tribes, culminating in the Battle of Badon sometime between 500 and 510 (40-50 years AFTER this film's period).
NONE of this information came out in this film. I am somewhat familiar with the "Sarmatian" legend, but there is little evidence for it (in fact, Roman legionaries in Britain came from all over the Empire).
As "history," this film gets an "F". As entertainment...? The characters were shallow, the acting was amateurish, and the dialogue was plodding and trite. As a "found comedy," it works rather well - I found myself laughing through most of it. As a serious film and an attempt to portray "history," however, it is seriously flawed. Skip this one and read "Crystal Cave" or "Mists of Avalon" instead.
NONE of this information came out in this film. I am somewhat familiar with the "Sarmatian" legend, but there is little evidence for it (in fact, Roman legionaries in Britain came from all over the Empire).
As "history," this film gets an "F". As entertainment...? The characters were shallow, the acting was amateurish, and the dialogue was plodding and trite. As a "found comedy," it works rather well - I found myself laughing through most of it. As a serious film and an attempt to portray "history," however, it is seriously flawed. Skip this one and read "Crystal Cave" or "Mists of Avalon" instead.