Am I the only one...

[keira loves lipgloss]

me 2 i love some of the costumes she wears they look great on keira but anything looks great on keira!!!

[Mistikle]

the movie doesn't come out in australia until July 15th... lookin forward to see it when it come out!!

From 'English Rose' To 'Warrior'
Actress Keira Knightly plays this Machiavellian Guinevere, a woman who is driven by an overwhelming ambition to liberate her people.

"She's no damsel in distress," says Knightly. "The only Guinevere we've ever seen is someone who gets passed from man to man and doesn't have much to say about it. Our Guinevere is alot tougher than that. She's a fighter, a warrior, as much as any man- and she does have something to fight for. That's based on historical fact- the women did fight on equal standing with the men. That's never really been shown before."

"She would terrify me," she says. "We do show that there is a soft side to her; there has to be a soft side, but i think that has to be suppressed when there is a cause to fight."

In addition to the unusual part, the chance to work with her co-stars proved an attraction as well. "i've got seven hunks in leather; what more can a girl ask for?"

source from sunday herald sun, July 4, 2004

[aznkkfan]

I agree with paul. People have their own theories of King arthur. I became a fan at age 7 when my librarian read a picture book to my class I'm sure a lot of ppl have heard about arthur, but with the books I have read (which is a lot) it takes a person forever to separate mythical arthur and the real arthur. So i'm guessing that not many ppl will want to see it because of the confusion, but i think that some ppl will see because it's a bruckheimer film. howver you spell his name
As for me i think it'll be great

[frodo1511]

I thought KA was a much needed breath of fresh air from all the superhero movies of this summer. It stars one of the best ensamble casts, most relatively unknown( hmmm, Lord of the Rings, anyone?) The battle scenes were unforgettable, riveling LOTR or Braveheart( and that's saying something). It also has the hottest actress in the world most people will rip it up thinking of the legend as just that. for all the critics, watch the first 2 minutes of the movie, and then reply to me.

[Hazzle]

LOTR was pants though...well the Fellowship was alright...Two Towers was a little worse...but Return of the King, after starting off SOOO well...had the worst ending any movie has ever had...and yes...I know the book had a long ending but it wasn't as if Peter Jackson didn't hack up the book to make his films, so why not work better on the ending? Hmm...cos he was out to make a pansy version of a great book? Yeah...sounds right.

[frodo1511]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

LOTR was pants though...well the Fellowship was alright...Two Towers was a little worse...but Return of the King, after starting off SOOO well...had the worst ending any movie has ever had...and yes...I know the book had a long ending but it wasn't as if Peter Jackson didn't hack up the book to make his films, so why not work better on the ending? Hmm...cos he was out to make a pansy version of a great book? Yeah...sounds right.

Peter Jackson had to include the long ending from the book, since he had to stay true to the source material. I think he did a fantastic job on recreating one of the best books known to mankind, unlike the Harry Potter series. That has one of the worst book to movie translations ever, it had so many loop holes in it, the director/s did give time to explain all of the story/contents, and they cut a crapload of content so they could fit all of the good/ mindless parts into a 2 and a half hour movie.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by frodo1511

Peter Jackson had to include the long ending from the book, since he had to stay true to the source material. I think he did a fantastic job on recreating one of the best books known to mankind, unlike the Harry Potter series. That has one of the worst book to movie translations ever, it had so many loop holes in it, the director/s did give time to explain all of the story/contents, and they cut a crapload of content so they could fit all of the good/ mindless parts into a 2 and a half hour movie.

The thing is he never stayed true to the source material at all. The scouring of the shire? Thank you and goodnight.

[frodo1511]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

The thing is he never stayed true to the source material at all. The scouring of the shire? Thank you and goodnight.

Would you have really wanted to sit through an extra hour of movie I guess what I am trying to say is that LOTR has the best book to movie transition ever, even if the ending was a little overdone. but why keep rambeling on a subject that has nothing to do with Keira?

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by frodo1511

Would you have really wanted to sit through an extra hour of movie I guess what I am trying to say is that LOTR has the best book to movie transition ever, even if the ending was a little overdone. but why keep rambeling on a subject that has nothing to do with Keira?

If it was well done? Sure...length has never worried me with films, if they're good...thing is Peter Jackson can't direct to save his life...I've never liked his work.

As for rambling about this subject...couldn't agree more...but to link it back...Antoine Fuqua by contrast is amazing director...Mr Jackson isn't fit to even lick his boots.

[Kelsey]

Just because you don't like someone or something doesn't make them bad, it just means it doesn't appeal to your tastes.

[frodo1511]

Thank you Kelsey. I have no problem w/ Mr. Antoine, he directed one of my favorite movies of all time(Training Day) and if Pete is so bad, than why did he win the best director oscar for ROTK? I'm just giving you crap hassle were just getting our opinions out

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Kelsey

Just because you don't like someone or something doesn't make them bad, it just means it doesn't appeal to your tastes.

And that wasn't off topic

Yeah, well, what does make them bad? There is no objective taste, no objective good or bad...and who gives a flying fuck if the majority like something? I often believe most of the public are thick and need to be taken out back and shot...Ducky suggests reeducation is possible but I'm not so sure

Back to King Arthur...Antoine Fuqua yet again...may remember him from Training Day and others...this his best work or not? (I'm actually curious, I'm not just clinging to try and keep it on topic )

[frodo1511]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

And that wasn't off topic

Yeah, well, what does make them bad? There is no objective taste, no objective good or bad...and who gives a flying fuck if the majority like something? I often believe most of the public are thick and need to be taken out back and shot...Ducky suggests reeducation is possible but I'm not so sure

Back to King Arthur...Antoine Fuqua yet again...may remember him from Training Day and others...this his best work or not? (I'm actually curious, I'm not just clinging to try and keep it on topic )

Two points I agree with you on hassle:
1: the "thick headed public" is damn straight- most see crappy movies, critics give great ones bad scores, and vice-versa(Chicago, LOTR King Arthur, etc...)
2: Antoine's best work I think is King Arthur, do not listen to the shit reviewers tell you about, go with your instinct.

[Jacoby]

Originally Posted by frodo1511

I guess what I am trying to say is that LOTR has the best book to movie transition ever,

You're forgetting One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest aren't you?

[frodo1511]

Originally Posted by Jacoby

You're forgetting One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest aren't you?

Never saw/ read it before. I'm not much of a Jack Nicalous(s/p) fan, although I did like his Joker character on the orighinal Batman, and his work in the Shinning.

[acliff]

Originally Posted by Jacoby

You're forgetting One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest aren't you?

I think they're forgetting Jurassic Park, Silence of the Lambs, and a host of other fantastic book to film translations.

Now I was extremely impressed with Training day. However, KA is a very different type of film, and I haven't seen any real evidence (i haven't seen KA yet, out on the 30th) that he can direct this type. To me the difference is like seeing a movie poster saying:

' "Suspenseful Axe Murderer 3", directed by the director of "Winnie the Pooh, fantastic adventures" '

[frodo1511]

Originally Posted by acliff

I think they're forgetting Jurassic Park, Silence of the Lambs, and a host of other fantastic book to film translations.

Now I was extremely impressed with Training day. However, KA is a very different type of film, and I haven't seen any real evidence (i haven't seen KA yet, out on the 30th) that he can direct this type. To me the difference is like seeing a movie poster saying:

' "Suspenseful Axe Murderer 3", directed by the director of "Winnie the Pooh, fantastic adventures" '

I did like JP, but I hate Steven Spielberg I saw Silence of the Lambs and liked it, but haven't read the book. oh, and acliff, don't worry about Antoine not being able to pull off a movie like this. He does it superbly.

[Spire]

KA isn't even close to PotC, but it doesn't suck either. I shall be buying it as soon as it hits DVD, adding it to my smalll collection.

[Edward]

Antoine Fuqua is the dude!!

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Spire

KA isn't even close to PotC, but it doesn't suck either. I shall be buying it as soon as it hits DVD, adding it to my smalll collection.

Oh dear...if it's not even close to POTC which I felt was an average film carried by a stellar performance by Mr Depp (who so should've won the Oscar...yes...Bill Murray in LIT was good, excellent in fact, but LIT was a far better film with better material...Johnny carried what should've been an average film into the blockbuster stakes), then I'll probably really dislike it...I hope not.