Kevin O'Connor

The stories and myths surrounding Arthur are chimeric to say the least - given the dizzying variety of source material, it's hardly surprising that there's an Arthur for every occasion and every palate. The one that you adopt depends very much on what you bring to the party with you. After much deliberation I finally settled on Cornwell's version - it's not perfect but then nothing could be. It is probably however, the most likely representation of what might have been - had there been an Arthur at all. A book is not a film and vice versa - so you shouldn't expect an adaptation to slavishly repeat the written word. However....it should capture the essence of the story arc and the 'author's intent' - that's the mark of a skilful screenwriter. If you look past the fact that the characterisation of most of the key roles has been changed out of all recognition, that the casting is poor and uninspired - and sadly seemingly quota driven, that the central themes of the books have been abandoned and that the production budget doesn't appear to have got it's moneys worth.....it's not a bad slice of Dark Age hokum for a non-discerning public - but let' not pretend that it's got anything to do with Bernard Cornwell. Every time someone has had another attempt at the tale of Arthur - I've wondered why they never thought to base it on Mr Cornwell's excellent trilogy. Well now they have. Such a missed opportunity. I'll happily watch this muddy, muddled mis-telling of his work and enjoy it for what it is I'm just surprised he allowed his name to be associated with it.