The story bears no resemblance to any of the stories I've read. Definitely non-traditional.
The NYT says,
It is a blunt, glowering B picture, shot in murky fog and battlefield smoke, full of silly-sounding pomposity and swollen music ... The combat scenes, though boisterous and brutal, are no more coherent than the story... Luckily there is an element of broad, brawny camp that prevents "King Arthur" from being a complete drag.Empire Online concludes, "Although paved with good intentions, it's a grim, at times interminable, journey hobbled by miscasting and a lack of conviction; the killjoy in King Arthur's court." The Guardian gives it 3 out of 5 stars. Roger Ebert has a positive review and says, "That the movie works is because of the considerable production qualities and the charisma of the actors". Rotten Tomatoes has a 31% critics rating.