Alas, despite the many films about him, most of them miss the mark.
Even the film of Camelot is miscast, with Vanessa Redgrave's overacting and lousy singing spoiling the film for me.
Medievalist.net has an article on Arthur's place in history and legend, and how his story keeps being re imagined and retold even in our own century.....
Each time, Arthur’s story reflects important elements of the society which invokes him, whether it’s the magic of childhood in The Sword in the Stone, the awkwardness of adolescence in Merlin, or the difficult problem of “truthiness” in Clive Owen’s King Arthur. ...
The latest Arthur movie has this time reimagined him for an audience that is suspicious of the “elites” who may be unworthy to rule, and that values everyday street smarts over the chivalric training of the Arthur of old. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is made for the viewer who is not squeamish about sex work, and unconcerned with exploring Arthur’s early connection to Christianity in favour of magical special effects. The centuries of legend built on legend have been stripped nearly entirely, reflecting the popular twenty-first century feeling that if we just started everything again from scratch, we could do so much better.,,,
The article includes two video links about the subject:And yet, the core of Arthur endures, ever-destined to be king, to struggle with power he never expected, and to rise to be the greatest of all... As we watch Arthur transform to suit our own moment, it seems clear that, for the next few centuries at least, he will continue to be our beloved once and future king.
the first is from the BBC TV series secrets of the Dead:
..... and a discussion at the BBC Radio In Our Time podcast:
This discusses Mallory's version of Arthur.
Signum University had a recent podcast series about the work: Check this webpage for all the videos.
Here is part one:
and don't forget Monty Python in the discussion: