Reviews

If someone proposes to give an historical version of some legend, there is a lot of freedom to change the story. However, one should at least get the history that we do know right. This movie blunders on so many counts that I cringed throughout. Let me list some:

1. Our story starts in 452 with Lancelot plucked from a Sarmatian town in what is now the Ukraine. First, the Sarmatians were displaced by the Goths hundreds of years earlier. And the Goths were pushed out by this fellow named Attilla the Hun. Attila was busy sacking Gaul at this time and causing Rome a great deal of trouble. So how is it these Roman cavalry men have time to ride into lands controlled by the Huns to get this child and send him to Britain, a post that Rome abandoned in 410 AD? Also, why is some Sarmatian child named Lancelot (that's French). All this in the first few minutes.

2. Skip forward 15 years to 467. So, the Saxons are invading. Fine, that really did happen but these Saxons are landing well north of Hadrian's Wall; that would be somewhere in Scottland. For those not in the know, the Saxons invaded mostly along the east coast of Britain so these fellows were clearly lost.

3. Crossbows? What the heck are the Saxons doing with Crossbows? The crossbow didn't arrive on the scene until the middle ages, long after Arthur. BTW, archery was not particularly effective in warfare at this time since the bows of the day didn't pierce armor and shield, but in this movie archery is the key to victory.

4. Arthur is a Christian in the movie and follows the teachings of Pelagius, who we are led to believe he had met. Problem is, Pelagius lived from roughly 360 to 420, so he's been dead for more than 40 years though another character tells us he died only last year (466 AD).

5. Stirrups? Roman cavalry did not have stirrups. As I recall, the stirrup was introduced to England at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. While I'm on the subject of horses, how is it that 7 knights are so impressive? Arthur's entire command prior to the appearance of Merlin's Woads is himself and 6 men.

6. Trebuchets? Okay, now you've gone too far. The otherwise primitive and tattooed Woads somehow have a medieval contraption that flings firebombs? Whatever, I don't care anymore.

Now I'll admit I had to look up the part about Pelagius but the rest I just know off the top of my head. This is not stuff that is hard to discover so the writers clearly made no effort at all. So, we have discarded the legend of Arthur to create an Arthur in a history that never happened.

John Riley did indeed lead Irish deserters for Mexico in the war. The Irish were ill-used by Nativist officers who didn't like 'croppies.' Protestant America was feeling threatened by the huge influx of Catholic Irish flooding into the US from famine-struck Ireland. Few troops have been given more reason to desert. However, the movie tells it all wrong. Riley wasn't a sergeant and didn't plan to return after getting his men to safety. He was a private who swam the Rio Grande a month before the war was declared. He responded to 'desertion leaflets' that the Mexicans had sneaked into American Camps. No US army ever had higher desertion rates.

The treatment of Winfield Scott is rather harsh. Riley was actually sentenced to hang with virtually all of his men but it was Scott who commuted his sentence (the still harsh 50 lashes and branding), along with that of more than a score of his men. This infuriated Scott's Nativist officers.

Riley remained in the Mexican Army after the war for a year or so and almost certainly returned to Ireland thereafter. Also, he was a young fellow, about thirty, which made it hard to accept Tom in the role. Another thing that was irritating is that there is a list of the men who served under Riley and it is amazing that the screenwriter decided to create fictional replacements instead. Why? Also, one must not forget that most Irish, despite poor treatment by prejudiced officers, did not desert. Who was more heroic, those who deserted or those who didn't?

All in all, a disappointment. However, it is one of the very few films that deals with the Mexican American War, and for that I commend it.

As a work of fiction, this would be a truly great film. However, this is based on actual events and twists them beyond recognition. Commodus had been co-emperor with his father for 3 years prior to his death, not the actions of a man who planned to hand the empire to another. And no, Rome did not become a Republic again after Commodus was assassinated.

Though his sister Lucilla did indeed plot against him in 182, her plot failed and she was executed. Commodus was Caesar for 12 years (from 180 to 192) but was finally assassinated by a combination of poisoning and strangling.

If it is to be fiction, then use fictional characters. This is the worst adaptation of history that I have seen since El Cid. This film only contributes to the ignorance of history that already plagues America.

However, if you are one of those who don't know history, you might find this to be a great epic.