KING ARTHUR 2004 FILM

King Arthur Film

Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman Empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.

Although the legend of King Arthur has not been historically established as fact, this film will attempt to place King Arthur within his possible historic context, smack between the fall of the Roman Empire (just a few hundred years after Gladiator) and the long road through the Dark Ages (roughly set in the 5th or 6th centuries). The magic and fantasy of the legend will be absent (Merlin may still be around; just not performing the magic seen in Excalibur).

Owen reveals that his character "is half-Roman. He's a commander of a crack team of military knights who, at the beginning of the movie, gets the mission from hell ? to go into dangerous, unknown territory and rescue a family as the Saxons are invading by the thousands, and the rebels are out there fighting.

Meanwhile, Arthur has always held onto Rome as something he wants to return to and something he reveres, but it keeps changing. ... His faith is called into question." King Arthur is ultimately "about how he begins to accept the place where he lives and the people who he's with. He becomes a man of the people." Thanks to the Chicago Sun-Times



Release Date: July 7, 2004
Studio: Touchstone Pictures
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Screenwriter: David Franzoni
Starring: Clive Owen, Stephen Dillane, Keira Knightley, Hugh Dancy, Ioan Gruffudd, Stellan Skarsgaard, Ray Winstone, Valeria Cavalli, Charlie Creed-Miles, Joel Edgerton, Sean Gilder, Pat Kinevane, Ivano Marescotti, Mads Mikkelsen, Til Schweiger, Ray Stevenson, Ken Stott
Genre: Action, Drama
MPAA Rating: Not available
Official Website: Not available
Review: Not available
DVD/VHS: Not available
Movie Poster: Not available

Plot Summary: The story about the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.

 

The Warlord Chronicles trilogy by historical novelist Bernard Cornwell also provides a very realistic vision of Arthur. The books are "The Winter King," "Enemy of God," and "Excalibur." Fascinating reads, IMO.

 

Ioan Gruffudd

That's all I needed to see...

And I didn't know Joel Edgerton is going to be in this...so, Owen Lars meets Horatio Hornblower, good, all good.

 

Keira Knightley

yes

 

JeremyGuy...I know exactly how you fell about the Warlord Chronicles books by Bernard Cormwell. In fact that is why I am interested in this movie.

Cormwell rewrote the romantacized version in the real setting of Arthuur. And the battles are so well described.

Cormwell is know writing a trilogy about the 100 year wars.

 

Keira Knightley is all that's needed for me to book my seat.

 

I'm a great fan of Keira Knightly too.

But I'm an Arthurian fan as well, and am interested in a film which will FINALLY set Arthur in his CORRECT dark Ages setting.

I hated First Knight.

 

Keira's in it?

I'll be there.

 

The Following has nothing to do with the film, but is a text written by Nennius in the 9th century...thus one of the few records about the REAL Arthur, thus gives many hints about what the upcoming film will be like:

At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent.

Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ["dux bellorum"].


His first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. His second, third, fourth, and fifth battles were above another river which is called Dubglas and is in the region of Linnuis.

The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the forest of Celidon, that is Cat Coit Celidon.

The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them.

The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion. The tenth battle was waged on the banks of a river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was fought on the mountain which is called Agnet.

The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all the wars he emerged as victor.

And while they were being defeated in all the battles, they were seeking assistance from Germany and their numbers were being augmented many times over without interruption.

And they brought over kings from Germany that they might reign over them in Britain, right down to the time in which Ida reigned, who was son of Eobba. He was the first king in Bernicia, i.e., in Berneich.

 

Oh boy, all you people excited about Keira are in for a treat this time. Have you seen the pictures?

 

The pics are cool. The film is very well researched. Portrays the reality of the Dark Ages.

 

Mads Mikkelsen? He is one of our famous Danish actors. I didn´t think he did intenational films.

 

Eh. I like the typical Arthurian legend. I don't care if it's historically and scientifically dated correctly, I want the proper stories.

Such as: Guinevere was not a warrior woman. She sewed. I don't want to see any of that in this. It's pathetic.

 

All they know about the REAL HISTORICAL Guinevere was that she had red hair.

In the film, she's going to be a Warrior Woman.

 

In the film, she's going to be a Warrior Woman.

In the stories, she isn't. Complaining ensues.

 

Keira Knightley

yes

yes

 

In the stories, she isn't.

In the romantacized versions of the story she isn't. In stories were everythings nice, and colourfull, and Camelot's a wonderful city, and clothes are bright...and those rubbishy tales.

I've read heaps of much more realistic Arthur Stories, which depict the times in which Arthur really lived much better...


so like Merlin was a druid, Camelot was a dirty vilage of simple huts, there was no magic, the Knights in shining armour were starving brutal warrior, and Guinevere's a warrior woman.

Of course, this doesn't mean that this is what actually happened. BUT it's a much more realistic interpretation of what may have happened.

I hope the movie will grasp this Arthurian aspect.

 

BUT it's a much more realistic interpretation of what may have happened.

I don't want a realistic interpretation. I want to watch a movie that bears some resemblance to the source material.






And Keira is overrated. Go away.

 

"Keira Knightley is in it" is all you had to say

Oh, and the King Arthur pictures

[image=http://www.youthink.com/photos/f_photo/C218683425836f_photo.jpg]

[image=http://home.accglobal.net/~707727/images/king_arthur/king-arthur-movie-lg-67.jpg]

[image=http://home.accglobal.net/~707727/images/king_arthur/king-arthur-movie-lg-63.jpg]

 

Gr. Fishi, stop making sense.

People this film is horrid. It's perverting the true legend, so as to give you fanboys a blue-painted glimpse at Keira's body, when in fact Guinevere was NOT A WARRIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, let alone a psycho warrior woman of the woods.

That's hardly realistic for a film touting itself on a 'realistic' portrayal.

 

I don't want a realistic interpretation. I want to watch a movie that bears some resemblance to the source material.

That is your opinion, and I accept it totally.

However, I didn't like First Knight(which portrays the romantacized classical version of King Arthur)

Also...I read these books by Bernard Cormwell, which totally changed the way I looked at Arthur and his history.

Arthur not as a King, but as a great warrior leader.

Most people are interested in the Sword in the stone, and Lady of the Lake tales, but what I really admire about the REAL historical Arthur is that during his lifetime, he manged to stop the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

He paused history...it was only after he died that the Saxons won England.



Darth_Kisto...thanks a lot for the pics.

 

Knightly? I'll be there.

Is she going to be Lady Guineverre?

 

Guinevere was NOT A WARRIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, let alone a psycho warrior woman of the woods.

I'm happy a discussion is going on here. And I again say that I respect your opinion.

But no one really knows what Guinevere was.

I agree the romantqacized, classical, most popular version of Guinevere's character was that she was not a warrior.

BUT

The Warlord chronicle books portray her as a warrior...(she sets a wagon aflame and flings it to the enemy)

Of course, this may be fictitios.

But due to these great books I read, I do imagine her as a great warrior.

Of course people who like the more popular version of the Arthur tales...were everything is nice and pretty would find this difficult to accept.

 

what I really admire about the REAL historical Arthur

There is no real historical Arthur. There are only the lovely romanticised tales, and that's what the movies should be about.


Of course people who like the more popular version of the Arthur tales...were everything is nice and pretty would find this difficult to accept.

Nice and pretty? It's some of the most *&%@ed up stories in history. Incest, war and infidelity... oooh, cheerful bedtime tales.

 

There is no real historical Arthur

That is incorrect. There are many documents about him...I posted one in this thread. It is a direct translation of what was wriiten in the Dark Ages. (look above)

However...you are right in saying that the REAL Story of Arthur is not known.

BUT an Arthur...not a King, he was a leader, and really existed.