Zane Tyler – Google

All you got to do is see j depp in that stupid looking bird hat to understand the movie is asinine and not worth paying money to see! He even looks embarrassed wearing it. In fact, I wouldn't accept money to waste 2 hours of my time! Depp can't even hold a candle to Jay Silver heels, and Clayton Moore sure can't be replaced either! Glad I didn't watch it, he probably fluttered his hands up in the air like a little girl. Also gad to see Disney lost money on the dumbest western in decades. Besides, they can't make good westerns anymore. Good westerns already been made. Westerns now, are nothing more than politically correct abominations that are in no way even close to the reality of the old west..

Horrible acting Or wrong actors for the various parts. Either way, awful . Same with the directing. Maybe it was the screenplay that snowballed into a stupid movie. That "white spear" was really super stupid. No spears like that have ever been found from that time period. Even the hair styles were the epitomy of idiocy. The mammoths were way too big. Hollywood has a way of over exaggerating and thus ruining movies. Totally historically inaccurate Glad I didn't buy the DVD or I would have thrown it away like I have many other dvd's Worst thing about it? A wasted time spent watching the stupid thing. Recommendation : Do not waste your time watching it. Not surprised the film bombed. Contrary to a below remark that calls people names who do not agree with him, Battleship was a good movie.

Don't buy it I got it as a double feature with another movie for $5. Luckily or "technically", I spent $2.50 per movie. OR it can be said I spent $4.99 for the movie that drew me to the purchase, and 1¢ for "where the wild things are", the movie that sucks big time. I have collected over 4,000 DVD's & blurays and this movie is in the top-2 or 3 worst movies in my collection. Example of other worst movies are those directed by Uwe Boll. As a matter of fact, I almost thought this one was directed by Boll. Can't see why they spent 100 million on it when it's just a bunch of silly looking costumes. Adult themed kid movie (go figure), and a perfect example of why to NEVER trust the opinions of movie critics. Often wondered if critics are influenced by $ & favors. After all, is not hollywood and it's associates corrupt? (answer that for yourself, I know my answer) Anyway, super boring and stupid. Definantly time out of my life wasted. Voice overs are so terrible, it's almost like you can see the earphones and mic more than the costumed characters, like the voices came right off of main street U.S.A. True, there is an element of people who might like it, but as a comparison, think of the ugliest car in production, some people buy those ugly cars, the proof is---they're out there on the road. Perhaps advertising is what really sells those ugly cars and stupid movies, then afterwards the victim exclaims, @#•%#@$:/#!!!! Oh yeah, I couldn't finish watching it and pulled the dvd out before the movie was over.

Condensed review that should be longer: "The Last King" can be enjoyable due to the fact that it is based on actual history. The biggest "negative" is the language. The actors and actresses seem to have been picked right off of "Main St. U.S.A." An American accent may be great, even perfect for a gangster movie, a western and various other American settings, but NOT for a Nordic culture, 13th century time period. Also, some of the women's dialogue sounded a little too "soap opera-ish". An example being, the former queen, "Margaret" (Lia Boysen) and her daughter Kristin, talking together in a bedroom, over-acting, crying and sniffling, "without tears". That "no tears crying", while being a fairly "normal" film industry occurance, only adds to the "soap opera-ish" feeling which that particular scene portrays. The cross country skiing was pretty cool, and could be historically correct since it does date back as far as 4,000 BC or 6,000 years ago. The costumes were kind of cool. The screenplay was good. The film might deserve 3-1/2 to 4 stars if it didn't have that aweful American English which we have to blame on the Norwegian director, Nils Guap. All in all, it's worth watching.

the 1st 5 minutes was terrible and totally unperiod-like. One of the worst King Arthur movies ever made. Super exaggerated with out of place actors. They should have just named it after a lord of the rings movie, or anything other than the title it has now. Who ever thought this movie up ought to be sla.. ---I won't say it--- Richard Harris did a much better job in his musical version of the same King. Perhaps a good King Arthur movie could be made if they would just stick to the basics. Sword in the stone, round table, then at the end, having his sword thrown into the lake where it is caught... etc. But there is no such thing as an "Honest" hollywood movie anymore. They cannot make a good king Arthur movie, and certainly unable of making a western. Perhaps that's why so many actors and actresses are making movies overseas that are way better than anything hollywood attempts. I wouldn't finish watching this King Arthur movie if I was paid for it. ugh!!