King Arthur
#21
Quote: I was unfamiliar with Ioan Gruffund before this, but I hope to see him again soon.

Check out his "Hornblower" movies on A&E. (I think they're all out on video and dvd now too.) Not sure if they count as a mini-series, or a series of tv-movie, or what, but they are excellent. He plays a Napoleonic-era naval hero as a young man, from a popular series of novels several generations before "Master and Commander." He was also the hero of "102 Dalmatians." Wink Oh, and he was the young officer who picks up Rose from the water in "Titanic."

Interestingly, being of Welsh origin, he pronounces his name "Yo-un Griffith."
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#22
My favourite Arthur movie is still Boorman's Excalibur.

Hi Valandil! *waves*
Reply
#23
I just saw this movie today and I have mixed feelings on the film...

PROS: I thought that the whole concept was fascinating. I have been waiting for a film about a different take on the King Arthur legend after reading the Mists of Avalon 3 years ago! The scenery was very artistic and beautiful and I adored Guenivere as a warrior! The costumes were exquisite and the battles were very unique and nail-biting. It had comic relief throughout the film and beautiful music. The acting was very good and I am starting to enjoy Knightly much more as I see her in more and mrore films... I have seen Launcelot in other films a while ago and was pleased to see him again on the screen.

CONS: They really needed to work on character development! It is one of the key points in story-making. They killed off my two favorite knights as well! It had the potential to be a great epic film but lost it because it was much too short... almost like they cut out a whole battle scene or something!

All in all I think that it is definately worth the money to go see it in the theature :o)
*Back to the Future~ George McFly: Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told me that if I didn't take Lorraine out that he'd melt my brain!
Reply
#24
Quote:Originally posted by Lady Eowyn
CONS: They really needed to work on character development! It is one of the key points in story-making. They killed off my two favorite knights as well! It had the potential to be a great epic film but lost it because it was much too short... almost like they cut out a whole battle scene or something!


In some ways they did. They were forced to make a lot of last-minute editing to bring it down to PG-13. Ironically, the rating wouldn't have changed over here if they hadn't.
Life sucks. Unless bad things happen, you can't be sure you're actually alive.
Reply
#25
Quote:Originally posted by BeardofPants
My favourite Arthur movie is still Boorman's Excalibur.

Hi Valandil! *waves*


Hi BoPper! *waves back at BeardofPants*

Come here often? Wink

Yes - I like Excalibur too! If I'm getting a fictionalized version anyway, I prefer Malory's book - and Excalibur as a movie - since it sticks closest to Malory. I've seen what I consider better attempts (than this current movie) at historical truth - at least in book form - and that's where my current interest lies.

Haven't seen the movie yet and I'm confused. My early impressions were that it would be 2nd century - yet someone referred to 467 AD - 5th century. Is that when it's set? If so, there were no more Roman troops on the island. In 410, island leaders had sent an appeal to Rome, asking the emporer to send troops back (the legions had left in previous centuries either to stage an attempted coup of their own - or to help put down someone else's revolt). That same year - 410 - The emporer replied that he could send no help and advised the Britons to take up arms in their own defense - against the Picts in the north, the Scots who raided from Ireland and the Saxons who raided the south and east shores (not yet as big a problem as the first two, I think).

So anyway - Roman soldiers in 467 Britain is historically inaccurate.
Reply
#26
Quote:Originally posted by Valandil
So anyway - Roman soldiers in 467 Britain is historically inaccurate.


Don't go looking for historical accuracy when Jerry Bruckheimer is attached. It will never happen.

It unfortunate too, this film did have potential, but a number of factors coalesced to make this film less than it was. Originally, the film was scheduled for release at Christmas time, which would have fit its initially dark and brooding mood. However, Disney and Bruckheimer moved the release date up to the Summer, and tried to tout it as a summer blockbuster. That meant, of course, that the plan for it to have a hard R rating had to be scrapped, and the movie had to be shot for a PG-13 rating, in order to draw the larger audiences that mack such productions successful. That also meant that Knightley's character of Guinevere was softened up quite a bit (initially she seduced both Arthur and Lancelot in order to tie them to her cause and that of her people).

Ultimately, the movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be, and so it failed on many levels. Don't get me wrong. I liked the film, and thought the story had great potential. Clive Owen was excellent, Ioan Gruffudd was too, and who didn't love Ray Stevenson as Bors, "Like a babies arm . . . holding an apple." I had no doubt that the men on whom the legend of Arthur and his knights were based had as much Bors in them as they did Arthur and Lancelot.

Overall, though, I would suggest you wait for the film on DVD is you want to see it.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#27
Poor Sir Bors.... if I'm not mistaken, he was the knight whose head got ripped off by the killer bunny in "Holy Grail." :lol
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#28
Just saw it and enjoyed it very much. Won't repeat all my historical ranting from earlier in this thread, but it wasn't bad history for Hollywood.

I like the characters, felt that they were believable in their actions and motivations, and I liked the lack of magic and mysticism. I can see this as an attampt at a plausible story of a Romano-British leader, whose legend could turn into the Arthur tales.

I thought the acting was good. I liked the grittier portrayal of the Knights, which would be much more accurate for a Dark Ages war band than the flowery excrement Mallory wrote.. I liked the way the threat of the Saxons helped unite the former Roman comander and the native Britons, which is consistent with most versions of the legend.

I don't have any complaints, really. Maybe it did feel a bit rushed, and maybe it was cast in the mold of summer blockbuster, but it was a lot of fun, and well worrth the price of admission, IMO.

I disagree with RR. Go see it on the big screen. If nothing else, it's a beautiful film, and the cinemtography deserves a big screen.
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#29
Quote:Originally posted by Athena
I'm a bit turned off that once again they have a big boobed small waisted woman play the leading lady. Suprise suprise, it's Kiera Knightley *sighs*

I just don't think she's right for the part of Gwen.

And is it just me or does that Excalibur look like ornamental tin foil?



To set the record a bit straighter:

Keira actually went up a dress size (due to all the athletic training she needed to take to get in shape for the role ie put on muscle). And, the downunder papers have been running several articles that mention "Keira wishes she were more top lofty in one that one department you mentioned". She actually is very petite.
Reply
#30
As I mentioned before (on another board)...the audience are the final judges on this films potential as a 'stayer'.

The box office receipts for opening weekend show:

Still in No. 1 Spiderman II
No. 2 Anchorman (a 70's spoof on the newsmedia)
No. 3 Arthur

With all the hype, Arthur should have surplanted: Spiderman and been no. 1 (especially over a film like "Anchorman").
Reply
#31
Well, just saw it tonight, so here's my two cents, although I see it's all been discussed at length already.

I enjoyed watching it, but I felt it had serious flaws. Very little character development. Possibly a poor choice in directors, although I just read in a EW that Fuqua didn't exactly get to make the film as he wanted, so that could be a factor.

Altogether, it felt like it misused Clive Owen and Keira Knightly.
Reply
#32
Just for the record, second weekend after opening, King Arthur dropped to 6th place.

Sad, the film had a good cast and an intesting storyline.
Reply
#33
Quote:Originally posted by CAP
Just for the record, second weekend after opening, King Arthur dropped to 6th place.

Sad, the film had a good cast and an intesting storyline.


I agree. The story could have been so much better with more character devolpment, though. But as it stood it was a great start. I hope that we get a directors edition dvd, because the more I look into it, it seems that studio politics and the PG-13 rating really inhibited the movie.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Video: The Vagabond King Michael 1 136 April 3rd, 2021, 03:52 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Godzilla vs King Kong trailer badlands 2 303 February 6th, 2021, 01:25 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Michael's Thoughts on 'The Monkey King: Havoc in Heaven's Palace' Michael 0 714 March 24th, 2020, 07:03 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Video: Trailer for "The King's Man" Michael 0 344 October 21st, 2019, 10:45 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Godzilla the king of monsters badlands 2 348 July 6th, 2019, 03:54 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Video: Trailer for "Godzilla: King of the Monsters" FilmGuy 0 325 July 21st, 2018, 10:00 PM
Last Post: FilmGuy
  The bronze bow, the King's fifth and the island of blue dolphins movies badlands 2 350 May 7th, 2015, 11:41 PM
Last Post: badlands
  King Solomon's Treasure Space Marshal 1 3,670 November 21st, 2013, 07:19 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Peter Jackson's King Kong The Thunder Child 20 1,782 April 13th, 2009, 12:09 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  king kong: Peter Jackson version badlands 1 447 April 13th, 2009, 12:08 PM
Last Post: RobRoy

Forum Jump: