Has there ever been a competent film portrayal of the legend of King Arthur, and the society it stemmed from?

>it isn't even historically accurate for the period
that's my point―it's "symbolically accurate" (more or less, but certainly more than any other adaptation), even if it isn't historically accurate.

OP is asking about the actual historical Arthur, not the French fantasy stories written about him 600 years after his death.

There is no evidence of a historical Arthur.

Whatever you say, dope.

>Arthur lived in Lloegyr not in Wales, his society was Latin-speaking and urbanized, nothing like the medieval Welsh society.
I didn't say that Arthur lived in Wales, I said his tale stemmed from the welsh society of Taliesin and Aneirin, neither of which lived in Lloegyr.

Pls no. I love Sharpe, but that's literally the only good series Cornwell ever wrote.

...

>insert random swallow joke

What about the Warlord series?
Also, every fucking main character, supporting character, antagonist, and plot he writes is almost exactly the same except Uthred

And you're wrong, it was preserved in Wales but it stemmed from Lloegyr.

actually in terms of the "symbolic accuracy" which I mentioned earlier, this film is a close second even though it's intended as a parody―nevertheless it comes closer than any "gritty" and "realistic" hollywood junk ever could to being faithful to the mythology.

I really hope someone turns the warlord chronicles into a movie/ tv show

They did, the last kingdom, it is horrid though.

user shut up the warlord chronicles are fucking great.

This would be the way to properly do an adaptation of the Arthurian legends, according to the most historically accurate sensibilities. Arthur could have been the son of Ambrosius Aurelianus, or an individual called Riothamus, in the 5th century AD. I would place Arthur's time of action to have been around the late 400s, early 500s, though, as those two other individuals are probably more middle of the 5th century. There was a real Vortigern, but it may have been just a title rather than a name, and the one we know of from the early half of the 5th century lived one or two generations before Arthur may have been alive.

I have mixed reactions about the 2004 King Arthur movie, though. I liked that they went with a somewhat more realistic approach, but even that was not realistic. The time period is much more correct than any other Arthurian film I've heard of, but the individual they decided to portray as King Arthur is not. Lucius Artorius Castus, despite having the similar name Artorius, was more than likely not the Arthur of legends. There is speculation that he may have influenced the later, familiar legends, but Artorius was a 2nd or 3rd century AD Roman cavalryman. His story is compelling as well, though, and it is possible that he might represent a rather early example of a Christian serving in the Roman Army. Anyway, the armor in the 2004 film was not particularly accurate to the 5th century, either.