Disappointed...
 

ok, i thaught this movie was gonna totally r0cK1, i went to the like last show of like the first day of it when like it just came out. and was like all happy to see the movie, (mainly b/c of the the kier.. (blah, however u spell it) girl, yep shes hot) but it didn't turn out as good as i expected it to be. anyone else wanna add to this? i'm not saying its a bad movie, just that i fell asleep at times :)

Any chance you could use the english language in a manner not likely to irritate the shit out of me?

sorry for that, not trying to like so totally irritate you.

thanks duck:) ...anyway, I have to agree w/MC117, it suffers from it's teen rating. I expected more in the way of "Gladiator" style violence, but I still thought it was bodaceous(excuse my '60's speek:)

Agreed, i expected to see some blood, everytime the camera would look somewhere else. that took off the fun

The only time you see blood is on a sword, snow, or a little slash on someones body, NOTHING like the beheadings on Gladiator. :cool:

And you're so totally not irritating any more....

as is said in a different thread, the film was cut to appeal to a wider audience, by cutting the violence and sex, and lowering the rating.
Apparently the DVD will include all the deleted scenes, reedited, so if you love your blood, that might be worth waiting for. For me, blood doth not a film make.

I'm in agreement. Of course I think if the film is less gritty because of it, that's a shame, but blood for blood's sake won't make the film any better...

It may not make the film any better, but it will appeal to fans who prefer the grittier experience. :cool:

If u want blood buy the Directors cut dvd wen it comes out, Disney wanted to make some money so they slapped on a PG-13 rating. I havent seen the movie so i cant comment on it yet.

...
 

I loved it. Sex scenes and blood/gore has no effect when a flick has good acting and strong dialogue. King Arthur is good quality. I was on the edge of my seat the entire movie.

As much as I hate to say it, I have to concur: I was pretty disappointed. Not for the same reasons as other people (I could care less about bloodier violence or raunchier sex scenes). I just went in expecting a much better film. Why? I don't know. I tend to think highly of British people (heh heh).

Not to say that it was a bad film at all. It was highly enjoyable, but, like someone else said, I did find myself almost nodding off at certain parts. It just didn't grab me and hold me like, say, Pirates of the Caribbean did (if I'm going to compare it to something). The acting was pretty solid throughout, but it lacked a strong leading character like Johnny's Jack Sparrow, I think. I thought Clive Owen did a great job; a very good (and handsome!) Arthur and Keira was all kinds of lovely. She brought a real charm to the role, I thought.

One thing I HAVE to say that really, really bugged me was the Saxon leader's accent. Sounds like one of my neighbors, for cryin' out loud. The visuals of the film were very beautiful, but at the same time, they began to grate on me and make me physically tired (it probably didn't help that I was running on only 6 hours of sleep ... but, still....).

Overall, I think I'd give it a 2.5 out of 4. Not a bad film, but certainly not a great film. Although it may not be very fair for me to say this ... I liked Pirates much, much more.

I totally agree with you, Kyle. I had been waiting for this movie since christmas, and I think it deserves more than what everyone(and when I say everyone, I mean a lot of people:) is giving it. Good cast of characters, memorable lines of dialogue, and excellent action scenes. :cool:

main reason i didn't like it that much is b/c when i saw the trailers it looked like an action packed movie, and the posters look so damn awesome. but when i went in to watch it. it was the complete opposite. and one thing i have to point out, why is it that two of the knights were so easily killed by the saxon father and son? i thaught that knights were like supposed to be the SEALs of the older times, but i guess i was wrong :o another thing, I really didn't like Keira Knightley all blue and the thing strapped around her chest. that was ugly. and a question, was she one of the blue people or she just joined?

She was a Woad...more specifically...Merlin's daughter.

:confused: REALLY? I did not know that?! I knew she had some affiliation to him, but I didn't think she was Merlin's daughter. but after thinking about it, it does come together. Oh well, learn something new every day :rolleyes:

yeah, that really pissed me off, seeing-SPOILERS























Tristan, Dagonet, and Lancelot dying.















END SPOILERS




I thought that all of the knights would survive, not three of the coolest knights in the pack. Well, maby all but one :D

I've not seen it...but err...the blue paint is made from a dye from the Woad plant, traditionally worn by Picts in battle. The uniform is not authentic, but then the authentic uniform was no clothes...and that would've been an entirely DIFFERENT sort of film :p

Thus...those two mean little. As for being worse than POTC...that worries me as Pirates wasn't anywhere near as good as people on here make out...Johnny was awesome, other noteable performances, but the plot was just too long and windy for its own good.

As for the spoilers...they're basically all well known...that's the thing...we've all heard that the funeral at the end that Antoine intended was cut and replaced with some sort of wedding thing. Sadly the press don't care so much about spoilers as we do :)

actually, the movie has BOTH the knight's funerals, and the marriage between Guinevere+Arthur. Unless you meant part of the scene(s) were cut, both are in the theatrical release.

Yeah, I misread...the funeral was supposed to be the end, without the wedding. That was the intended end, but the wedding was added for audiences. My bad.