Although the characters sometimes seem a bit remote and aloof -- nearly everyone has his or her own personal turmoil to handle or political agenda to advance -- and the storytelling drags in the first hour, "King Arthur" makes an intriguing companion piece to some of the other screen interpretations of the legend, such as director John Boorman's opulent "Excalibur," which portrayed Camelot as a place ripe with sorcery and eroticism, and the underrated "First Knight," another revisionist take on the story, which starred Julia Ormond as a feisty Guinevere torn between Sean Connery's Arthur and Richard Gere's Lancelot.
The tradition was perpetuated in the 20th century by T.H. White (The Once and Future King), Mary Stewart (The Crystal Cave and its several sequels), Marion Zimmer Bradley (The Mists of Avalon), and, of course, by countless cinematic adaptations, including Robert Bresson's Lancelot du lac, John Boorman's Excalibur, Jerry Zucker's First Knight, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
If you're looking for something closer to the Arthur legends, or if you just want to see some old-fashioned knights in shining armor rescuing fair damsels in distress, you might consider John Boorman's excellent "Excalibur" (1981), the best of the lot; or "Ivanhoe" (1952), "Knights of the Round Table" (1953), "Prince Valiant" (1954), "The Black Knight" (1954), "Sword of Lancelot" (1963), "Lancelot du Lac" (1974), "Sword of the Valiant" (1982), "First Knight" (1995), "Dragonheart" (1996), the musical "Camelot" (1967), or even the zany "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975).
The last version of this story I remember seeing was 1995’s First Knight in which Sean Connery and Richard Gere fought it out over Julia Ormond.