King Arthur Review. - Page 3 - Keira Knightley.com Forums
Keira Knightley.com Forums  

Go Back   Keira Knightley.com Forums > Keira Boards > Keira's Movies & Projects

Keira's Movies & Projects The place to discuss Keira's movies, projects and anything else you hear with your ear to the ground...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 15-07-2004, 06:34 AM   Senior Registered Member #41
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle_West
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...
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 06:38 AM   Senior Registered Member #42
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoranos
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?
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 06:43 AM   Senior Registered Member #43
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
So the legend does have some fact in it? BTW, I bet that sucked that your bro was complaining all throughout the flick. I would've moved
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 08:17 AM   #44
spitinthacoola
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California, US
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelsey
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.
spitinthacoola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 11:16 AM   #45
alby
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 172
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.
alby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 03:03 PM   Senior Registered Member #46
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by spitinthacoola
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

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"
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 07:58 PM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! Officer #47
Kelsey
Holly Moderator
 
Kelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wild Wild West
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodo1511
YAAH!!! you got it right coola! you win......
nothing
Lol...I was like...election day? I don't know. I saw the opposite of 9/11 and military base and got worried confused.
__________________
~* Kelsey *~

Check out my blog:
http://www.thingsephemeral.blogspot.com
Kelsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 08:30 PM   #48
Kyle_West
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
funny,

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2004, 10:02 PM   #49
Patrick Dunn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sound

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2004, 09:41 AM   Officer #50
DragonRat
Officer
 
DragonRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: California
Posts: 507
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?
__________________
"I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good, and we're just wasting time." - Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005)

"Football is about if you want to run and fight for each other, if you really want to play that killer ball." - Robin van Persie, Arsenal FC
DragonRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2004, 07:06 PM   Senior Registered Member #51
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonRat
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 . 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
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2004, 07:46 PM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! Officer #52
Kelsey
Holly Moderator
 
Kelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wild Wild West
Posts: 1,188
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?
__________________
~* Kelsey *~

Check out my blog:
http://www.thingsephemeral.blogspot.com
Kelsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2004, 01:05 AM   Senior Registered Member #53
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelsey
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
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2004, 01:28 AM   #54
Kyle_West
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The Wodes wanted her gone, she was to bossy.



Eh, good enough for me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2004, 01:33 AM   Senior Registered Member #55
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle_West
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
, 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
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2004, 09:50 AM   #56
Wake
Newcomer
 
Wake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona...long ways from England.
Posts: 8
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.
__________________
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees - Emiliano Zapato
Wake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2004, 04:52 PM   #57
goldenfish209
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
aaaaaggggghhh

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2004, 05:18 PM   Senior Registered Member #58
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenfish209
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
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
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..."
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2004, 06:08 AM   #59
MaizCascara
Newcomer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 20
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)
MaizCascara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2004, 06:37 AM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! Officer #60
Kelsey
Holly Moderator
 
Kelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wild Wild West
Posts: 1,188
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.
__________________
~* Kelsey *~

Check out my blog:
http://www.thingsephemeral.blogspot.com
Kelsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
By appointment to HM Keira Knightley.