King Arthur | | Cast : | Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Stephen Dillane | | Director : | Antoine Fuqua | | Studio : | Buena Vista Home Vid | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | July 07, 2004 | | DVD Released Date : | December 21, 2004 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 08, 2005 | | Summary | Oi! It's King Arfa wiff is likely lads. | Content
 | The only redeeming feature of this movie is the photography. The acting, dialogue and storyline could be straight out of the type of C grade matinee fodder churned out in the 1950s. Clive Owen is a wooden and boring King Arthur, who only starts to get interesting when he doesn't talk and we are'nt listening to his boring, cliched pronouncements. The "Joe the Greengrocer" accents of some of the " Romans" are laughable and need subtitles. The battles look like they are taken from a Chinese martial arts movie.
I could go on and on ... Unfortunately so does the movie. |
| Rating | | | Date | August 07, 2005 | | Summary | Nothing Special... | Content
| This movie is either hated or loved, I guess you as the viewer will have to take the pick. I myself thought it was nothing special from all the other King Arthur movies made. They tried I guess to make the movie different this time by hacking out a lot of the old story that has repeatedly been done on so many other movies and they thought this would make it better. Honestly it really didn't. It just made King Arthur fans like I disappointed and somewhat bitter. I can understand they wanted to make it a little different but it didn't seem right all the things they changed.
A lot of it seemed unreal and totally barren. Like Merlin, why is it you see him so little, when in the other Arthur films he is the main star? And Arthur hated him in this film, instead of considering him a true friend like in the other films? One of the largest reasons I liked the King Arthur story was because of Merlin. You do not see him though hardly ever in this film though so don't expect him to be. And Guniverye (I can never spell that name right) she was very unrealistic in this film for many reasons. I know they wanted a strong female image but back then women, especially half- starved women with a wounded hand did not fight alongside men. That was very unrealistic. Then the whole essence of passion in the love triangle of Lancelot and Arthur with G. was so vague in this film, when it was supposed to be one of the biggest problems in the whole story. They hacked a lot out of this story definitely, a lot of the stuff that made the story of King Arthur so popular in the first place. So yes, the movie loses major points on this. And the other thing is again, even with all those changes I may have enjoyed the movie nonetheless if the changes were interesting, which they weren't. They were changes that made once a fascinating, mystical legend just to me another historic movie with a few battle scenes, a few words of honor, and then the credits. And since I do enjoy historic movies, I thought this one was all right, it isn't terrible, but it was nothing worth watching again.
There has been better historic movies, and definitely better King Arthur films so I advise watching this movie once, and take your decision of it. Then watch an original story of King Arthur in film. Then you decide which is better. The modern tale, or the original tale. It probably will be a different opinion for everyone, but honestly I prefer the original. |
| Rating | | | Date | August 07, 2005 | | Summary | Quickly becoming One of my Favorite Movies! | Content
| This is a great action movie. Granted, it's not the classic King Arthur myth, but the basic themes are still there: honor, the brotherhood of soldiers, epic battles, etc. Additionally, this version delves into issues such as Christian free will, the survival of a civilization in the face of a violent foe, and even the relationship between church and state (which makes King Arthur a very timely movie on multiple fronts).
As to the history question. I don't know, and ultimately, I don't care. Whether this version is accurate or not, we know for a fact that it is more plausible than any previous version (the Arthurian tales of Le Morte de Arthur were all obviously false because of the basic anachronism of their setting). Whether there really was an Arturus or not, it's likely that there was someone who lived in a world similar to this one. That makes the movie worthwhile, even if the Arthurian connections were discredited (which they havn't been in the least).
RECOMMENDED! |
| Rating | | | Date | August 07, 2005 | | Summary | New Historical Evidence??? | Content
| In the beginning the movie cites new historical evidence to contradict the Arthurian myths and legends. That sounded like a movie that I would really be interested in as I had done some reading on this subject and new none of it was likely. I would love to know what historical evidence supports this movie.
First off the screenplay writer defends his research with works by Linda Malcor. Linda Malcor is highly regarded as a historical crackpot. The Arthur she cites almost certainly lived 200-300 years prior to this movie's time frame. The Arthur presented in this film is not plausible at all.
What research did he use to have the Saxons invade from the north. It is a historical absolute that the Saxon invasions came from the south and the east. Why on earth would they come from the north when the Celts would have decimated them at that time?
More credible historians using actual history believe that Arthur was a Welt or Brit chieftain who put together a small kingdom. In fact they believe they may have excavated his original home.
As for the religious depiction of this film it is shaky at best. Although the Catholic Church was very corrupt, hence the reformation, it is highly unlikely that the corruption started this early in time. This is more of a depiction of the Spanish Inquisition.
Here are a few questions:
How can a woman starved nearly to death with a badly broken hand shoot arrows and fight better than men twice her size?
Why do all of Arthur's knights have Germanic names not Samatian names?
Why does Arthur talk so much about freedom and non slavery when those concepts did not exist at that time and would not for a long long time?
Why does Arthur become so chivalrous when that too would certainly not exist for several hundred years?
Why do barbarians recognize signs of truce and not kill the only person that could possibly oppose them?
This movie was awful. The battles were bloody massacres on open fields and frozen lakes. They were completely unrealistic. The history on this one is all wrong according to archaeology, written history, and common sense.
|
| Rating | | | Date | August 06, 2005 | | Summary | Hollywood trying to do a film based on british history, fails big time | Content
| This film was very poorly done. When I first heard that Clive Owen (Sin City) and Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) were making a movie based on the real King Arthur and focusing on him as a Roman general, I thought "Hollywood, what are you doing?" Just out of curiousity, I went in and watched it. I thought the film was rubbish. The film crew defiantly did not study our history. Arthur was not a roman soldier, he even wasnt half roman at all. The british were saxon, not roman. Guinevere was not a woman warrior. Yes she did fell in love with Arthur but she cheated on him with Lancelot. Lancelot did not die, he didn't even die at all. At the end of the film, the archers fired arrows to the sea near Stone Henge. . . . .there's no sight of sea in the area of Stone Henge, there wasnt any sea during that time! Jerry Bruckheimer may make really great films but this one was just terrible (and dont forget the terrible Pearl Harbour) The fight scenes were good but that was hardly anything. The story was rubbish, basicly the thought of making Arthur roman was rubbish. It just shows you that Hollywood cannot make a film based on European history. Sorry Hollywood but you might as well stick on making films on your own history (but dont make it cheesy and too patriotic) As I am british and was focusing on british history, my advice is to you people in america; study our history, not watch them from movies. |
|
Picture 01 (20)
