King Arthur

There isn't really one true King Arthur story, but this one is the closest put to film thus far.

I will try and see this film next Thursday or Friday. So far most people seem to think it's good but not great, which is what I'm expecting so hopefully I will like it

 

..i think it's more accurate to call it "Mediocre...not good.."

 

I thought it was a good popcorn flick. Which is why I paid hard earned money to see it.
Especially liked the whole 'brotherhood' aspect with the Knights being Salmatians, and yet devoted to Arthur a half Roman.
Loved Bors as the comic relief, though I thought it was hilarious that the majority of people laughing at his brutish comments were women.
I don't see why the critics (whining mongrels) are attacking this film. Is it because it's an Arthurian film, or because they have nothing better to do. Honestly I don't know why people are swiping this film off IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY SEEN IT.

 

I felt it was a great movie. Its a very different look at the Myth of King Arthur. If you love the Arthur movies that are more like fairy tales, I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie unless you have a open mind.

 

i read malory in the 4th grade. needlesstosay, king arthur is a passion for me. i am writing my masters thesis on the subject actually and i have yet seen this movie. the wiseguys on rawdog comedy said it was a piece of .... the idea that he is roman just gets me. he is welsh with roman tendencies. i just dont have an open mind yet.

 

Well, I posted earlier in this thread with my review of the movie, and honestly the movie just perplexes me because the more I think about the movie and the more time that passes between the last time I saw the movie, the more I think I like it. I can't explain it. I guess I'll just have to see it again sometime

 

I saw the film this past weekend and left the theater feeling rather disappointed. I can handle the changes to the story/timeline just fine, in fact I liked the new take on the story. But I did not like the way the story was executed.

I like to feel emotionally attached to the characters so that I care about what becomes of them by the film's end. With this movie I just didn't feel any emotional attachment to a single one of them. (Except the bird! I felt bad for the bird. ) Whether that's my fault or the film's, I'm not sure.

Maybe I need to see it again, but I think I'll still leave the theater wanting more character development.

 

I saw the film last weekend.

The Music was really good - though it was too reminiscient of LOTR and some of the stuff just looked like LOTR:TTT with snow.

Character development was non-existant, unfortunately...I would have lover more in depth though it was obvious those few fleeting glances indicated at least some attraction btwn Lancelot and Guinevere, it was not enough.

Plot - was just so-so. Not really much plot, and it didn't flow, and that Roman idiot - i don't know why Arthur didn't just say that it was the Pope's orders -I mean they would have had to listen to that....

Keira Knightley was hot though

I wouldn't however, recommend it was one of the films you would watch and watch again

 

It'll be good to see the version that Fuqua originally made; they cut the heck out of it at the last minute so that it would make a good Summer pg-13 flick, rather than the winter R movie that was planned. The director's pretty hacked, of course, but they say they'll release the "real" on DVD for those who want it. /Haven't seen it, blames Bruckheimer./

 

are you sure?
where did you hear that?
I hate it when they do that *grrrr*

-Mel

 

There was a several pages long article summing it up in a recent Entertainment Weekly.
Execs complained that original was too depressing, and they had to remove a lot out of the fights and the sex (the parts with Guin. making the first moves and handily removing people's craniums), and filmed an entirely new, upbeat ending. Basically, they turned it from a winter adult historical thriller to a summer teenie popcorn flick.
Hurrah for execs.

 

I thought King Arthur was a very good movie. It was naturally epic, and better than Troy in my opinion.

 

This same problem occured with The Chronicles of Riddick. Now, I enjoyed Riddick, but the studio execs forced the removal of a lot of scenes that would have made the movie more than a simple sci-fi/action film.

I love those brilliant, greedy studio executives

 

Basically, they turned it from a winter adult historical thriller to a summer teenie popcorn flick.

And what I wanted out of that film was an adult historical thriller.

 

When I first heared about this film last year, it was scheduled for a Christmas 2004 release (I guessed they wanted it to be this years LotR film) and so I was quite surprised when I found out it was being released in July instead.
So I think that backs-up any claims that the Studio interfered....sadly.

It really cuts me up when they do that
Why do they suddenly think they can be film-makers and go againts the director?
They think they know how to make a film into a money making machine, and yet they also still claim that there is no winning formula for a financial successful film, so why do they continue to presume to know??

I just hope WB don't do the same with Batman Begins next year....for once just let us have a film that we really, really want!!

Okay, that's my rant over with
But if there is a special director's cut, then I really hope it does get released eventually

 

those damn execs!
and I wanted to see this movie so badly - also cause Antoine Fuqua is directing - and then the shred it like this

-Mel

 

Ok, I posted this in the King Arthur thread in the YJCC, but right afterwards I thought that it was probably more suited in this thread, so if it's ok, I'll repost it here..


The other day, I was just kind of thinking of what would make this movie better, and in my opinion, I think they should have made the knights Britains just like Arthur and under Roman obligation to fight. I just feel this would have made the movie more emotional and powerful as it would have shown "all the Britains" uniting to save their land from the evil Saxons. I mean, to me, the knights being Salmation really did nothing to the story but complicate it by making the audience wonder why the heck they would risk their lives to protect a country not their own after they're finally free to go back to their home. I don't know if having the knights be Salmation makes the film more "historically accurate" or what, but I just think that is one thing in the film that I would change. Maybe that's just me though

 

Mel, I would still go and see this film if I were you. You may still like what it has to offer and there is bound to be traces of what the director initally intended to make and show. I'm still going to see it despite knowing there's a chance I might not like it

I don't know if having the knights be Salmation makes the film more "historically accurate" or what

One of the advisors did an interview on British TV last week, and they said the makers wanted to try and make it as historically accurate as possible (with some exceptions I'm sure), so I'm guess that's why the Knights were Salmation. But I agree with you that it seems strange that they were prepared to fight (and die) for a country they had nothing to do with. Maybe there is a reason behind it (some sort of reward and/or honour for victory??)

I hope to see the film next week now (not this week as I said before, d-oh!) so I might be able to answer that question a bit better and hoepfully form a final opinion on the film too

 

Mel, I would still go and see this film if I were you. You may still like what it has to offer and there is bound to be traces of what the director initally intended to make and show. I'm still going to see it despite knowing there's a chance I might not like it

thanks Lord-Tice, I will!!!
even something as horrible as this will not stop me from going to see this movie with my very own eyes!!!!
gotta wait 2 more weeks til its shown here

-Mel

 

I managed to see the film yesterday, and overall I thought it was good.

It seemed to take a while to really warm up, but once the plot kicked in it seemed to flow much better. The story was adequate, but I do feel a bit more depth was required in some places, especially for building the characters up (especially for someone like Tristan who felt slightly wasted at times).
You can't fault the production values, and the photography was good. Personally, I wasn't too convinced by some of the performances. I was never over joyed when I heared Clive Owen was playing Arthur, and to me his voice just seemed too flat most of the time. And Ray Winstone just seemed to mumble his way through which is a shame because he's a great actor. However, Keira was great and Ioan Gruffudd pulled off Lancelot very well.

I think this film will get better with time, and if a director's cut does get released, I'm sure it can only improve upon what is a decent enough film.

I also think I can answer your question now Esperanza_Nueva:
Once Arthur met with Guinevere, I think she basically convinced him he was half British (because of his mother) and so he came to the conclusion that he should stay and fight off the Saxons. The other Knights also decided to fight because they wanted to show loyalty to Arthur, who had led them so well for many years. And also because they strongly believe in freedom, even though they weren't fighting for their own freedom they were still fighting for its basic concept

 

My one big complaint with this movie is with the characters. There is little to no backstory given to any of them. Who is Arthur? He's some guy who's become the leader of this group of soldiers. Lancelot is at least given a little scene at the beginning. Guinevere is a British woman. Is she a person of any importance? Well, she lives in the woods with the most puzzling character of all - Merlin. He's an old man who apparently leads the Britons. No backstory, no explanation, nothing. He has absolutely no purpose in the film, other than to lend his name to it. If someone feels that th

 

please continue.

-Mel

 

I also think I can answer your question now Esperanza_Nueva:
Once Arthur met with Guinevere, I think she basically convinced him he was half British (because of his mother) and so he came to the conclusion that he should stay and fight off the Saxons. The other Knights also decided to fight because they wanted to show loyalty to Arthur, who had led them so well for many years. And also because they strongly believe in freedom, even though they weren't fighting for their own freedom they were still fighting for its basic concept


Ah thank you for your perspective on that. I was looking at it in a similar way, but not quite from that angle, and I definitely liked the way you put it. I guess my main problem with the movie was that all this was so implied. I think that the reasons why each character is fighting is an extremely important part of the story and was therefore disappointed when it was so downplayed. I definitely agree with those people who say this movie will get better with time. I saw this movie, maybe a month ago? And when I think back on the movie, I like it better than I did on first reaction.