First of all, I want to make a validated criticism of this guys' venue of publishing his stuff. He obviously isn't a good enough critic to get hired onto a newspaper, and has to solely voice his opinion on a crappy website with pop-ups and prompts asking me if I want to download some virus-infected program that isn't going to help me in reading the content of the page. Come on, Erik Childress, it is good that you can express your opinion, but lets get some credibility from you.

This quote from him says it all:

Does anyone really want to see a movie boasting the “true story” of King Arthur? What’s the point? Records and facts are for documentaries on A&E and The History Channel. Only when the truth becomes legend do you film it. The variations of the Arthurian legend are vast in literature and cinema. As a student of the myths and just a damn fascinating tale, I wouldn’t mind researching how the stories were formed.

A valid point, but then again this is probably from a person who complained about the use of plate armor in Gladiator. Of course another valid point that this critic makes is that:

Every legend has an origin and an excellent film can be made from those roots.

That is so very true, but with the Arthur story, there are so many different versions floating around from Celtic to Norman, that it would be difficult to take one "real" legend and make a film about it. I think that the filmmakers were looking for something edgy with the topic they chose for this picture, and found it with the Sarmatian connection. ALthough it is not a valid theory, it is still a theory and it shows that the writer, David Franzoni, did his research on this film.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can only comment in a limited arena. I hope to add more once I see the movie.