King Arthur Movie Review (Spoilers)
General Discussion
Pages: 1
King Arthur Movie Review (Spoilers)
0
posted07/11/2004 02:01 AM (UTC)by
About Me
Ghostdragon - Fan Submission Director ghostdragon@mortalkombatonline.com
Mortal Kombat Online - The Ultimate Mortal Kombat Experience
http://www.mortalkombatonline.com
-Isaac Watts
Member Since
02/17/2003 08:46 PM (UTC)
I have to say that Antoine Fuqua(Training Day & Tears Of The Sun) did a good job in directing this movie.
The one thing that stood out was the fact that they weren't following the Knights Of The Round Table or Excalibur m.o. This movie is based from history based from the 15th century where Artur, who served in The Roman Empire, led his Knights, all of who were decendants of a people callled Samaritans if I remember correctly. So no Lady of the Lake, or Excalibur being a magical sword or anything.
It's a well acted movie with a great supporting cast. Clive Owen (Crupier and I'll Sleep When I'm Dead) plays a magnetic Artur who has the loaylty of his Knights and also care for thei freedom when their service to the Empire is due to end.
Good
The movie tells a differnt history of Arthur and how he became king. His beliefs make give him a differnt nobility that the numerous Arthur's in the movies we have seen before have had. He explains in one scene that the reason for the round table is that every man who sits at the table is equal.
The action was good and there wasn't a heavy use of special effects. There's a battle on a ice shelf in a valley that is pretty badass. Although it only comprises of a Saxon army and the Knights trading vollies of arrows, it was nice. This is also where one of the Knights dies, however how it happens is fitting of this movie and it was honorable within the situation they found themselves in.
The acting was good with Clive Owen (Artur) and Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot) having some good scenes together.
The historical aspect was well researched and I leard some things that I didn't know about The Roman Empire's rule over Britain.
The military tatics used in some of the major battles, especially in the final battle, was good to see, because I would have been disappointed if they merely consisted of warriors just rusheing at each other without thinking about the terrian they are fighting on. This was well done!
So-So
I really don't have any huge problems with the movie, but some aspects could have been expanded upon.
The Knights themselves are some of the ruffest and tightest buggers I've seen in a movie in a long while. While they do have moments for some character development, I feel that if each of them had 2-3 scenes where more of their characters could have come to the surface, they would have been perfect. "Bors" (Ray Winstone Sexy Beast is one of the Knights that I would take with me in any battle. He provides some of the funniest lines in the film, but don't get me wrong. There's no comedy in this movie.
Ioan Gruffudd (Haratio Hornblower)plays a charming "Lancelot" that wields two swords like a swordsman, but doesn't the ladykiller we all think of previous Lancelots.
The thing is, I can't be as descriptive about the other Knights I'm afraid.
I got a sense of their personalities, but they didn't come to the surface. It's in the scenes where they are together when their 'brotherhood' sort of relationship shines. I remember seeing Knights Of The Round Table back in the day and I could have told you everything about each Knight and how they respected each other as brothers. That liitle detail is missing from this movie.
The Final Battle was really good in the way that Arthur cut off the Saxons left flank using military tatics with only flaming arrows. It's pretty informative. The problem is that I felt it was too short. I mean The Knights and Mernils warriors were outnumbered, but didn't entirely show how the Saxon army was defeated.
I felt that Keira Knightley's "Guinevere" didn't work for me. She's supposed to be this warrior, and she can use a pretty mean bow, but her character didn't stand out.
Plus, there were a couple scenes that just didn't work or didn't really explain themselves completely.
Overall, I think that King Arthur could have easily solved most of these issues if the movie ran 2hrs 30-45mins. It runs 2hr and 10min, but It doesn't feel long at all... at least to me! Another 20 or so minutes wouldn't have bogged it down I think.
My Grade: A strong B! It was a GOOD movie that could have been GREAT I think.
I'm Ghost!
Ghost Dragon
The one thing that stood out was the fact that they weren't following the Knights Of The Round Table or Excalibur m.o. This movie is based from history based from the 15th century where Artur, who served in The Roman Empire, led his Knights, all of who were decendants of a people callled Samaritans if I remember correctly. So no Lady of the Lake, or Excalibur being a magical sword or anything.
It's a well acted movie with a great supporting cast. Clive Owen (Crupier and I'll Sleep When I'm Dead) plays a magnetic Artur who has the loaylty of his Knights and also care for thei freedom when their service to the Empire is due to end.
Good
The movie tells a differnt history of Arthur and how he became king. His beliefs make give him a differnt nobility that the numerous Arthur's in the movies we have seen before have had. He explains in one scene that the reason for the round table is that every man who sits at the table is equal.
The action was good and there wasn't a heavy use of special effects. There's a battle on a ice shelf in a valley that is pretty badass. Although it only comprises of a Saxon army and the Knights trading vollies of arrows, it was nice. This is also where one of the Knights dies, however how it happens is fitting of this movie and it was honorable within the situation they found themselves in.
The acting was good with Clive Owen (Artur) and Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot) having some good scenes together.
The historical aspect was well researched and I leard some things that I didn't know about The Roman Empire's rule over Britain.
The military tatics used in some of the major battles, especially in the final battle, was good to see, because I would have been disappointed if they merely consisted of warriors just rusheing at each other without thinking about the terrian they are fighting on. This was well done!
So-So
I really don't have any huge problems with the movie, but some aspects could have been expanded upon.
The Knights themselves are some of the ruffest and tightest buggers I've seen in a movie in a long while. While they do have moments for some character development, I feel that if each of them had 2-3 scenes where more of their characters could have come to the surface, they would have been perfect. "Bors" (Ray Winstone Sexy Beast is one of the Knights that I would take with me in any battle. He provides some of the funniest lines in the film, but don't get me wrong. There's no comedy in this movie.
Ioan Gruffudd (Haratio Hornblower)plays a charming "Lancelot" that wields two swords like a swordsman, but doesn't the ladykiller we all think of previous Lancelots.
The thing is, I can't be as descriptive about the other Knights I'm afraid.
The Final Battle was really good in the way that Arthur cut off the Saxons left flank using military tatics with only flaming arrows. It's pretty informative. The problem is that I felt it was too short. I mean The Knights and Mernils warriors were outnumbered, but didn't entirely show how the Saxon army was defeated.
I felt that Keira Knightley's "Guinevere" didn't work for me. She's supposed to be this warrior, and she can use a pretty mean bow, but her character didn't stand out.
Plus, there were a couple scenes that just didn't work or didn't really explain themselves completely.
Overall, I think that King Arthur could have easily solved most of these issues if the movie ran 2hrs 30-45mins. It runs 2hr and 10min, but It doesn't feel long at all... at least to me! Another 20 or so minutes wouldn't have bogged it down I think.
My Grade: A strong B! It was a GOOD movie that could have been GREAT I think.
I'm Ghost!
Ghost Dragon
About Me
0
About Me
Ghostdragon - Fan Submission Director ghostdragon@mortalkombatonline.com
Mortal Kombat Online - The Ultimate Mortal Kombat Experience
http://www.mortalkombatonline.com
-Isaac Watts
0
| malebolgia Wrote: Let's pray for a DVD with additional scenes that were left out of the theatrical version. Like they did with Lord Of The Rings. Thanx for the review btw. I'm gonna go see the movie this weekend. |
Yeah! I'm definitlely getting King Arthur on DVD!!
Hey! I hope you didn't get all 3 LOTR movie seperately! I'm waiting for the box set where every single extra ever is availiable. That would be the smart play.
Le Dragon Fantome
0
About Me
Ghostdragon - Fan Submission Director ghostdragon@mortalkombatonline.com
Mortal Kombat Online - The Ultimate Mortal Kombat Experience
http://www.mortalkombatonline.com
-Isaac Watts
0
| The_Cold_Kombatant Wrote: Im sneaking in in about an hour to see it. |
*symbolically patting you on the shoulder and nodding*
Good man! Of course I'm refering to the sneaking in bit!
LDF
0
About Me
Ghostdragon - Fan Submission Director ghostdragon@mortalkombatonline.com
Mortal Kombat Online - The Ultimate Mortal Kombat Experience
http://www.mortalkombatonline.com
-Isaac Watts
0
Well it's the weekend and if Spiderman is sold out...again, then King Arthur would be a good second choice!
Although, it's gotten mixed reviews, here's the most accurate and fair review of the movie imho.
BY ROGER EBERT
For centuries, countless tales have been told of the legend of King Arthur. But the only story you've never heard ... is the true story that inspired the legend. -- Trailer for "King Arthur"
Uh, huh. And in the true story, Arthur traveled to Rome, became a Christian and a soldier, and was assigned to lead a group of yurt-dwelling warriors from Sarmatia on a 15-year tour of duty in England, where Guinevere is a fierce woman warrior of the Woads. His knights team up with the Woads to battle the Saxons. In this version, Guinevere and Lancelot are not lovers, although they exchange significant glances; Arthur is Guinevere's lover. So much for all those legends we learned from Thomas Malory's immortal Le Morte d'Arthur (1470) and the less immortal "Knights of the Round Table" (1953).
This new "King Arthur" tells a story with uncanny parallels to current events in Iraq. The imperialists from Rome enter England intent on overthrowing the tyrannical Saxons, and find allies in the brave Woads. "You -- all of you -- were free from your first breath!" Arthur informs his charges and future subjects, anticipating by a millennium or so the notion that all men are born free, and overlooking the detail that his knights have been pressed into involuntary servitude. Later he comes across a Roman torture chamber, although with Geneva and its Convention safely in the future, he doesnt believe that Romans do not do such things.
The movie is darker and the weather chillier than in the usual Arthurian movie. There is a round table, but the knights scarcely find time to sit down at it. Guinevere is not a damsel in potential distress, but seems to have been cloned from Brigitte Nielsen in "Red Sonja." And everybody speaks idiomatic English -- even the knights, who as natives of Sarmatia might be expected to converse in an early version of Uzbek, and the Woads, whose accents get a free pass because not even the Oxford English Dictionary has heard of a Woad. To the line "Last night was a mistake" in "Troy," we can now add, in our anthology of unlikely statements in history, Arthur's line to Guinevere as his seven warriors prepare to do battle on a frozen lake with hundreds if not thousands of Saxons: "There are a lot of lonely men over there."
Despite these objections, "King Arthur" is not a bad movie, although it could have been better. It isn't flat-out silly like "Troy," its actors look at home as their characters, and director Antoine Fuqua curtails the use of computer effects in the battle scenes, which involve mostly real people. There is a sense of place here, and although the costumes bespeak a thriving trade in tailoring somewhere beyond the mead, the film's locations look rough, ready and green (it was filmed in Ireland).
Clive Owen, who has been on the edge of stardom for a decade, makes an Arthur who seems more like a drill instructor, less like a fairy-tale prince, than most of the Arthurs we've seen. Lean, dark and angular, he takes the character to the edge of anti-hero status. Keira Knightley, who was the best friend in "Bend It Like Beckham," here looks simultaneously sexy and muddy, which is a necessity in this movie, and fits right into the current appetite for women action heroes who are essentially honorary men, all except for the squishy parts. The cast is filled with dependable actors with great faces, such as Ray Winstone as a tough-as-nails knight who inexplicably but perhaps appropriately anticipates the Cockney accent, and Stephen Dillane as Merlin, leader of the Woads and more of a psychic and sorcerer than a magician who does David Copperfield material.
The plot involves Rome's desire to defend its English colony against the invading Saxons, and its decision to back the local Woads in their long struggle against the barbarians. But Rome, declining and falling right on schedule, is losing its territorial ambitions and beginning to withdraw from the far corners of its empire. That leaves Arthur risking his neck without much support from the folks at home, and perhaps he will cast his lot with England. In the traditional legends he became king at 15, and went on to conquer Scotland, Ireland, Iceland -- and Orkney, which was flattered to find itself in such company.
The movie ends with a pitched battle that's heavy on swords and maces and stabbings and skewerings, and in which countless enemies fall while nobody that we know ever dies except for those whose deaths are prefigured by prescient dialogue or the requirements of fate. I have at this point seen about enough swashbuckling, I think, although producer Jerry Bruckheimer hasn't, since this project follows right on the heels of his "Pirates of the Caribbean." I would have liked to see deeper characterizations and more complex dialogue, as in movies like "Braveheart" or "Rob Roy," but today's multiplex audience, once it has digested a word like Sarmatia, feels its day's work is done.
That the movie works is because of the considerable production qualities and the charisma of the actors, who bring more interest to the characters than they deserve. There is a kind of direct, unadorned conviction to the acting of Clive Owen and the others; raised on Shakespeare, trained for swordfights, with an idea of Arthurian legend in their heads since childhood, they don't seem out of time and place like the cast of "Troy." They get on with it.
They even keep straight faces in the last shot, as the camera audaciously pulls back to reveal Stonehenge. That gives audience members a choice; they can think (a) "A-ha! So that explains Stonehenge!" or (b) "What a cheap shot to use Stonehenge as a location when it has nothing to do with anything," or (c) "What's that?"
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-arthur07f.html
I'm ghost... and off to see it again.
Le Dragon Fantome
Although, it's gotten mixed reviews, here's the most accurate and fair review of the movie imho.
BY ROGER EBERT
For centuries, countless tales have been told of the legend of King Arthur. But the only story you've never heard ... is the true story that inspired the legend. -- Trailer for "King Arthur"
Uh, huh. And in the true story, Arthur traveled to Rome, became a Christian and a soldier, and was assigned to lead a group of yurt-dwelling warriors from Sarmatia on a 15-year tour of duty in England, where Guinevere is a fierce woman warrior of the Woads. His knights team up with the Woads to battle the Saxons. In this version, Guinevere and Lancelot are not lovers, although they exchange significant glances; Arthur is Guinevere's lover. So much for all those legends we learned from Thomas Malory's immortal Le Morte d'Arthur (1470) and the less immortal "Knights of the Round Table" (1953).
This new "King Arthur" tells a story with uncanny parallels to current events in Iraq. The imperialists from Rome enter England intent on overthrowing the tyrannical Saxons, and find allies in the brave Woads. "You -- all of you -- were free from your first breath!" Arthur informs his charges and future subjects, anticipating by a millennium or so the notion that all men are born free, and overlooking the detail that his knights have been pressed into involuntary servitude. Later he comes across a Roman torture chamber, although with Geneva and its Convention safely in the future, he doesnt believe that Romans do not do such things.
The movie is darker and the weather chillier than in the usual Arthurian movie. There is a round table, but the knights scarcely find time to sit down at it. Guinevere is not a damsel in potential distress, but seems to have been cloned from Brigitte Nielsen in "Red Sonja." And everybody speaks idiomatic English -- even the knights, who as natives of Sarmatia might be expected to converse in an early version of Uzbek, and the Woads, whose accents get a free pass because not even the Oxford English Dictionary has heard of a Woad. To the line "Last night was a mistake" in "Troy," we can now add, in our anthology of unlikely statements in history, Arthur's line to Guinevere as his seven warriors prepare to do battle on a frozen lake with hundreds if not thousands of Saxons: "There are a lot of lonely men over there."
Despite these objections, "King Arthur" is not a bad movie, although it could have been better. It isn't flat-out silly like "Troy," its actors look at home as their characters, and director Antoine Fuqua curtails the use of computer effects in the battle scenes, which involve mostly real people. There is a sense of place here, and although the costumes bespeak a thriving trade in tailoring somewhere beyond the mead, the film's locations look rough, ready and green (it was filmed in Ireland).
Clive Owen, who has been on the edge of stardom for a decade, makes an Arthur who seems more like a drill instructor, less like a fairy-tale prince, than most of the Arthurs we've seen. Lean, dark and angular, he takes the character to the edge of anti-hero status. Keira Knightley, who was the best friend in "Bend It Like Beckham," here looks simultaneously sexy and muddy, which is a necessity in this movie, and fits right into the current appetite for women action heroes who are essentially honorary men, all except for the squishy parts. The cast is filled with dependable actors with great faces, such as Ray Winstone as a tough-as-nails knight who inexplicably but perhaps appropriately anticipates the Cockney accent, and Stephen Dillane as Merlin, leader of the Woads and more of a psychic and sorcerer than a magician who does David Copperfield material.
The plot involves Rome's desire to defend its English colony against the invading Saxons, and its decision to back the local Woads in their long struggle against the barbarians. But Rome, declining and falling right on schedule, is losing its territorial ambitions and beginning to withdraw from the far corners of its empire. That leaves Arthur risking his neck without much support from the folks at home, and perhaps he will cast his lot with England. In the traditional legends he became king at 15, and went on to conquer Scotland, Ireland, Iceland -- and Orkney, which was flattered to find itself in such company.
The movie ends with a pitched battle that's heavy on swords and maces and stabbings and skewerings, and in which countless enemies fall while nobody that we know ever dies except for those whose deaths are prefigured by prescient dialogue or the requirements of fate. I have at this point seen about enough swashbuckling, I think, although producer Jerry Bruckheimer hasn't, since this project follows right on the heels of his "Pirates of the Caribbean." I would have liked to see deeper characterizations and more complex dialogue, as in movies like "Braveheart" or "Rob Roy," but today's multiplex audience, once it has digested a word like Sarmatia, feels its day's work is done.
That the movie works is because of the considerable production qualities and the charisma of the actors, who bring more interest to the characters than they deserve. There is a kind of direct, unadorned conviction to the acting of Clive Owen and the others; raised on Shakespeare, trained for swordfights, with an idea of Arthurian legend in their heads since childhood, they don't seem out of time and place like the cast of "Troy." They get on with it.
They even keep straight faces in the last shot, as the camera audaciously pulls back to reveal Stonehenge. That gives audience members a choice; they can think (a) "A-ha! So that explains Stonehenge!" or (b) "What a cheap shot to use Stonehenge as a location when it has nothing to do with anything," or (c) "What's that?"
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-arthur07f.html
I'm ghost... and off to see it again.
Le Dragon Fantome
Pages: 1
© 1998-2025 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.