King Arthur Review. - Page 5 - 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 08-09-2004, 03:16 PM   #81
The Black Rider
Member
 
The Black Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Jersey (Unfortunately)
Posts: 192
It was okay. Not terrible but not particularly great either. The acting was pretty good (esp. Ray Winstone, Stellan SkarsgÄrd, 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.
__________________
"As long as the music's loud enough we won't hear the world falling apart."
The Black Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2004, 11:13 PM   Senior Registered Member #82
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
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.
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 04:17 PM   Senior Registered Member #83
KeirazBabe
The Kewlest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Windsor, U.K
Posts: 407
Quick review, i actually surprising thoroughly enjoyed the film

xXx
__________________
Megan xXx
- Wear It Proud -
~* 1st Member & Founder Of Keiraz Posse! *~
KeirazBabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 03:10 PM   #84
The Black Rider
Member
 
The Black Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Jersey (Unfortunately)
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodo1511
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.
__________________
"As long as the music's loud enough we won't hear the world falling apart."
The Black Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 08:46 PM   Senior Registered Member #85
frodo1511
Pin Dick
 
frodo1511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,400
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
__________________
Believe...
frodo1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 02:22 PM   #86
The Black Rider
Member
 
The Black Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Jersey (Unfortunately)
Posts: 192
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.
__________________
"As long as the music's loud enough we won't hear the world falling apart."
The Black Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 09:43 AM   #87
Margo Channing
Newcomer
 
Margo Channing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25
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.
__________________
Heaven help me. I love a psychotic!
Margo Channing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2004, 06:01 PM   #88
bob
Member
 
bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 240
^ 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.
bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2004, 09:04 PM   #89
Margo Channing
Newcomer
 
Margo Channing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Quote:
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.
__________________
Heaven help me. I love a psychotic!
Margo Channing 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 03:46 PM.


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