Just saw an advert on TV... looks great! Opinions?

http://kingarthur.movies.go.com/main.html

Really looking forward to this movie. [img]smile.gif[/img]

interesting.. interesting indeed

I saw a preview of it and i think it looks promising.Anyone hear when it is being released?

<font color=skyblue>The link that Jaradu provided in the first post takes you to the movie's homepage, which says that July 7th is the release date...though the movie has not yet been rated. They must be debating over PG-13 or R for violence. </font>

i saw a preview in the theatres, it looked pretty sweet, more combat and a darker theme than most Arthur movies. Also, it looked as if Lancelot was wielding 2 swords at once.

I couldn't get the trailer to play (crashed my browser for some reason), but I see Bruckheimer's name attached to it. I'll definitely wait until it's out a week or two before I see it (to get plenty of information about it). I still don't trust the guy after Pearl Harbor.

Looks execellent, I like the more elabarate battle scenes and magic and weapons as well as wardobe and what not, but that is all because they have to compete with LOTR. Same with troy, i belive all movies now such as Arthur and Troy and others of the Fantasy genre are going to be compared to ROTK and Pellenor feilds.

It purports to be the "true story" but I am dubious. According to a bit o' research I've done, full plate armor and castles did not exist during Arthur's time. In fact, and please -- please -- correct me if I'm wrong, but the real Camelot would have had to have been a Moote and Bailey fortress.

Really? Wasn't he supposed to be a Roman Noble?

<font color=pink>As long as Merlin woops some ass with his magic I'll be happy :D </font>

If he even existed, he was not a roman noble, he was the son of the king at the time, books say Uther. Also, since there is no concrete evidence he existed, we must go by the various books written about him, the foremost would probally be Malory's and White's. Both say he was the son of Uther Pendragon, and both say he fought the Romans in a great war which established him as emperor of europe, though he never claimed such a title. Also, in both there are many castles, most knights and barons and such had them. Also, White suggests that gun powder was discovered at the time and canons were used by Mordred.

There is no 'true story' - the legends of Arthur incorporate stories of probably more than one warlord at different times in what is now known as England, combined with old French legends. The legends are a hotchpotch of bits of myth laced with a small amount of history from different regions and different eras.

The story we are most familiar with is as written by Sir Thomas Malory in 'Le Morte d'Arthur' which he wrote in prison and was published by William Caxton in 1485. Malory felt that he was innocent of the crimes of which he had been convicted, and hence wrote a fictional account of chivalry and good-deeds (he felt himself a chivalrous man who had been wronged) based on a mix of earlier legends.

The film looks like a pile of shite, albeit an expensive pile of shite.

I'd still quite like to go and see it, but I'm not expecting much at all, least of all any iota of historical or literary accuracy (which in a blockbuster big-budget film would be a first)

Just a quick note of spam to say that I agree with absolutely everything you said Epona! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

With so many stories about Arthur, how can we make any kind of assumptions?

<font color=skyblue>Reminder that the movie starts tomorrow. I have a class during the day, so I'll have to wait until after dinner to go see it. </font>

Cool. Let us know how it turns out [img]smile.gif[/img]

Looks very interesting. I am looking forwad to see this one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree with Epona. This movie looks like a vehicle for a vaguely Arthurian epic action movie.

I'm not a huge Bruckheimer fan, but I'll probably see it anyway... and be disappointed by all the historical (cultural and military) inaccuracies, just like Troy.

But Keira Knightly is in it, so it can't be ALL bad. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, I've stopped expecting historical accuracies in films. All it does (for me) is lower the experience of the film, since you can't stop criticising it (well, some you can. ;) ) and I personally thoroughly enjoyed Troy, no matter how inaccurate it was. I think you have to see it as entertainment, and not a historical documentary. I myself know very little about the legends (or myths [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) about King Arthur, other than Merlin was a character, that Arthur formed the Knights of the Round Table (even that could be wrong) and that Arthur wielded a sword called "Excalibur" "thrown at him by some watery tart"...I mean, given to him by a mythical creature. (Sorry, couldn't resist the quote. :D ).

As such, from what I've seen, it looks to be an awesome film. ^_^

[ 07-07-2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: slicer15 ]

<font color=pink>omg, I'm going to see it tonight and the latest showing the theatres around here have is 10:30pm. There's only like 6 showings max today and it came out today, while for Spider Man 2 theres like 15 showings that go into the wee hours of the morning (latest one was at 2:30am!!) And it's been out for a week now. Very gay [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow with my opinion on the movie [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

I enjoyed Troy too, despite the occasional bit of cringe-worthy dialogue. I just lose the flow or "experience" of the movie if I happen to spot something I know is not historically accurate. I don't go looking for errors, but sometimes they jump out at you. Like Greeks fighting from horseback instead of chariot, or the perfect "testudo" by Achilles' vanguard on the beach.

[ 07-07-2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

Im going to see it in about a hour, and im expecting to be thouroughly blown away, Afterall, its not like people go to movies looking for a lesson in history.

<font color=pink>Just got back from seeing it. It ruled! I'll with hold discussion about it until some more people here see it though :D </font>

<font color=skyblue>I aw it and liked it. They tried a new approach to an old story, and tried to make it more "realistic" and I think they did a good job. I got my money's worth. </font>

NYTIMES
July 7, 2004
MOVIE REVIEW | 'KING ARTHUR'

The Once and Future Fury: Knights Go for the Jugular
By A. O. SCOTT

"King Arthur," which opens today nationwide, claims to be "the untold true story that inspired the legend." In the name of accuracy, apparently, some familiar legendary elements have been altered or dropped altogether. Merlin (Stephen Dillane), it turns out, was not a magician but the shadowy leader of the Woads, a guerrilla army of Pictish freedom fighters with stringy hair, blue faces and tattooed bodies. Since the knights of the Round Table are stubbornly pagan (and skeptical of their leader's Christianity, which is wobbly at best), they are not about to go off in search of the Holy Grail. And though Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) at one point casts a smoldering glance in the direction of Guinevere (Keira Knightley), nothing more comes of the mythic triangle of king, queen and knight. Lancelot, in any case, is more of a fighter than a lover, and so, in spite of an obligatory cuddle with Arthur on the night before the big battle, is Guinevere.

Historians will debate the veracity of all this, assuming they have nothing better to do. But it will be clear to most moviegoers that this true story, far from being untold, was inspired by at least a half-dozen previous movies, from "The Seven Samurai" to "Braveheart."

David Franzoni, the screenwriter, also wrote "Gladiator," and Clive Owen's Arthur, like Russell Crowe's Maximus, both faithfully serves the Roman empire and turns against its authoritarian abuses. He and his knights are sent on a rescue mission that recalls the one undertaken by Bruce Willis in "Tears of the Sun," the previous movie directed by Antoine Fuqua, who directed "King Arthur."

Really, though, originality is not the point of this movie, any more than historical verisimilitude is. It is a blunt, glowering B picture, shot in murky fog and battlefield smoke, full of silly-sounding pomposity and swollen music (courtesy of the prolifically bombastic Hans Zimmer). The combat scenes, though boisterous and brutal, are no more coherent than the story, which requires almost as much exposition as the last "Star Wars" movie. Luckily there is an element of broad, brawny camp that prevents "King Arthur" from being a complete drag.

In this version Arthur's knights are a ragged band of foreign conscripts stationed in the shadow of Hadrian's Wall, where they fight an occasional skirmish with the pesky Woads, who gyre and gimble in the wabe. Arthur's mixed parentage — he is half Roman and half British — results in an identity crisis as he simultaneously grows disillusioned with the corruption and cruelty of Rome and succumbs to Guinevere's Woady charms.

Arthur's men, for reasons efficiently explained in the first 10 minutes of the movie, are required to serve the empire for 15 years. They complain about the English weather, which was even drearier back in the fifth century, but their devotion to Arthur is absolute. Although they have earned their freedom, the knights are sent off on one last mission, which acquaints them with both the evils committed in the name of Rome and its church, and with the threat of the Saxon invaders, who are waging a vicious war of conquest with armor-piercing arrows and the scariest blond hair extensions since "White Chicks."

Cerdic, the Saxon leader, is played by Stellan Skarsgard, whose halting, throaty delivery and gleefully hammy villainy confirm his stature as the Swedish Christopher Walken. Cerdic's lieutenant is his son Cynric (Til Schweiger), who sports a spiffy plaited soul patch and a slightly different accent, and who leads the Saxons into a battle on the ice that is the film's most original and satisfying set piece. The rest of it is mostly grunting, roaring and hacking, conducted by some fine, cheerfully slumming actors, notably Ray Winstone (as a lusty, cantankerous knight named Bors) and Mads Mikkelsen (as the enigmatic Tristan).

Arthur, who will somehow establish freedom for England by being declared its king, is a worrier as well as a warrior, and Mr. Owen brings a certain wariness to the role, as if he were, like his character, reluctant to commit the full force of his charisma to a cause he doesn't quite understand. Ms. Knightley, on the other hand, throws herself bodily into every scene, sighing her way through the gauzy love-making montage and appearing at the climactic battle the next morning in face paint and a smashing leather combat brassiere, hurling herself at the Saxon invaders with full-throated Woad rage.

"King Arthur" is rated PG-13. Its brutal battle scenes have been carefully edited to minimize gore, and its lone sex scene does not reveal too much skin.

KING ARTHUR

Directed by Antoine Fuqua; written by David Franzoni; director of photography, Slawomir Idziak; edited by Conrad Buff and Jamie Pearson; music by Hans Zimmer; production designer, Dan Weil; produced by Jerry Bruckheimer; released by Touchstone Pictures/Jerry Bruckheimer Films. Running time: 130 minutes. This film is rated PG-13.

WITH: Clive Owen (Arthur), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan), Joel Edgerton (Gawain), Hugh Dancy (Galahad), Ray Winstone (Bors), Ray Stevenson (Dagonet), Keira Knightley (Guinevere), Stephen Dillane (Merlin), Stellan Skarsgard (Cerdic) and Til Schweiger (Cynric).

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I have to agree really enjoyed the movie worth owning, but I much prefer Jack Whites version of the tale with Uther as his father. If you read the book "Uther", Uther's mother was Roman, as was his best friend and cousin Merlin so Arthur was indeed 50% Roman. Both Arthur's mother and father were killed in battle so Arthur never knew his parents and was raised by Merlin who came out of a coma and was was coming to kill Uther. Merlin rescued Arthur from the boat his mother put him before being captured and killed. Why was Merlin wanting revenge on Uther will you will need to read the book to find out [img]smile.gif[/img] but it is a good book.</font>

[ 12-29-2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]