PDA

View Full Version : King Arthur Review.


Kyle_West
07-07-2004, 04:53 PM
Well since us lucky Americans get it today, I figured I'd make a review thread. I am going to see it tonight, if all goes as planned. So other Americans post what you thought of the flick and eventually maybe all these other people in parts of the world can post what they thought here also.

When I get back tonight I will post the KA review.

*edit* Down below.

Kelsey
07-07-2004, 05:46 PM
I'm scared to see it based on the review I read (which I posted in K.A. Promotions), but I'll probably see it tonight.

Spire
07-07-2004, 10:37 PM
From what I've read, this film will most likely suck, but I don't care. My eyes will be transfixed on Keira the entire time. Much like my viewing of BILB, I couldn't take my eyes off of her, all the scenes without her were just filler. PotC is actually a very enjoyable movie whether Keira is onscreen or not, but King Arthur, *sigh* I'm not so sure.

ryan
07-07-2004, 11:20 PM
I'm going to see it tomorrow at 6:45.
I'll post what I think when I get back.

KnightleyNews
07-07-2004, 11:35 PM
From the published reviews so far, only about 25-30% are positive, but what do the critics know? Go see it anyway. I usually believe the opposite to what they write.

And even the negative reviews are praising Keira's 'powerful performance'.

Paul

Hazzle
08-07-2004, 02:46 AM
They have to criticise movies every so often...it's what they get paid for. So far the worst criticisms are that it doesn't follow the mythology most adhere to (Well...here's me thinking Jerry already explained it wasn't going to follow the typical mythology...WAY back...before it began filming...oh well) and the fact it's grim (didn't Jerry ALSO say it was going to be grim and gritty?).

From the ads and trailers it looks EXACTLY as I expected it to...so I'm looking forward to it. I'll go watch it the day of my last exam (about 4 days after it comes out) so that'll be an excellent treat to look forward to.

Kyle_West
08-07-2004, 03:42 AM
Critics couldn't find there asses with both hands.

King Arthur is great. Yes this coming from the guy who thought Spiderman was shit. Anything I said about Clive Owen not being lead material, all bullshit. Clive is outstanding. All his knights are incredible. They're funny, and they are bad ass in the fight scenes. Ioan does a magnificant job as Lancelot. I can't comment on all the knights, but they're all great. The Villians, also good. They are ruthless and thats what they needed to be and it's perfect. I can't say it enough, everyone did there jobs perfectly. Keira, she didn't come into the movie until half way through it. But when she was in it, she really did her stuff. But Ioan did the best job.

The fight scenes, very well done. Great effects they did. The "Ice" battle is one of the best looking scenes I've ever seen. Keira hands down gets the best line in the movie, but I won't repeat it. I know some of you thought it would be pointless action. You're way off there is only three battle scenes. Two of them are near the end. The other is in the opening.

The Dialogue is great and you really get to know the characters. I don't know how some critics can put this movie down. I am going again tomorrow to see this movie, one of the best this year in my opinion. Am I the only person that saw this movie opening day?

*edit* As far as following the legend goes I am not very good with the facts of the legend. But it was a good movie. It may not follow it at all for all I know, but it's a good movie. Plus if all the arthur movies were the same (all bagillion of them) then they would be boring. If this isn't the legend at all then at least it's different.

newyorker
08-07-2004, 04:13 AM
I also saw this movie the day it came out, and I do agree with you it was a very good movie. I disagree with most of the reviews that I read as well, I think it was underrated.

Kelsey
08-07-2004, 05:32 AM
I'm going to have to disagree with the two who have already posted their opinions. Although it wasn't as bad as the reviews I've read, I didn't think it was fantastic either. It did get better towards the middle, but I thought it started out a bit slow, with choppy cinematography. Some of the dialogue was well written and delivered (specifically the knights; I thought they were all quite good), however there were others that were laughable (like the Saxons). Some of the acting made me cringe. Like the first time the woads come charging out of the forrest, you can almost see them counting until it's time to start running and yelling. I thought Keira was good, though she wasn't in it a whole lot (another reason I don't agree with her being front and center on the poster). I thought this was one of Keira's best performances (I just wish she would do more with her *eyes*. Eyes can imply and tell a lot.) Clive Owen was by far the best, acting wise. The fight scenes were good, except for the few parts that just seemed...*overly* choreographed. As for Keira's strap of leather that she wears in the final battle...that is a complete joke. She objectifies herself in exchange for playing a woman who can kick ass. And plus, realistically, she would have fallen out. My opinions of course. Even after all I said, I found it entertaining, and I'll probably end up watching it again.

narya
08-07-2004, 11:16 AM
I was planning on seeing last night when it first came out, but then i realised it wasnt even playing where i live, so i'm seeing it tonight, a few towns away lol

hasselbrad
08-07-2004, 12:54 PM
...and the f@#ktard, Bob Ross, who reviewed it for the Tampa Tribune are as follows...
He gave it a "C". To put things in perspective, he gave White Chicks a "C-". He is, quite clearly, an idiot.
I'll agree that King Arthur isn't the greatest movie ever made, but I'll never believe that it is only marginally better than White Chicks. He claimed that he couldn't follow the plot. If that's the case, then I think it's time to look into other career options. I didn't find it difficult at all, and I'm a college dropout! Pay attention, Bob.
I was a little disappointed with the cinematography, but I thought the costume design was fantastic. Penny Rose, who was responsible for PoTC, did a wonderful job. The knights had a gritty realism rather than a shiny idealism, which I found quite pleasing.
As for Keira's leather strap, I don't really see how that could be construed as "objectifying". Some sort of skimpy, cleavage enhancing leather bustier would have been "objectifying". That thing looks like sheer torture. My man tits hurt just thinking about it. :eek:
Of course, according to what I've read, the "historically accurate" costume would have been "bare breasts and ankles". (Please refer to the blooper reel of your PoTC DVD to find any humor in that quote) I, for one, would not be complaining, although I'm guessing that would be seen as "objectifying".
As for her performance, Keira was fantastic. She is breathtaking, as usual. It's really a shame that her character doesn't appear until she does.
I give King Arthur a "B+".
(And yes Kyle, the "Ice Battle" scene was fantastic)

Oencross
08-07-2004, 01:05 PM
All of you ass holes in America who get to watch the movie can fuck off. All of you suck ass, I'm in the UK and i was expecting to be able to see it, but NOOOOOO... UK gets it after for some ENTIRELY fucked reason. And since I am in the UK it angers me greatly, anyways, I hope the film is wonderful.

ActinDiva
08-07-2004, 03:46 PM
I have to agree with you that Ioan did the best!

A2thaMe
08-07-2004, 05:57 PM
I saw King Arthur yesterday. It was a lot better than any of the negative reviews I had read. Keira's character was very powerful and empowering. The knights were all very noble but in a real, down to earth sort of way. I think anyone who likes action movies or just likes Keira Knightley would like it.

Edward
08-07-2004, 06:03 PM
grr, not out til 31st here :(

Kyle_West
08-07-2004, 06:09 PM
I meant to comment on Ray Winstone's performance as Bors. He, I think was the "fan favorite" it seemed everytime he opened his mouth I laughed. He was very funny, and he could switch it right back into a serious attitude and have the audience left breathless. He was fantastic also.

I didn't wanna edit the comment earlier.

hasselbrad
08-07-2004, 07:33 PM
...a baby's arm...holding an apple. :D
It's a shame that couldn't go in the trailer.

Object Of Affection
08-07-2004, 07:55 PM
yeah it's pretty lames this country seems to get EVERYTHING LAST !!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

HERE'S A LIST OF WHAT WE GET LAST,

moooovies,
DvDs,
Games,

And wheRe the helL have lucky charmS Gone
:eek:

But still we might get King Arthur in abit early or just sit here and wait for it to appear on the net to download :cool:

apoggy
08-07-2004, 07:58 PM
Calm down with the capitalisation and the random shift pressing, its annoying and falls into the netspeak catagory as its difficult to read, sign of immaturity I'm told.

Narg
09-07-2004, 01:16 AM
Calm down with the capitalisation and the random shift pressing, its annoying and falls into the netspeak catagory as its difficult to read, sign of immaturity I'm told.


8 days till i go see it :), 15th in Australia, cant wait :D.

Spire
09-07-2004, 03:04 AM
I saw King Arthur today, and I'm kinda mixed about it. It was better than I expected, but I didn't expect very much at all. I've heard several complaints about how the plot was incoherent, and that was not the case at all, it was quite simple actually. The action wasn't anything we haven't seen before, and some of the sword-fighting was pretty lame. It was predictable, the dialogue campy in spots (but good in others), and the acting average, but it's not a total loss. For one, Keira Knightley is incredibly beautiful but we already know that. If you love Keira as much as I do, then this film is worth seeing.

ryan
09-07-2004, 11:53 AM
The movie was alright. I liked Ioan's and Keira's characters. Clive Owen was pretty decent. Nothing spectacular, though.
The action sequences were pretty good, but I felt they could of either been more intense, or better choreographed.

Some of the important scenes/lines could have either been written better, or just said better I think.

I'd probably give it a 6.5 (maybe a 7) out of 10, and that's decent overall.

narya
09-07-2004, 07:10 PM
Holy mother of crap, i saw it last night!

It was fantastic..I don't know where all the bad reviews came from!

Renegade
11-07-2004, 06:16 AM
Bleh...The movie was good but not great. Battle scenes were somewhat entertaining. The fight on the ice front was creative though. The plot was fairly simple but I thought it had a couple holes. To me, it just didn't quite feel complete. For example, I don't know if it's just me, but I didn't quite catch how Guinevere and Merlin knew another the first time they met. But whatever. Overall, I'd give it 3 out of 4 stars.

chillyfrog15
11-07-2004, 06:53 AM
To me, it just didn't quite feel complete. For example, I don't know if it's just me, but I didn't quite catch how Guinevere and Merlin knew another the first time they met.
That's how I feel about it. Not to mention I was all hyped up for a big, strong, not happy-go-lucky cheesy ending, then I hear that Disney made them put one in. It didn't mesh with the rest of the movie at all. Not bad overall, it would probably be better the second time.

KnightleyNews
11-07-2004, 03:57 PM
I've just seen a copy of the movie and, while it was better than I was expecting, it still could've been better. The battle scenes were well-fought and acted, and the 'mood' was set quite successfully (although you could spot where the editor's knife had been). But the incidental music I hated. A lot of the scenes would have had their effect enhanced by the lack of music, not its presence. Clive Owen comes across better than he does in the trailers but the Lancelot voice-over was (without giving away any spoilers) anachronistic, to say the least. But the script's character-building was not the best - the characters had no depth to them, you just didn't FEEL for them and barely got to know their names.


And it was far from a starring movie for Keira Knightley. I know she's the biggest 'name' in it (especially for American audiences), but she was in barely a quarter of the scenes and probably speaks less than a hundred words in the entire movie. From the trailers and promos we are lead to believe she is far more central to the story than Arthur. Thankfully, for a film called King Arthur, she's not. All you've seen of Guinevere in trailers, promos and TV spots is about all there is of her, barring a couple of tiny other scenes. I'll still go to see it on the big screen when it's out over here, but I wouldn't go back again, like I did for Pirates. I'd give it 7 out of 10.

Paul

Kelsey
11-07-2004, 03:59 PM
CAUTION: SPOILERS!!!

but I thought it had a couple holes. To me, it just didn't quite feel complete. For example, I don't know if it's just me, but I didn't quite catch how Guinevere and Merlin knew another the first time they met. But whatever. Overall, I'd give it 3 out of 4 stars.

What they didn't explain very well, was that in this version, Guinevere is Merlin's daughter (at least she is in the screenplay, where they make it very clear). This is how she knows so much about Arthur, and has that fore-sight. After watching the movie a second time, I think this helps to explain why she gets intimate with Arthur, and why she eventually marries him (and I think this connects with what someone else said about her *knowing* he would be King, and not Lancelot.)

I also thought there were a few plot holes. I saw it a second time, and could fill in some of the blanks while watching it, since I had aready seen the ending.

Edward
11-07-2004, 09:13 PM
lol paul

did you download it? 1 recorded using a camcorder in at the pictures? :p

KnightleyNews
12-07-2004, 12:51 PM
lol paul

did you download it? 1 recorded using a camcorder in at the pictures? :p

Let's just say car boot sales are not only good for buying other people's tat anymore. They're great for US films months before they're out over here. Naughty, but nice ;)

Paul

frodo1511
13-07-2004, 03:51 AM
Sorry, took me a while to stop being lazy and giving my "review" on the film. As of now, It's the best movie of the summer. I saw it on day one with my friends, and all of us gave it our higest rating- BadAss :cool: Anyway, I thought the story was excellent, the dialogue A+, and props for whoever casted the parts for the movie. Clive is the Arthur I always thought of, same with Ioan, and Ray Winstone(s/p). Same goes for whoever played Tristan, Galahad, Dagonet, and the last knight( whatever his name is :) Oh, am I forgeting someone? hmmm....
oh yes, KEIRA!!! I thought she played Guinevere superbly, although much different than what I imagined. The graphics were above average, except for the ice in the ice battle(I found the ice better in the Day After Tommorow). The only movie I think that could even come close to King Arthur's success this summer is The Village.
Now for the cons. I didn't like how so many people could get confused with all the knights names. All are different from one another. I guess it's the old people that see the movie will have that problem. Also, I found the violence dumbed down from what you see in the trailers. But, from what I've heard, Touchstone will release an R-rated version of the film, with all of the scenes cut from the theatrical release. And finally, Keira dosen't come into the movie until 50 minutes in! :( I had to keep one of my friends from leaving the theater, since he only came to see Keira. Other than these puny cons, KA is a great summer movie, and worth more than everyone is giving it.

Kyle_West
13-07-2004, 04:05 AM
It had depth on SOME of the characters. You learn Bors, Lancelot, Arthur, and maybe a few other knights names.

I didn't hear galahad once. But if you were going into detail on the knights make the ones that die. Not the ones that live and don't care about. I bet 50% of people say "Oooh which one was that?" But I liked it, as I've said 5893285 times.

frodo1511
13-07-2004, 04:10 AM
It had depth on SOME of the characters. You learn Bors, Lancelot, Arthur, and maybe a few other knights names.

I didn't hear galahad once. But if you were going into detail on the knights make the ones that die. Not the ones that live and don't care about. I bet 50% of people say "Oooh which one was that?" But I liked it, as I've said 5893285 times.

It helps if you had a psycho-bitch english teacher who spent 2 months on the King Arthur legend, so picking out the name/Knights was no problem for me :cool:

Kyle_West
14-07-2004, 02:51 AM
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html

The most respected critics in the USA gave to two thumbs up.

frodo1511
14-07-2004, 04:45 AM
It's about time someone gave this movie it's credit. I'm sick and tired of all the critics giving it low ratings/stars/thumbs-up/whatever. Finally, I agree with a critic on this one.

Narg
15-07-2004, 05:32 AM
I just went and seen it, first session in Australia in my area, i thought it was great, liked all of it, i dont know what the critics are smoking, but i thought the movie was atleast a 8/10.

frodo1511
15-07-2004, 05:57 AM
It deserves more from the critics. I mean, this summer is full of sequals/ remakes, and KA definatley stands out from the pack (in a good way that is:)

Kelsey
15-07-2004, 06:05 AM
Frodo, what are they paying you? And what happens on November 9th?

I didn't like how Keira came in 50 minutes into the movie either. Her role was pointless as it is, and I think they just threw her in there because you can't have King Arthur without Guinevere. If that's the case, they should have brought her into the movie earlier.

frodo1511
15-07-2004, 06:09 AM
Frodo, what are they paying you? And what happens on November 9th?

I didn't like how Keira came in 50 minutes into the movie either. Her role was pointless as it is, and I think they just threw her in there because you can't have King Arthur without Guinevere. If that's the case, they should have brought her into the movie earlier.


What do you mean? I am just posting on how underrated this movie is. I thought it was really good, and a breath of fresh air from all these sequals.
As for November 9th, well, you'll see...

Kyle_West
15-07-2004, 06:21 AM
I didn't see anything wrong with it. If you're talking about how you didn't like the fact you didn't see keira for 50 minutes. Then it sounds like you didn't wanna see the movie just Keira. I liked it, and it showed her as somewhat of a badass chick. Plus I saw and interview and they said this movie was based on new facts discovered....well at least recent facts. But people say it doesn't follow the story at all. What gives?

Kelsey
15-07-2004, 06:25 AM
What do you mean? I am just posting on how underrated this movie is. I thought it was really good, and a breath of fresh air from all these sequals.
As for November 9th, well, you'll see...

I was just kidding :) Except now I think the whole 11/9 thing is wierd. :confused:

frodo1511
15-07-2004, 06:34 AM
I didn't see anything wrong with it. If you're talking about how you didn't like the fact you didn't see keira for 50 minutes. Then it sounds like you didn't wanna see the movie just Keira. I liked it, and it showed her as somewhat of a badass chick. Plus I saw and interview and they said this movie was based on new facts discovered....well at least recent facts. But people say it doesn't follow the story at all. What gives?


At the beginning of the movie, there is text saying that most/part of the flick is based off of new finds/discoveries of a Autorious Rex, who the film is supposed to be based of.

oh and Kelsey, ask around about 11/9. I'm sure somebody knows besides me. It's only one of the most important dates in recent memory...

frodo1511
15-07-2004, 06:38 AM
actually that film contains almost no historical fact

Are you saying the text at the beginning of the film is bullshit? Or the slogan of the poster "The Untold Story that Inspired the Legend" is crap?

frodo1511
15-07-2004, 06:43 AM
So the legend does have some fact in it? :cool: BTW, I bet that sucked that your bro was complaining all throughout the flick. I would've moved :)

spitinthacoola
15-07-2004, 08:17 AM
Frodo, what are they paying you? And what happens on November 9th?

I didn't like how Keira came in 50 minutes into the movie either. Her role was pointless as it is, and I think they just threw her in there because you can't have King Arthur without Guinevere. If that's the case, they should have brought her into the movie earlier.

November 9th is when Halo 2 comes out so I think thats what it is. In case you were still curious.

alby
15-07-2004, 11:16 AM
To be honest, I don't know what to think of this interpretation of King Arthur. The magical elements have been removed, and the characters are more brooding this time around. Last I heard, historians were having a good time pointing out the flaws in Touchstone Pictures' zealous statements. This reminds me of my old high school days in AP European History. The notion of equality at the end of KA appears rather absurd, considering that feudalism would eventually engulf most of Europe.

I think there was too much hype surrounding KA. I disagree with Bruckheimer's decision to reduce the rating to PG-13. If I remember correctly, some of the cast members, prior to the film's US release, referred to KA as a combination of Gladiator and Braveheart. Thus, in my opinion, the lack of blood in the fight scenes reduces the energy and realism of combat and war in general.

However, I did enjoy Keira's acting, as she does give KA a sense of erotism, vitality, and intrigue. On the other hand, the performance of other actors such as Stellan Skarsgard (Cerdic) appear comical at times, and some of the events seem forced, awkward if you will. I feel as though KA was a missed opportunity, and unfortunately, KA is not being well received at the US box office ($27.5 million to date). I would have liked to have seen more creative battle/action sequences. Lastly, I believe picking Antoine Fuqua as the director to be a mistake.

frodo1511
15-07-2004, 03:03 PM
November 9th is when Halo 2 comes out so I think thats what it is. In case you were still curious.

YAAH!!! you got it right coola! you win......
nothing :cool:

oh, I agree with you alby on the gladiator remark. I've started throwing my copy of Gladiator in there faces, saying "This is Gladiator, or as I would like to call it, the movie King Arthur should have been if not for Disney"

Kelsey
15-07-2004, 07:58 PM
YAAH!!! you got it right coola! you win......
nothing :cool:

Lol...I was like...election day? I don't know. I saw the opposite of 9/11 and military base and got worried confused.

Kyle_West
15-07-2004, 08:30 PM
they take the magical elements out and people whine about how it doesn't follow the myth. Funny. I like this one more than the others I've seen. I'm sure we can agree its better than "First Knight". But anywho, people shouldn't complain because it is a different tale on the story. The DVD will have the R rated version so that outta cool some jets. If anyone was laughable it was the shmuck that played Merlin. I laughed when he was on the screen. Plus the son of Cerdic, not sure what his name is. But he was in that sylvester stallone movie about racing. He was terrible. I didn't think Stellan was that bad.

Patrick Dunn
15-07-2004, 10:02 PM
The movie was entertaining.... the soundtrack was hauntingly splendid.

I pre-ordered the soundtrack an hour after walking out of the film.

Will burn the CD as soon as it's released.

Kiera ...... Best looking Queen of England to date.

DragonRat
16-07-2004, 09:41 AM
It was not worth the $9.75 I paid to see it. I should've waited the next day for a matinee. To be honest, it lacked a real plot, the characters were relatively undeveloped, and I just didn't find Clive Owen's soliloquies convincing. Yes, I understand that his Pelagian rants speak of liberty, freedom, and equality for all mankind, but seriously, what did that have to do with anything at all in the film? And the love scene was totally unnecessary. (I'll take that back: it was probably the most appealing scene in the movie, so I say it was QUITE necessary.)

At the ending - which ended 10 minutes too late - I didn't know whether or not to laugh or cry. Clive Owen, in my honest opinion, was better suited to shut his mouth and lead his troops to the battlefield. He was much more stirring as the silent type, the brooding warrior who never basks in the glory of bloodshed, and simply wants what is best for him and his knights. To speak of faith and liberty as ideals which must be upheld is quite ludicrous to his character; if he needs any meaning whatsoever to do his duty, he must fight, simply because he has nowhere else to go, and his meaning - his purpose - must be for love of his country, not for God.

I could see that Fuqua intended some semblance of a love triangle with Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot, but it never blossomed. If he had tried to do more with it, I could definitely see some enhancement in character development, but instead, he chose to set awkward glances at awkward times, with no real meaning to them. And the love scene sealed the deal anyway.

The only character I really liked was Tristan, simply because he was the warrior for war's sake. Bors was also another character that I liked, because he was probably the only true emotionally stirring character in the entire movie. None of the other knights - and certainly not Arthur or Guinevere - made much of a challenge to present feeling.

Fuqua and Bruckheimer did the best with what they had. The battle scenes were decent (not on par at all with Braveheart; Gibson did a masterful job with his battle scenes), but the writing was horrendous: overtly melodramatic to the core. And I write love poems; I should know melodrama when I see it.

That's just my opinion. Some people enjoyed it, but I simply figure that there was much more to the movie and its plot that could be added (and omitted). It was not about freedom or choice; it was about patriotism and doing the right thing. If the movie bounced between those two concepts like a pinball, then there's no real plot.

One more thing: if Guinevere was princess of the Wodes, then why didn't Merlin and the rest of the entire freakin' Wode people try to look for her, while she was in Marius' dungeon?

frodo1511
16-07-2004, 07:06 PM
It was not worth the $9.75 I paid to see it. I should've waited the next day for a matinee. To be honest, it lacked a real plot, the characters were relatively undeveloped, and I just didn't find Clive Owen's soliloquies convincing. Yes, I understand that his Pelagian rants speak of liberty, freedom, and equality for all mankind, but seriously, what did that have to do with anything at all in the film? And the love scene was totally unnecessary. (I'll take that back: it was probably the most appealing scene in the movie, so I say it was QUITE necessary.)

At the ending - which ended 10 minutes too late - I didn't know whether or not to laugh or cry. Clive Owen, in my honest opinion, was better suited to shut his mouth and lead his troops to the battlefield. He was much more stirring as the silent type, the brooding warrior who never basks in the glory of bloodshed, and simply wants what is best for him and his knights. To speak of faith and liberty as ideals which must be upheld is quite ludicrous to his character; if he needs any meaning whatsoever to do his duty, he must fight, simply because he has nowhere else to go, and his meaning - his purpose - must be for love of his country, not for God.

I could see that Fuqua intended some semblance of a love triangle with Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot, but it never blossomed. If he had tried to do more with it, I could definitely see some enhancement in character development, but instead, he chose to set awkward glances at awkward times, with no real meaning to them. And the love scene sealed the deal anyway.

The only character I really liked was Tristram, simply because he was the warrior for war's sake. Bors was also another character that I liked, because he was probably the only true emotionally stirring character in the entire movie. None of the other knights - and certainly not Arthur or Guinevere - made much of a challenge to present feeling.

Fuqua and Bruckheimer did the best with what they had. The battle scenes were decent (not on par at all with Braveheart; Gibson did a masterful job with his battle scenes), but the writing was horrendous: overtly melodramatic to the core. And I write love poems; I should know melodrama when I see it.

That's just my opinion. Some people enjoyed it, but I simply figure that there was much more to the movie and its plot that could be added (and omitted). It was not about freedom or choice; it was about patriotism and doing the right thing. If the movie bounced between those two concepts like a pinball, then there's no real plot.

One more thing: if Guinevere was princess of the Wodes, then why didn't Merlin and the rest of the entire freakin' Wode people try to look for her, while she was in Marius' dungeon?


Yeah, matinee would have been better(I paid 4.75 for a 4:15 opening day film)
Agree on the love scene part :D . I also thought Tristan(s/p) was the coolest knight (especially when he shot that Saxon look-out from the tree- totally BADASS!!! I also enjoyed Gladiator and Braveheart immensly, hopefully the R-rated version of KA will not dissapoint. And on your remark on Guinevere captured, I bet they didn't even know where to begin, if they didn't look for shoe/horse prints. Either that, or they were la
zy :cool:

Kelsey
16-07-2004, 07:46 PM
They didn't go look for her because for the sake of the movie, Arthur and his Knights needed to find her. Or Merlin used his magical powers of fore-sight to see who would rescue her and that it all fit in the plan. I don't know...why did anyone do anything in that movie? :)

frodo1511
17-07-2004, 01:05 AM
They didn't go look for her because for the sake of the movie, Arthur and his Knights needed to find her. Or Merlin used his magical powers of fore-sight to see who would rescue her and that it all fit in the plan. I don't know...why did anyone do anything in that movie? :)

Well, duh, no one looked for her in the movie. My explenation was for the possibility that if it wasn't made into a movie. Or the director wanted Arthur and Co. to find her.
...or I'm making no sense, so I'll shut up

Kyle_West
17-07-2004, 01:28 AM
The Wodes wanted her gone, she was to bossy.



Eh, good enough for me.

frodo1511
17-07-2004, 01:33 AM
The Wodes wanted her gone, she was to bossy.



Eh, good enough for me.


haha, good funny, Kyle. I agree, didn't you all see how she took command of everyone she met? Arthur( I'll let you decide on when/where on that one
:D , whatever his name was, the father of the boy who would become pope one day(she killed him w/ an arrow) and the whole Wode army/force(led into battle) Preety damn bossy if you ask me...
...but I like it :cool:

Wake
17-07-2004, 09:50 AM
King Arthur was ok. It didn't develop enough on the parts designed for each gender. The marketing for the guys was the combat...3 battles, no blood and not the "Gladiator" type battles expected. The romance part for the ladies wasn't developed enough of. The love scene kind of appeared from left field. But I wasn't complaining...it's just it surprised me. Ending...Corny Disney ending. Gimme the Director's Cut please. I'm sure there's a lot in there that fills in the holes.

goldenfish209
17-07-2004, 04:52 PM
despite the reviews im still goin to see it and i also persuaded a freind to come even though he hate these type of films all i said was "it has keira knighly in it" and he said ill come deffinately
:D

frodo1511
17-07-2004, 05:18 PM
despite the reviews im still goin to see it and i also persuaded a freind to come even though he hate these type of films all i said was "it has keira knighly in it" and he said ill come deffinately
:D

Yeah, I did the same thing to one of my friends. We were discussing what movie to see, the day before KA came out, and me and one of my friends decided on KA. The other one was skeptical, until I told him that Keira was in it, and his eyes went as big as dinner plates :eek:
Unfortunately, I had to literally keep him in his seat during opening day, because he was pissed that Keira didn't show up until halfway in the movie. When she did appear on screen, all I could hear was "damn..." :cool:

MaizCascara
21-07-2004, 06:08 AM
the battles in KA put a disgrace to epic battle sequences, i mean if i were Antoine Fuqua i would have fired Bruckheimer if he insisted the PG-13 rating....if u compare it to gladiator and braveheart u have to have it R because those great movies were R and that rating gives the movie an EPIC feeling, and makes it good....R rating probably would have increased the budget to make better special effects which personally i think they should work around, and bigger budget = better battle sequence...(On the other hand, Keira Knightley was the greatest in that movie, her looks and her acting were hot)

Kelsey
21-07-2004, 06:37 AM
Technically, it would be Bruckheimer firing Fuqua but I get your point. If I were Bruckheimer I would have recast, rewritten, and found a different director, and on top of that, found a different distributer. This was a mistake for Disney; they were just trying to pick up on the success of Pirates with the whole Bruckheimer/Keira/Disney team. If I was stuck with Disney, I would have put the project in turnaround for an indefinite amount of time.

I am convinced this movie had the potential to be so good.

frodo1511
21-07-2004, 04:28 PM
Technically, it would be Bruckheimer firing Fuqua but I get your point. If I were Bruckheimer I would have recast, rewritten, and found a different director, and on top of that, found a different distributer. This was a mistake for Disney; they were just trying to pick up on the success of Pirates with the whole Bruckheimer/Keira/Disney team. If I was stuck with Disney, I would have put the project in turnaround for an indefinite amount of time.

I am convinced this movie had the potential to be so good.


Oh well, nobody's perfect. I'm sure sales of the DVD will be preety high, all with the deleted scenes and extra footage not released theatrically.

Eloise
22-07-2004, 09:43 AM
Hey! :)

I've seen King Arthur too, it's pretty good. I wouldn't say it's the best movie i've ever seen, but I wanna see it again, thats for sure :-D
Is anyone else here from New Zealand?

jadie
22-07-2004, 08:16 PM
Well King Arthur was pretty good, I still don't get what critics saw.

frodo1511
23-07-2004, 05:03 AM
Well King Arthur was pretty good, I still don't get what critics saw.

They were still stoned from 4th of July when they saw it :)

Pygmalion
23-07-2004, 09:44 AM
Well I KNOW I'll get a pasting for this but....
I didn't like King Arthur.
The fight scenes were confusing (is it possible they were altered for rating reasons?) and the only one that REALLY worked was the battle on the ice, incidentally lifted straight out of ALexander Nevski.
The plot, I found pretty boring, and stopped following it about 30 minutes in.
I thought the IDEA of the movie was good, and Merlin was pretty cool, Keira was GORGEOUS-but at the end when she was dressed in leather and covered in blood, she looked like she'd stepped out of an S and M movie...
I'm sorry but for me it just didn't....I dunno...hit the spot.

Jimmy84
28-07-2004, 02:36 PM
I've seen King Arthur and my opinion is that the move is wary good not the best but still wary good and Ms. Knightley is wary sexy in this movie :)

elvish_princess
02-08-2004, 10:12 AM
king arthur was totally cool
i thourght at the start when they were going around the montain where lancelot saw her in the tenty thing i relized that she was one on those wood people who live in the woods what merlin is like she's soo mystrious in this movie.

i also think the ending was pretty crappy they like should have rode away on his beautiful horse ( that horse is really cute) and i knew that arthur was greiving for the loss of some of his knights he could have just smiled 1 at his wedding i mean its a wedding hello happi times

anywyas im a movie critic dont mind me the movie was great and i totally enjoyed it

Elvish_Princess

Dyce_Blue
03-08-2004, 02:37 AM
If anyone wants to read my take on King Arthur, it can be found on my webpage.

http://www.freewebs.com/dyce_blue/movies.htm

feel free to look around, it's still under construction. There is a picture of me on the front page that I believe Richard referred to earlier...

Elijahfan
03-08-2004, 03:07 AM
it would be nice to see the other ending, i think it's the orginal. hopefully it's on the dvd.

frodo1511
03-08-2004, 05:15 PM
it would be nice to see the other ending, i think it's the orginal. hopefully it's on the dvd.

Oh, you mean the "unhappy-esque" ending, elijah? Yeah, it would've been cool to see that ending, but for the sake of it's rating, I believe the "happy" ending served it's purpose. Everyone likes a good ending, me included.

Edward
04-08-2004, 09:06 AM
i saw the film at last, it's wasn't that bad, i thought it was alright, DVD should be good :)

Flightfreak
05-08-2004, 05:50 PM
ive seen the movie yesterday eve in the cinema, i didn’t except to much of it but i find it good.
love keia's acting work :icon_popc

KeiraLoverLD
16-08-2004, 06:19 PM
I thought King Arthur was a really good movie. In fact thats how I got into Keira first. Shes so beautiful in this movie. Then after doing some research I found out she was in Pirates Of the Carribbean, another really good movie. Since then, Ive been searching around online for information on her and I just rented Bend It Like Beckham last night. Shes so good looking in this movie, but I dont think I have seen her any better looking then when she was in King Arthur. I dont know why the movie got bad reviews.

RobinHood
17-08-2004, 05:35 AM
Loved it. Saw it twice in theaters. Although I did feel it was a little rushed, even though it was 2 hours. I think if it was an extra 20 minutes longer it would have been better. Wouldn't have felt so rushed, and I wanted it to center a bit more on the Arthur-Gwyniverre-Lancelot love triangle that was so big in the older legends.

Hazzle
17-08-2004, 08:51 PM
Loved it. Saw it twice in theaters. Although I did feel it was a little rushed, even though it was 2 hours. I think if it was an extra 20 minutes longer it would have been better. Wouldn't have felt so rushed, and I wanted it to center a bit more on the Arthur-Gwyniverre-Lancelot love triangle that was so big in the older legends.

Not seen it yet (yes, amazing isn't it...fucking exams! KKWBBQ>KA and I didn't have enough time to do both :() and will probably have to end up hoping to catch it on some odd showing at some dingy cinema, or on rental, but on that point...the legends were very much ignored...intentionally...to focus on history. Such is life.

Narzys
17-08-2004, 09:03 PM
I've seen it. Keira looks AMAZING, and the whole thing is very well filmed, but I had not the idea I was looking at a big story / epos like 'Troy'. They took to little time to tell such big story. The story started when the movie stopped...

I thought about this... maybe it wasn't the movie, but it was me... I was waiting for Keira (on the moment of her introduce there started the movie for me :D)... but that's on 1/3 part of the movie... after 35/45 minutes or so.

frodo1511
18-08-2004, 09:22 PM
I'm seeing it again on Friday (The base gets movies about a month and a half late:( And I'll give my second opinion on it during the weekend.

frodo1511
21-08-2004, 02:55 AM
OK, Just got back from seeing KA again, and I still am 100% with my earlier saying that it's the best movie of the summer (I tend to go for the underdog in things like this) I got more of the jokes this time, and actually heard Dagonet talk( I thought he didn't say anything when I first saw the movie) Keira's performance was still best in show, but I happened to think that maby her presence in the movie was a little more hype then I originally thought of it to be, but still stood out the most. Battles were ripped out of LOTR, and in fact could stand up to "extra" footage from the trilogy. But all in all, a very well done movie, when you take into effect all the cuts, advanced release date, and the fact Disney now blows harder than a hot air balloon. I can't wait for the DVD to hit shelves in January (hopefully sooner...)

GuinevereLover
05-09-2004, 10:35 PM
I loved the film I don't know what the criticism is all about :mad:

Keira looked Very, Very, Very Sexy her hottest role yet!! ( hence my sceen name )
The fight scenes :fencing: were good fun.

I also liked the soundtrack by the legendary Hanz Zimmer!


Great Film!! :icon_mrgr :) :)

frodo1511
05-09-2004, 11:01 PM
I take it this was your first time seeing the movie than, GL?

The Black Rider
08-09-2004, 03:16 PM
It was okay. Not terrible but not particularly great either. The acting was pretty good (esp. Ray Winstone, Stellan Skarsgård, Clive Owen) but I didn't care much for the story. They went for historical accuracy but as a result the story wasn't half as interesting as the legend. Also, Keira's role in the film made me even more excited for The Jacket so I can actually see her acting. She did an okay job in this film but she had very little to do. It was entertaining, I suppose, but I expected a little more from it.

I also don't see what's so great about Hans Zimmer's score. It was average. He's not much different from all these other mainstream composers (i.e. John Williams, Howard Shore, James Horner) who do nothing more than make "mood music" that sounds the same as every other Hollywood score.

frodo1511
08-09-2004, 11:13 PM
do not diss on Howard Shore. He deserved EVERY SINGLE OSCAR for LOTR.


...But yes, I do agree with you on John Williams, the guy's totally overrated, except for Star Wars.

Back on topic, I did enjoy Ray Winstone's performance as Bors. He did a great job putting comedy in parts that needed it.

KeirazBabe
09-09-2004, 04:17 PM
Quick review, i actually surprising thoroughly enjoyed the film :D

xXx

The Black Rider
10-09-2004, 03:10 PM
do not diss on Howard Shore. He deserved EVERY SINGLE OSCAR for LOTR.


...But yes, I do agree with you on John Williams, the guy's totally overrated, except for Star Wars.

Back on topic, I did enjoy Ray Winstone's performance as Bors. He did a great job putting comedy in parts that needed it.

Howard Shore is better than most, but he's still not that great. Except he wrote a terrific score for Spider.

But back on topic, is anyone else skeptical of this film being "the true story" of King Arthur and his knights? I am. Not that it's of great importance; I just don't buy it.

frodo1511
10-09-2004, 08:46 PM
Yeah, I was a bit skeptical when I saw the poster's for it back in Christmas. But I think they did a good job with it, I mean, there's no fantasy, no magic, and no dragons, so it got half of it right, didn't it? The world has no idea who Arthur really was, even if he existed. Touchstone just used the latest in archeological evidence to put some "fact" into the movie.


Kudos to Shore, BTW

The Black Rider
11-09-2004, 02:22 PM
I have to say, I prefer the story of Camelot with dragons, wizards, etc. I'm very anti-realism in cinema. As Peter Greenaway once said, "Continuity is boring."

I still enjoyed the film, though. Just wasn't as carried away with it as some people were.

Margo Channing
27-09-2004, 09:43 AM
Well, I'm a little late to the game but I'm going to throw in my two cents anyway.

I think this film was lazily done. First, they shouldn't have tried to spin it as the truth behind the myth. The "recent archeological evidence" that they said they had? Phft. A chick found a rock with ARTURIS carved into it. Arturis was a common name back then (though it's proper spelling was Artorius), one historian said it was the "Bob" of it's day. They should have just pimped this film as their own take on the myth, not as how it "really" happened. There's really no evidence to support any of the "facts" in the film.

The plot seemed pretty weak, there were a few holes in it. They really didn't give the characters much to do. There was a mood about the film, which is a plus, and the battle on the ice was awesome.

I did not like the characterizations done in this film. Arthur was made out to be this great warrior/leader that all his men would willingly die for. But the knights seemed like better warriors and were more selfless than Arthur. He basically whined about freedom and faith 94% of the time. We were told about his great deeds but never shown. And Lancelot honestly sounded like a jealous boyfriend throughout most of the film: "Why do you always talk to God and not to me?". The other knights were much better, especially Tristan and Dagonet. The Saxon invader Cerdic was a bit of a joke and I laughed when he whacked his chest with his fists. He wasn't intimidating at all.

I remember watching a dozen of the KA specials on t.v. and listening to Keira talk about how Guinevere would do anything for her people, sleep with whoever, get done what needs to be done. Only we never really get a sense of that in the film. Besides leading Arthur to Merlin, the audience really has no other reason to assume that Guinevere and Arthur hooked-up than simply because they are Arthur and Guinevere. There's no reason to believe Guinevere is cunning. I also feel that they should have dropped the Arthur/Guinevere relationship. It seemed tacked on, especially the ending. But what ultimately makes their relationship in anyway unappealing is that Clive and Keira had no chemistry. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There was a black hole of chemistry. Other than that, she showed presence and turned in a nice performance (could've been better, could've been a heck of alot worse). The fighting she did was impressive, though I can certainly understand why people found the idea of Keira as a warrior laughable. Even after all that training she still didn't look that threatening.

I don't see how a DVD with extra footage is going to make this film any better. I've heard it's just more battle footage. Unless it's character developement it really isn't going to make a difference. I'd give this film 2.5 stars out of 5.

bob
15-10-2004, 06:01 PM
^ heh, i just read that and it reminded me of what i wrote in my journal:

artorius rex [07 Sep 2004|05:13pm]
i just watched king arthur, but the sound and picture quality was rather poor (pirate, arrr!) good things about the film? ioan gruffudd, keira knightley's fight scenes, and... yeah... the rest of the knights as well. plus the fight scenes were fairly decent. instead of opting for just one big epic battle with plenty of artillery, they choreographed the fight sequences so that they were all very tactical. but i guess that's the only way you can beat a 200 strong force with 8 people.

the guy who played the lead saxon, sucked ass. and clive owen, when he wasn't being righteous, was generally boring. the ending was schmultzy and there wasn't enough plot, though there was just enough to keep the battle scenes linked together. plus too much of the "oh look at arthur. it's arthur. arthur's sad. arthur's angry. arthur's courageous. arthur's good" and etc. i swear, the only time clive owen wasn't on screen was during the flashbacks and when you cut to the saxons.

they must have changed the script a lot since production had first started on the film, because the final production seemed very different from the initial script excerpts i had been reading in the beginning. for one thing, they cut out most of the arthur/merlin interaction, and now merlin only seems to have a grand total of 1/2 a minute of dialogue in the entire film. they also cut out a lot of the guinevere/lancelot affair, though they make small references to it, but not nearly enough to explain the reactions in one of the final battle scenes. also with guinevere, is merlin meant to be her father? because i dare say they could have made that a lot clearer as opposed to just identifying her as simply "a woad". it would also explain why she's at the head of battle. perhaps the director was trying to be very subtle in his storytelling? showing instead of telling, perhaps? but they actually cut a lot of the film. i wonder how much extra footage they actually have left over.

all in all, a pretty shallow attempt at a story, redeemed by the fact that it keeps its undertones dark so that you're still able to take it seriously.

Margo Channing
17-10-2004, 09:04 PM
they cut out most of the arthur/merlin interaction, and now merlin only seems to have a grand total of 1/2 a minute of dialogue in the entire film. they also cut out a lot of the guinevere/lancelot affair

It's a pity, alot of those scenes could've helped the film.