As subject matter goes, the legend of King Arthur isn’t exactly new territory. I can rattle off three filmed versions without hesitation: 1981’s “Excalibur,” Disney’s 1963 animated “The Sword in the Stone,” and the 1998 TV miniseries, “Merlin.” (OK, so I had to look up the dates on a couple of those.)

But here’s a retelling of the Arthurian legend that is new. Or rather, older. Screenwriter David Franzoni came across research that suggested the traditional legend of a medieval King Arthur was actually based on a historical figure from the fifth century, Lucius Artorius Castus, a commander in the Roman army occupying the British isles.

Arthur’s knights were warriors from Sarmatia (present-day Eastern Europe) who were conscripted into the Roman army for a 15-year stint. The film opens as they are completing their last mission before receiving their discharge papers.

But the Roman Empire has other plans. Knowing that the Saxon army is about to invade from the north, and facing growing resistance from the Woads – a forest-dwelling guerrilla army of native Britons – a visiting Roman bishop orders Arthur and his knights to foray north of Hadrian’s Wall to rescue an important Roman family so they can join the Empire’s withdrawal from Britain.

As with this spring’s more grandiose and bloodier epic, “Troy,” all the magical trappings in the story have been dispensed with in favor of focusing on the characters and their deeds. Merlin is described as a “black sorcerer,” but he’s really just the leader of the Woads, using the forest’s natural defenses to conceal his troops. Hollywood wizardry is conspicuously absent as well – the filmmakers used real stones and wood to build a massive replica of Hadrian’s Wall and a Roman fort-ress, and the battle scenes are tightly filmed and largely bloodless.

What makes this “King Arthur” memorable is the attention director Antoine Fuqua (“Training Day”) gives to each knight. Though the names are familiar – Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain – the actors are largely unknown to American audiences. Each knight has a distinct style of dress, weaponry and combat skill, and their first few scenes together clearly define their personalities. Londoner Ray Winstone is especially winning as the gruff and beefy but softhearted Bors.

An Arthurian tale wouldn’t be complete without Guinevere. Here, she’s no blue-blooded queen – she’s a Woad who’s been tortured nearly to death, liberated by Arthur from the Roman family’s estate. Keira Knightley plays her as a proud young woman (who cleans up quite nicely) and a fearsome warrior as well.

As the complex half-Brit, half-Roman Arthur, Clive Owen gives a strong performance, battling with himself over his duty to Rome, his devotion to the church and his loyalty to his men. Fuqua and Franzoni make it clear that what gave rise to his legend wasn’t his prowess on the battlefield – it was his compassion and his almost heretic beliefs in equality and freedom for all people in the oppressive era known as the Dark Ages.

For moviegoers who are growing tired of being bombarded with mind-boggling special effects, “King Arthur” is a well-made historical epic that’s about the people who may have made history.

“King Arthur”

Rated PG-13 for intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality and some language

Starring: Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley, Stellan Skarsg rd, Stephen Dillane, Ray Winstone, Mads Mikkelsen

Directed by:Antoine Fuqua

Length: Two hours 10 minutes

Now playing at: Astoria Gateway Cinemas and Cannes Cinema in Seaside

Short take: Proposing a new theory that King Arthur was really a fifth-century Roman commander, director Fuqua focuses on Arthur and his knights as they battle Saxons, Woads and oppressive Roman rule in this realistic costume drama.

Rating: Three stars (out of four)

Movie trivia: What was unusual about the cold, bleak British countryside depicted on the screen?

Answer: The scenes of bitterly cold midwinter were actually filmed during record high temperatures in Ireland.