Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

PATREON ONLY: King Arthur Reaction (Patreon)

Published:
2026-05-23 14:21:20
Edited:
2026-06-13 03:06:51
Imported:
2026-09
Tags:

Content

Files

King Arthur Reaction

Watch "King Arthur Reaction" on Streamable.

Comments

Fff

FUCK YES! The best King Arthur movie. Can't wait to watch this.

Gaëtarrow

This one and Excalibur are the best!

Charles L

The director of this, Antoine Fuqua is one of the best. He did Equalizer with Denzel Washington, Tears of the Sun with Bruce Willis, and of course this one. Amazing!

John

Excalibur is a far superior film about king arthur

Gam

'Excalibur' 1981, is the OG movie, of King Arthur.

Digitalversager

I haven't seen this film in ages, but I have to say it’s better than its reputation suggests. King Arthur isn't really a historical figure, but rather a myth—or a legendary creation—much like Robin Hood. While there have been repeated attempts to link King Arthur to a real historical figure, so far no one has succeeded in identifying which specific historical person the myth might be based on. The original saga is full of legendary elements: the magical sword Excalibur, the Holy Grail, the Isle of Avalon, the Lady of the Lake, the wizard Merlin, and much more. This movie attempts to portray the King Arthur saga in a more realistic light; while there are similarities in names, it completely dispenses with the fantasy elements. One thing in this movie that always gives me a chuckle is Cynric (easily recognizable by his bald head), the son of the villainous King Cerdic. He is played by Til Schweiger, an actor who is/was extremely popular in Germany, who made an unsuccessful attempt to launch an acting career in America in the early 2000s. I simply can't take him seriously in this role. In hindsight, I have to say it’s a shame things didn't work out for Til Schweiger as an actor in America, because, as his revenge, he went on to kill the German comedy movie genre a few years later.😅 For a more mythologically accurate version of the King Arthur saga, I’d like to recommend Excalibur (1981) for a reaction. That movie features a very distinctive visual style, with its gleaming armor, and stars some big-name actors. As always, that was a great reaction, ladies! 💜

James Swainston

"Don't tell me two men fall in love with one girl." Well, it's Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere. So, yeah. It's gonna be a problem. Love this reaction ladies.

James Swainston

Katie stop guessing all the answers in advance, or just say you've seen the movie. We're still going to watch it, we love your reactions!

K

King Arthur may or may not hav existed. Like most very old stories it is hard to tell how much was true, how much is myth, and how many real events or people were combined into a single story.

Gaëtarrow

Hello Munchies !! YESS!!! This movie is one of my favourite. Evil CHi will be on a rampage on this one !! (Sorry,You're in MY SECOND FAVOURITE PERIOD. So sorry, in this one, you'll have a late roman antiquity and early middle-ages lessons! 😅😂) My second favourites historical period mix with a legendary figure who may or may not existed in a epic story with one of the best soundtrack Hans zimmer ever made (it's his best for me) . The music itself is a masterpiece. I can listen to this music and either way "see the entire movie in my head" or "just enjoying it by itself" without a problem!! may it be the epic music when the knight rides, the ominous music when Arthur received his mission from the bishop (who sound exactly like pirates of the carrabean 2!!) or the smoothing "love/Guinevere's music" (who can make me forget it's for an intimate scene!!). all music is beautifful. And I love the message about "free will" of the movie. and Also "there is no worse death than the end of hope" I love this line. So for me, it's a good movie despite all the inaccuracy for history or equipement . This one is my "guilty pleasure"! The concept of roman using local but expert troups is true. they were called Auxillia (the helper). they were often send the other way of the empire to avoid rebellions. they did that a lot !! The sarmatian was installed inn modern Ukrain and part of Russia. they were nomadic people with a huge horse tradition (like all horse-people of the steppe, like mongols, Huns,etc... which tribes ans people who inspired GOT's Dothraky!!) Pelagius really existed. he was assasinated because his idea about free will and how the church should go didn't pleased most of the clergy. He was killed in 420 (so the movie is in 421-422 if we follow real event. and not the movie's date). Katie roman and romanian arent' the same. 😉 (althoug Romania seemed to have his name base on roman. Yes, they were part of the empire, but no way the heart of it.) "this scene look like 300" it's because roman used the same architecture as greeks. even the same gods. In history we often use the word Greco-roman because how much they have in common (or more likely, how much the roman copied the greeks) The saxon chief is played by Stellan Skarsgård ( the teacher in "good will hunting", the secretary who was send in chernobyl in the second episode of the show and thor's friends in the MCU) The crypt where they tortured people... Well, not sure it happened a lot (Marius is clearly a mad one). but let's be honest. the Church is having a lot of blood on their hands from the second they began to work along with political powers. we know they tortured people at some point (mostly in spain and america during the 15-16th century.) but at that time, i'm not sure. I think they just wanted to make Arthut stand up as a noble christians knight (althoug is not supposed to be at that time) against corrupted ones. Guinevere (Gueniévre in french) is played by Keira Knightley (pirates of the carraebean being her most famous movies). this is clearly the only time we will saw Guinevere fighting !!😅 (most of the time, she's THE damsel in distress!! 🤣) If the knights can shoot them with bows on the ice and not the saxons, it's because they don't have the same bow. Longbow (from one piece of wood) for saxons, composite bows (made of differentes pieces) for the sarmatians. and composite bows are way stronger (and hard to pull. Chi may hurt herself trying a composite bow form this period without katie's workout!). (and for those who want to make a comment on English longbowmen. this is neither the same bow, nor the same period). The "russ" scream is their war cry in the movie. not Bors's names (or Bohort in french) White flag is either "surrender or "meet me before battle". The battle in the fog is clearly my favourites fight of the movie. the ambiance, the music...epicness in a thrilling ambiance where we are seeing legendeary knight in action !! Sorry Chi... this is not catapult. but Mangonel 😉 but you can still use catapult. because only the neerdy one like me will bother people with that! 😊🤣 for most, catapult is the common name. Some more grounded (real historical fact to better undertsand). because to fully understand why living Britain, why Rome is such in a bad spot and so on... (this is wwhere the headhache may happened for you....) 1)The Britannia before (modern Great britain). the roman invade the island but never managed to hold the north. So they build the famous Hadrian's wall. (which will be huge inspiration for GOT's great ice walls!! yes again!!) The picts (or woads here. Woads being the plant they use to make their blue body painting) are the people living up north in modern scotland ( Caledonia back then. it became Scotland when the Scot migrate from Ireland there later). and yes, the roman depicted the picts (or woads) whit those blue warpaints. but they had armour IRL !! not fighting half-naked (or atleast not all of them) 😅. yes we have depiction of celtic warrior fighting half-naked, but also quite a number of chainmail. So no Bikini leathery armour IRL. (not even sure woman would have fight IRL, except extreme reasons.) 2)The situation of the roman empire at the time of the movie. We are in the 420's. Rome isn't even the capital of the Empire, but Ravenna. Christianism is the official religion (althoug more than 50 % is still believing in their old gods).The Empire is cut in half between a western and a eastern empire. Because the Empire is WAY too big to stay in one piece. the administration and the military (effective but too small and costly) can't keep up. So we split in two to ease the thing. (but still the same entity in the end). the empire is made more easier to manage. The province of Britania ( or Britain, where the movie is) is part of the western part. The empire is crumbling under his bureaucracy, economicly crippled by defensive war ,pillaged and pandemics (yes already). so the empire in 410 said to the britania province "So we can't protect you anymore and you aren't worth the cost!! so Good luck!! Have fun!! and see you later !!" Plus, accros all the european region. germanics peoples are massively migrating in the empire (looking for a better life, fleeing ennemies and any other reasons we can have migrants in a country). those migration will force the roman to let them control some region (because it's entire kingdom who migrated, with their kings and all their population, some by force, other will negociated offering their service etc). those region controlled by germanic people are paying taxes, send soldiers and accept roman autority and were almost fully romanized . After the empire crumbles in 476, those new "kingdom" will survive (this is the end of antiquity, the begining of the middle-ages, but at that time nobody saw the difference.... In their mind,the empire still lived until 1805!! (the frankish empire and the holy roman-german empire being his continuity) or 1453, when the eastern part dissapeared too. The Saxons and Engles were part of this migrating peoples but they go in Britain. (that's what we saw in the movie. althoug they made it more "barabarian invasion killing everyone" than real migration lilttle by little on many generation as it happened. but it seem war happened nonetheless). 3) King Arthur Historicaly ,we know nothing! the only thing we have is a text some centuries after the event saying "king arthur beat the saxon at Badon hill" and that's all. so IF he existed, because we have no proof, he was a romano-britonic leader fighting the saxons. but he may certainly never existed and created by oral tradition and then put in the medieval litteratures by Chretien of Troy in the 12th century! so the movie put a legendary character (that we have no proof of existing) in "real" events. 4) after the movie Don't worry about Rome, they're crumbling into many new "barbarian kingdoms" to never get up again in the west. But If king arthur never existed and Rome never came back in britain, The saxons and the aengles from germany and danemark, yes !!! They continued to come! The briton's kingdom is destroyed. The britons fleed in wales, cornwall and in france (their new region called Britony (or Bretagne in french) where the old britain became Great-britain (Grande-bretagne)). the Saxons ended in the south (all the regions have their names in it (Wessex= western Saxe. Sussex= southern Saxe etc...) The rest of the old province was settled by aengles (aengle's land= engle's land= England). that's why, even today, we are saying Anglo-saxon's litterature when we spoke of the english language. (and if someonse think "Vikings", you have to wait the 8th century before they arrived!!) Well I'll stop myself or you'll have a very big headache (if not already...). I just gave you a "quick" resume of the situation plus a little history of England (and believe me, I skipped A LOT !!!!). but it's more than enough. If the Munchies want to go in a rabbit holes like for Chernobyl, believe this holes is way more dipper than chernobyl's !! and so many who put the basics of modern Europe. but I'll stop there. For the outro. Oh my... I knew Evil Chi will be here, (and not a little !! "cut his leg, cut his arm, cut his everythings!" that one was very funny😅) I knew she will +- like it ( even if i feeled her very tired at some point, maybe annoyed or not enjoying. if so sorry for having propose this movie ). but I wasn't expecting Katie to cry that much !!!😨 Sorry Katie. I belive you with no problem that you need a face massage after this. (damn, If I knew it would have been so hard...) If it can appease you, those movie are exagerating about the battlefield and how horrible life is. yes , it has war, the political-religious power being corrupted (twisting God's will for their own will), life being hard and so on. But they exagerated it (little advice, never believe Hollywood representation of old times. they love making people look more dirty and savange they really were!!). but I agree the clothes and environement are very well made (not always accurate) but it send you in those time without a problem! the illusion work perfectly! I'm happy you liked the movie. I just hoped you had a good enough time and not being too tired (or shocked) or even annoyed at some point. For ending with king Arthur: If Monty Python and the holy grail is the parody of the legend, this movie is the " WHAT IF IT HAPPENED with the little we know" who created the legend; then "Excalibur" (1981) is the legend itself . If you really wish to know the legend of arthur as medieval people know it, this is the movie. it's your call Munchies. Anyway thanks for reacting to this one that I love in particular. and thanks for the good times, even if you seemed to have struggled with this one. Katie crying, Chi being angry at some peoples ...me I had a good times seeing you discover something from my universe. thanks a lot!! Have a wonderful day, munchies ! take care!!

Scotty Dawg

Meh ..Yet another Legend that was Ripped up and Spat out in Favor of a Movie..

Bill Bryant

You made a powerful statement at the end, just stunning. "If God wants to kill people, I pray for no God". If only our world leaders could think this way.

Luh Beef

Whoever suggested this movie for the wheel is the kind of person who buys the 5 pack of garbage DVDs at Walmart for $8.

Jeffrey Roberts

Hey lovely Munchies. I have just one clarification instead of getting into did Arthur exist or not, as that is a big maybe, and probably not. But the weapon you called a catapult was actually a trebuchet (treb-u-shay). A catapult uses a solid wooden arm with a spoon like or saddle like attachment to put boulders or anything else they want to launch. Sometimes they launched heads or dead bodies. 😳 When released it has a cross-arm that stops the forward action to launch the projectile. The trebuchet as you saw in this film has a long leather strap with an attachment to put something in (not usually burning balls!) and when launched the whole thing circles around itself. It is sort of like holding a rope at both ends, swinging it around and letting go of one of the ends. I didn't mean to get too technical but as you will see these devices in many period pieces like this, I thought you might want to know the difference. Great reaction as always. Katie, I hope you got that face massage! 😊

Gaëtarrow

Hi thanks for your explanation. But this one is a "perrier" or "mangonels". The trebuchet are bigger and most of all have a big counterweight to pull the projectile. Not he strength of the arms by pulling ropes But to be honest, in both cases, they're anachronistic. Trebuchet and mangonels didn't make it into Europe before the crusade. And the catapult As more for launching big arrow or small rock ( katapeltes = piercing shields) they could also be called Scorpio, ballistas launched bigger projectile but where abandoned in northern Europe ( because the weather didn't allow the mechanism to work well) . But In the end, it doesn't matter much. Even historians are mixing names. because the medieval chronicles themselves aren't making it easy to follow!! they always put medieval weaponry in their books but using antiquity's name. So even Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, who created an encyclopedia of medieval architecture and war machine, ended up mixing the name. So in the end, most people are saying catapult and it's alright. Because even back then people didn't care about the name. Just if it was effective to take down walls and cover the assault. But thanks for wanting to help! I hope I didn't shocked you... Have a good day!

thansen

Amazing film.

thansen

Arrow did a magnificent job.

Jeremy McCabe

King of the who... well i didn't vote for him LOL

Jeremy McCabe

Tears of the Sun and Magnificent seven would be great reactions

King Bob

Meh, this movie was ok, I guess it was well made good production and acting.....story was so weird though and didn't make much sense to me The film tried to market itself as a “realistic” historical version of the Arthur legend, but it ended up in an awkward middle ground where it was neither fully historical nor fully fantasy. Arthur is portrayed as a Roman cavalry commander, not a medieval king The Knights are reimagined as Sarmatian horsemen Guinevere (played by Keira Knightley) is turned into a kind of Celtic guerrilla warrior Merlin becomes more of a tribal political leader .

Gaëtarrow

I agree that mix is strange at first sight. even more when you know only the legend and not the historical background. ( because the only true archeological thing about King arthur is a medieval chronicles, (a few century after!!) saying "king arthur vainquish the saxon at mount Badon" putting the event in the 5th or 6th century and nothing else... no knight, no excalibur, no round tables, no Guinivere, no Merlin ...nothing !!! So making a movie based on this one "historical" element is a good idea "on paper". but to not loose everyone, we still need the knights and as much legendary element that people know while putiing it in the time of the late roman empire. Plus, we know that Rome had some Sarmatian horse-archer and cavalry in Britain as foederati/ auxillia. The mix is strange, but I think they did quite a good job to balance it. maybe the scenario and some character deserved more attention. but for me, the history and fantasy nerd is happy (now I saw this in Cinema when released. I was 9 !) the movie has flow, but I like it too much to care about it. Now each one is free of his opinion (as long as we don't insult those who like it).

Gaëtarrow

Or A guy who love history and fantasy who saw this movie in cinema at 9 years old and like it a lot! Plus the Munchies said the "patreon only" will be for less popular movies, more Niche. so please, respect our choice and the system the munchies are using without disrespect. please. thanks

Gaëtarrow

Like all popular legend 😉. tell me one name of a famous legend who was NEVER adapted in movie. (even the very old peplum), if you find one, please tell me, I'm curious which one. because if the legend is popular, there's no way they don't adapt it. welcome in the show business!

Gaëtarrow

depend what you're looking for. Excalibur is the adaptation of the "morte d'Arthur" the most know version of the legend. this one is more grounded/"realistic" in a plausible "historical setting". different but each one with his flows and quality and each one are choosing their favourite. I like both personnaly. (and also "the sword in the stones" from Disney in 1963!! my first movie about king Arthur). but I didn't saw the other one, so I don't what they are worth... But each one is favourie version. good day!

Luh Beef

The fact that you're the one defending this movie just adds weight to my argument. You're Captain Cringe, posting your bizarro analysis on every single video they upload.

Movie Munchies

Katie actually hadn’t seen it before 😅 She just got lucky with a few guesses. Glad you’re still enjoying the reactions though, we appreciate you watching!

Gaëtarrow

Well I don't see where defending it is adding to your argument. Every movie ( the worst one, the bad one and also the good one and the masterpieces one!) because nobody have the same taste! Now you have your opinion, I can respect that. Now, why "captain Cringe" because I'm sharing my thoughts just like the munchies said we could do it? Sorry if it bothers you. If you don't like it, you can ignore it ! Or even block me ! I'm forcing no one to read them. The only thing I ask is respect. Please I respect your opinion, it's just I don't understand why you looking down on people who like a movie! It's not even a movie with a "a complete degenerate mindset" ( for example, of it has only blood and gore, pornography, messed up things for shocking value only and 0 scenarios) I would understand in that case. But here ? Again it's your choice. Let leave it here. Have a good day.

Matthew Maxon

Itsd not that Excalibur was magic, its what he did with the sword to make it seem like that.

James Swainston

I suppose that's possible, it's just I've never seen anyone connect King Arthur with Rome if they haven't seen this movie, and she did it before the movie even started! Anyway, doesn't matter, this is easily my favorite reaction channel. Keep up the good work!

alia

This is a good movie, a great story... but not a "REAL" King Arthur one. You'd have to watch Excalibur, or Lancelot, if you want a more relevant story about this LEGEND. (so, I hate movies abount legends starting with "based on history")

Fff

No, you're just old.

Richard Scott

Cool movie! Definitely an interesting take on Arthurian legend. I think I still prefer the classic mystical version though — but then I am a massive fantasy nerd 🤣 Merlin is basically the blueprint for fantasy wizards too: Gandalf, Dumbledore, the lot.

Matthew Maxon

there was no king arthur. good movies and legends though.

King Bob

Exactly, the earliest mentions of an “Arthur”place him fighting Saxons in the late 5th to early 6th century — long after Rome had gone

Richard Penc

I like this movie, but you definitely shouldn’t try to learn anything about history from it, because the whole thing is fiction. The filmmakers have combined three different eras into one. At that time, the Western Roman Empire consisted only of the province of Italy; the rest had been conquered by the Germanic tribes, so the connection between the island and Rome no longer existed, as the Romans had abandoned the island sometime around 410 AD. The Sarmatians were an Iranian nomadic people inhabiting present-day Ukraine and the North Caucasus, and as is well known, nomads were the deadliest and most destructive force of antiquity and the Middle Ages, so their defeat on their own territory is also fiction—especially since the Romans never actually reached that far into Eastern Europe, with the exception of Crimea. In the film, we hear the Sarmatians shouting “Rus,” but such a term did not exist at that time; it was introduced four centuries later by the Viking Rurikids when they succeeded in conquering and uniting the Eastern Slavs into Kievan Rus. The Germanic tribes of the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons landed primarily in the east and southeast of the island, so their attack from the north beyond Hadrian’s Wall is also nonsense.

Gaëtarrow

Hi I read your comment. I agree about not learning History with it. (it's better to have background first or not caring about it at all.) and yes, the saxon clearly did take the very long way to invade in this one. but I don't think it hurt much. (bothering when you're history nerd like us, yes !! but we can still have a good time) Just a few other thing I thought about. In this one, "rus" is just a warcry amongst others they could have use. it's not really a problem. But i see your point about the kievan rus. althoug i never put those 2 thing together. (even the viking era is my favourites period of all.) i always saw that as a coincidence. the empire wasn'st jus Italy at that moment, as most of the barabrian place accepted to be "foederati", serving western Rome as soldier and even paying taxes sometimes. Plus in 420, (using pelagius death as a reference point) they just reconquered Gauls and Hispania with flavius Constantius (soon Constantius III aka Co-Emperor). pushing back the Vandals and Alains in Beatica (so , north Africa is still roman) the illyria-Dalmatia and all the islands of the mediteranean are still there too. The huns are still with the Ostrogoth, the wisigoth are still serving Rome as military. the Empire is still holding up for now and their military logistics was never that good with manufactories in many cities and forts. The catalaunians fields (the last great battles and kinda phyrrics victory of Rome in the west) against the huns is not for another 30 years. Not everything is fine, politics is still messy, the economy is still struggling and the migrations and the huns are still problematics! Now, if we take their date (around 467) yeah... they lose a lot. but the gauls are still hold "officially" by foederati and "Vassals kingdom". the proof: Clovis, king of the franks, put his legitimacy as representent of the emperor in constantinople after the empire disapeared ! for them, each "barbarian kingdom" were still part of the Empire. it just have been reunified in 476, but leaving the western part with HUGE autonomy. at least, that's how we interpret how the kingdom behave unitl Charlemagne wanted to bring back the Western empire in 800. well it's very complicated.... but yeah the empire is dying at that moment. for the sarmatians, I'm don't think Rome really vanquished them. apparently they had contact through crimea (and the bosphorus kingdom), some sarmatians becoma foederati and auxilliary during Marcus-Aurelius marcomany's wars and "some" of the sarmatians (as they aren't one unified people, but more of a cultural group of differents nomadic tribes) migrate with the goths and Alains in the empire where they become foederati too (we have trace of them in the Notitia Dignitatum) serving both in Gauls and Britania. so not impossible, just exagerated (they look like bikers ! not a military force! althoug I like the catphractari look for the horse at the final battle). Well, I may have been carried away... but i'm happy to share about a period that I love. sorry if I overdo it. have a good day and thanks for sharing your own point of view on this period. Have a good day !

JamesCAMH

good example of a film with a complex enough plot but straightforward enough language and not requiring people pay super close attention to every bit of dialogue to follow along. I found it interesting on a few videos the munchies mentioned they don't know much history, do they know the history of their own country or the region going back more than a hundred years I wonder? so many familiar cast overlaps with other munchie reactions merlin - stannis baratheon Tristan - villain from dr strange (kaecilius?) Dagonet - is in ROME I think his best performance, Titus pullo - also in Thor et al cardiac (Saxon king) - scientist in Thor/avengers Lancelot's father - blackfish from game of thrones (and has a great role in one piece) they obviously recognized Kiera Knightley and Clive Owen from something - strange to see these early oughts films with young early career excellent actors. this is an early pre-star studded cast. even at the time many were great and known but they went on to so many great things and reunited in different films. Hugh dancy (Galahad) and mads Mikkelsen in Hannibal. I wouldn't have thought to rewatch this film if it weren't posted here.

JamesCAMH

What would be some bedrock stories from the west that would make the rest of the things the munchies react to more understandable to them. for instance, just an example, in the matrix I think there was extra early confusion in the reaction due to the lack of passing familiarity with following a white rabbit, the red pill as going deeper down the rabbit hole, and into wonderland - caused some confusion early on. for important ground at least partly covered - Chi knows many biblical stories, the others don't seem to - almost all of them watched Star Wars, and at least some Alien, without which lots of sci fi/fantasy/comedy just assumes familiarity with. this was a good film for them to react to because it shows at least Britain's cultural makeup of many religions and subcultures falling apart when Rome fell (and Chi and Hella are watching HBO Rome!) - but for something more contemporary to understand some English culture - I was thinking: - "the King" (chalamet, whom I think they like - and it's about Henry V and English-french animosity which informs a lot of British comedy, for instance they would have better understood some of the monty python holy grail stuff) - something Henry VIII based - I think for munchies the most digestible is "the other Boleyn girl" rather than wolf hall (it would be a cognitive strain) - would show an enigmatic figure, a major point in christianity in the west - why its not all catholic for instance. and I think they'd like the depictions. - the odyssey (2026) worth doing - because they ones more faithful to the most salient parts of the tale are too old to have good pacing and appeal I think today - the 2026 version is a bit too much revisionism of the original story but the trojan war (they saw troy) and the idea of sirens, scylla and charybdis as an early version of being between a rock and a hard place, ancient ideas of the afterlife (quite bleak). plus they'd like the cast and some of the suspense. the time jumps would maybe be a bit jarring. and the 20 years of effectively being held hostage to suitors economically draining a kingdom is annoying to contemplate lol.