King Arthur --- was "Have you seen.."

S

Shaw

Veteran
"King Arthur" directed by Antoine Fuqua (2004)?

I remember seeing the advertisements for this film but couldn't bring myself to pay to see it.  Needless to say I didn't have any great expectations when I rented it the other night but I was quite impressed.

I absolutely loved the cinematography.  It looks like the whole movie was shot at a high(er) shutter speed which is really cool with all falling the snow.  Gives the footage a really sharp 3D look.

It didn't get great reviews but I thought it was quite good.

Anyone else seen this movie/ have an opinion?
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

I havent seen this yet but it is on the list. Im having trouble playing catch up this year. It looked like a fun film; cant imagine why it didnt do well. Kiera is smokin.
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

Kiera is quite a looker, and totally looks the part of Guinevere.

I haven't seen it yet, but looking forward to it.
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

Saw it.  It pretty good.  Although its the type of movie that you cant watch while closing your eyes.  (IE... its not that great ...script wise)  But its a good fun brockhiemer flick, but not the type of movie you would buy.
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

I know someone who bought it, so I borrowed it. I also didnt think it would be that great of a film, but would be the kind I would like. And I did. The snow scenes and night shots were really great.
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

The history was awful. But at least they made some effort. Put it in the category of "Better Than Expected."
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

Why do you say the history was aweful? It's not an area of history I have studied much so I'm not up to date with the latest theories etc.

Personally I liked the fact that it deviated from the normal King Arthur legends so much. Something closer to history is great.

As for Kiera... what can a guy say?

Did anyone else notice the higher shutter speed that was used throughout the film (not just in action sequences)? At least that's what it looked like to me.

The script was decent. I don't see any major faults with it though and I felt the acting was good. There were some odd consistancy errors though... such as that darn gate in Hadriens wall. In one scene it takes much effort to open, in another one man opens the gate, and yet in others the gate movies without anybody present to move it....

Anyway, I felt the emotional content was good even if there were technical errors.
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

[quote author=Shaw link=board=Offtopic;num=1106196551;start=0#6 date=01/20/05 at 08:41:04]Why do you say the history was aweful?  It's not an area of history I have studied much so I'm not up to date with the latest theories etc.  

Personally I liked the fact that it deviated from the normal King Arthur legends so much.  Something closer to history is great.
[/quote]

I could really go into it, but the problem I have is not that it diverts from Arthur legend, but that it tries to base the legend in real history and it botches so much of it.

Glaring errors:

1) The Saxons did not invade from the north.

2) Badon's Hill is near Wales and nowhere near Hadrian's Wall.


Little annoying things:

1) "Woad" is a Saxon word.

2) The Pope wasn't granting anyone land at the time.

3) The chi and rho (X P) on the Roman shields and banners were not there until after Constantine converted himself and the empire to Christianity . . . which was in 326. The prologue had them.

4) There were no crossbows then.
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

All excellent points! Wow, didn't know you were into history so much! It's absolutely fascinating stuff!

I noticed the crossbow thing as well... I'm also not sure the chainmaille on the roman soldiers is very believable at this time period. I know the Romans did use maille at one point but I'm not sure it correlates well with this story.

The other things you mention are very interesting! I should have known Woad(t) was a Saxon word. I've studied language enough!
 
Re: Have you seen..

Re: Have you seen..

I haven't seen this yet other than the trailers, and yes, kiera is smokin', but, historically speaking, if a chick dressed like that back then, she would have been beaten until she bled.

The portrayal of Arthur and company wearing Roman armor is probably closer to what was going on then.

The cinematography looks like you don't want to blink.
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

David, you don't disappoint. Excellent points.

I remember reading somewhere (oh gosh, my memory is failing me, but it must have been a film critique in Sat. papers) something to that effect about King Arthur, but it was more like a 'bad history' rant without any solid arguments. Yours is probably hundred times shorter and hundred times more informative. Thanks for enlightening me!

BTW, I have a real dilemma with this kind of movie - i.e., great cinematography but bad story/history. It boils down to 'should I support with my wallet the creation of another bad film, however good looking it is'? It's like living with a beautiful slut. Do I like the way she looks, or do I dislike the way she behaves?
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Interesting dilema Jerry. I guess it boils down to the question of did you enjoy the movie enough to watch it again?
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

There was a Roman commander at Hadrian’s Wall called Artorius Castus. There was a battle against the Saxons at Badon’s Hill which was a victory, at roughly the same time (a little later). Both may have contributed to the Arthur legend. But the two had nothing to do with each other.

Oh, and “knight” (“cniht”) is a Saxon word, too. A Normanized one at that.

I give them points for toning it down and suggesting real-world bases for the legend. But leave it to Bruckheimer . . .

At least the whole movie wasn’t about Guinevere kicking ass and saving the men’s asses, as the previews and posters made it appear it might be.

All that having been said, I've seen worse movies.
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Yeah I was aware about Knight. So David, have you studied history in school at one time or another or is it just a hobby?
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

I was a history major and took a lot of legal history classes in law school. As you may expect, Roman and British history comes up a lot in that context.

That, and I study it on my own.
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Hey David, what do you think about that link;

Link

Is the story close from what you know?
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Is the movie close to that link? No.
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

No, I mean close to the true story.
 
Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Re: King Arthur --- was "Have you seen..&quot

Well, no one really knows the "true story." There are only theories and shadowy figures and some speculation.

When I was referring to the history depicted in the movie being bad, I was referring to the actual, documented stuff. How close they got to the "true" origins of the Arthur legend is another matter entirely, except that you can reach certain conclusions based on the aspects of real history that they got wrong in the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top