Hollywood is no stranger to movies about the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. From the 1967 musical Camelot to the 1981 fantasy epic Excalibur, there’s been no shortage of films over the decades that adapt the ancient tales of the mythical British monarch.
But in recent years, a trend has appeared with cinematic adaptations of Arthurian lore: to put it simply, straightforward adaptations of the King Arthur legends seem to have fallen out of favor. Older King Arthur films tended to be based directly on specific stories, usually the affair between Lancelot and Guinevere or the final battle between Arthur and Mordred. By comparison, the most notable King Arthur movies of the past twenty years — 2004’s King Arthur starring Clive Owen and 2017’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, starring Charlie Hunnam and directed by Guy Ritchie — attempt to reinvent the original legend for modern audiences.
RELATED: The Green Knight Review
Both films failed to be a hit with audiences or critics, generating little hype or acclaim upon release. By contrast, David Lowery’s recently released film The Green Knight has proved to be much more successful, with many critics hailing it as a masterpiece. Needless to say, The Green Knight has managed to do something that previous King Arthur hasn’t, and it all has to do with how it adapts the source material.
One common thread between both Clive Owen and Charlie Hunnam’s King Arthur films is that neither of them have much to do with the original legends. The 2004 King Arthur was marketed as being the true origin of the Knights of the Round Table, depicting a historically accurate account of King Arthur as a former Roman soldier who fought against the Saxons before becoming king of Britain. However, this story has no basis in history or myth — despite what the film’s marketing claimed, its story has very little at all to do with King Arthur besides the names of its characters. The 2004 King Arthur attempted to modernize the legends, stripping them of all supernatural elements and placing them in a historical setting to make the story more grounded and realistic. But in doing so, it wound up as a King Arthur movie without any of the qualities that made the old stories so beloved or memorable to begin with.
While Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword brings the fantastical aspects of Arthurian lore back to the forefront, it still shares many of the same flaws as its 2004 predecessor. Once again, the film attempts to create a new origin story for King Arthur, this time casting him as an underdog hero who must go from a street rat to a knight to retake the throne from his evil uncle Vortigern. The movie plays out less like an Arthurian legend and more like a superhero origin story — something that was likely intentional by the filmmakers, since Legend of the Sword was originally planned to be the first entry in a King Arthur cinematic universe.
Despite including Excalibur as a major plot point and heavily featuring magic instead of downplaying the supernatural, Legend of the Sword is ultimately no closer to the source material than the previous King Arthur film. While some of the Knights of the Round Table appear, such as Bedivere, Tristan, and Percival, they play no major role and bear little resemblance to their mythical counterparts. Iconic characters like Lancelot, Guinevere, Morgan, and even Merlin are missing from the story entirely. Meanwhile, the supporting characters who do receive focus are nowhere to be found in the original legends — several characters are completely invented for the film, including the nameless female lead who is referred to only as “the Mage.” Even the main villain Vortigern, despite sharing the name of an ancient British tyrant, makes no appearance in Arthurian lore.
Ultimately, Legend of the Sword feels less like a King Arthur story than a subpar superhero film that happens to star King Arthur as a main character. The common flaw that both 21st century King Arthur films share is that neither of them seem willing to embrace the source material. Instead, they both attempt to create a modernized origin story for the Knights of the Round Table — but by choosing to depict Arthur and his knights before they grew into their iconic roles, each film bears little resemblance to the stories it claims to be based on. It’s hard to have a compelling King Arthur story when Arthur doesn’t even become king until the very end.
Meanwhile, The Green Knight takes the complete opposite approach. Instead of trying to create an untold story of the Knights of the Round Table, it serves as a direct adaptation of one of the most iconic King Arthur stories ever told, and remains incredibly faithful to the source material. Rather than trying to modernize the legends to appeal to mainstream audiences, the film embraces the ancient, almost mythic medieval aesthetic of the original tale. It doesn’t try to be an action-packed adventure flick — if anything, it feels like a cross between a fairy tale and a psychological thriller.
The Green Knight is slow, character-driven, and focused on theme and storytelling over mass appeal. In other words, it looks to the past for inspiration instead of the present. It’s everything that other King Arthur films of the past two decades aren’t. And as a result, The Green Knight has done what Guy Ritchie couldn’t — it’s made modern movie fans care about King Arthur again. MORE: The Green Knight: Does Gawain Survive Or Not?