Well now, there certainly are a lot of interesting posts on this new movie. I can understand the lack of enthusiasm in the clothing and appearance of some of the characters in the movie. I cannot claim to be an expert on late Roman dress, so I won't try to be.

I have to totally agree with what Wuffa said, and then Merlin echoed. As historians or avid readers of history, we can tend to butcher a movie pretty harshly. For the majority of the time we do not enjoy a movie because it is not totally historically correct. From reading posts on movies here at AS, and at other places, historical movies tend to be ripped apart by historians.
But the most important feature of these movies is that they get people involved. Like Wuffa said, now millions of people know that there was a Robert the Bruce. I am waiting for acceptance for entry into a PhD program, and one of the main reasons I decided that I would like to teach this subject at the collegiate level is because I watched "Braveheart" in high school. or in this instance, now they will know that the King Arthur of legend is not the real "historical Arthur".
This brings me to my point of contention. I am interested more in later Saxon England, so this is fairly murky for me. I am under the impression, before this trailer hit, that King Arthur was most likely a late Roman leader in Britannia, one of the alst ones with enough power and military capability to temporarily throw back the Germanic invaders. Is this not what is being portrayed in the new movie?