Most certainly among the best tellings of the timeless legend. It's visually stunning, with an undeniably grandiose and epic quality, no doubt fueled by the superb performances.<br /><br />In fact, this is among the finest fantasy adventures created, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Conan the Barbarian and the Lord of the Rings (which was ironically what John Boorman initially intended to make). Some early and even a few debut performances grace the film, such as Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne, and Helen Mirren.<br /><br />Some have argued that the full plate armor donned by the knights is not "historically accurate." Seeing as King Arthur is a legendary and/or mythical figure who may not have existed at all, this is not a terribly valid criticism. Furthermore, much of the myth surrounding King Arthur that many are familiar with comes from a work published in 1485 (Thomas Mallory's Le Mort D'Arthur), a time when armor design was at its zenith and plate armor was common amongst those who could afford it, i.e. knights and other nobility.<br /><br />I really don't have much criticism. I was not in the least bothered by the depiction of Arthur and his knights in full plate armor when engaged in battle. But it was more than a bit silly to see everything else from feasting to sex also portrayed in full armor. <br /><br />Such small issues did not detract from the splendor of the film. It is passionate, violent, with a mystical aura that enhanced the settings. Highly recommended.