King Arthur vs Lions for Lambs
King Arthur has the higher audience score (6.3/10 against 6/10 for Lions for Lambs). Lions for Lambs is the shorter watch at 1h 32m compared with 2h 6m. King Arthur is the older of the two (2004 against 2007). Both are action, adventure, drama movies, so they suit a similar mood.
King Arthur
Lions for Lambs| King Arthur | Lions for Lambs | |
|---|---|---|
| Audience score | ★ 6.3/10 | ★ 6.0/10 |
| Year | 2004 | 2007 |
| Length | 2h 6m | 1h 32m |
| Genres | Action, Adventure, Drama, History, War | Action, Adventure, Drama, History |
| Country | – | – |
| Director | Antoine Fuqua | Robert Redford |
| Main cast | Ray Stevenson, Joel Edgerton, Keira Knightley, Mads Mikkelsen, Hugh Dancy | Kevin Dunn, Tom Cruise, Derek Luke, Michael Peña, Andrew Garfield |
Synopsis
King Arthur
The story of the Arthurian legend, based on the 'Sarmatian hypothesis' which contends that the legend has a historical nucleus in the Sarmatian heavy cavalry troops stationed in Britain, and that the Roman-British military commander, Lucius Artorius Castus is the historical person behind the legend.
Lions for Lambs
Three stories told simultaneously in ninety minutes of real time: a Republican Senator who's a presidential hopeful gives an hour-long interview to a skeptical television reporter, detailing a strategy for victory in Afghanistan; two special forces ambushed on an Afghani ridge await rescue as Taliban forces close in; a poli-sci professor at a California college invites a student to re-engage.
Where to watch
Where to watch King ArthurWhere to watch Lions for Lambs
More like King Arthur · More like Lions for Lambs · Compare other titles