Rating: 
Summary: A Few Glitches
Review:
As nice as it looked in the theatre, and as more interesting as the director's cut may be (several scenes that I'd seen in the theatre made more sense in the DVD), there's no getting around that the Saxons in this film have no depth. Apparantly they came to Britain and trashed the island because they had nothing better to do. Of course, that wasn't the case in history, but this isn't history, it's Hollywood.
One thing this version of the King Arthur story gets right, though, is that the late fifth century CE wasn't a shiny, flowery, chivalrous place and time. It was filthy, brutal, and very, very dangerous, not at all like Knights of the Round Table or Excalibur.
Rating:
Summary: Quite decent upon re-review
Review: As I said I would do, due to negative feedback from a past review, I watched the film again, listened to the soundtrack, and am reading the novelization (I also happened to catch an MSN Video interview from Jerry Bruckheimer in regard to the film).I have to say, now that I fully understand the context of the film and researching behind the actual Arthurian legend used (the 5th Century, first-account of the legend my a monk whose name I cannot think of now). This was the first account of King Arthur...a King Arthur who at that time had no (full) alliegence to Christianity, since 15th Century re-writing of the legend incorporated Christianity, despite Arthur's alliegence to Rome in the 5th Century With that all said and done, I can see where the film is coming from. The film does not have anything to do with the very culturally familiar fiction of "Sword And The Stone" or "Merlin" feating Sam Niell, which would cause most of us to scold the film...when we were probably told in our childhood something fictitous and he hold that as the fact. King Arthur has no fiction, no magic, no nothing...it's all the raw legend of the 5th Century...the ORIGINAL story (stilghtly adapted to 21st Century in terms of dialogue et al), since each century had their own version of the story. This film centers on a period of time when King Arthur, being born in Britian yet showing allegience to Rome, paves the path for his future, and what is now the legend; standing up for what he beleives despite ridicule. The events in the film just happen to be about this one point specifically, and not a whole epic life story as would be expected by the vague title King Arthur. The music, performed by the brilliant Hans Zimmer, saves some points of the movie I still have issues with. The vivid use of color, lighting, and scene staging helps as well. I still enjoy Keira Kinghtley's acting, and am growing onto Clive Owen a little more, however he still seemed a bit stale for my liking, however it could be all in the part if one considers Arthur is somewhat in dismay and doesn't have true confidence throughout most of the film. All in all, weighing everything again, I was able to get more out of the film and appreciate it much more and like it much better now that I know the context of the story. However, I suggest that all people in my situation at first watch the MSN Video interview with Jerry Bruckheimer since it helps sort things out and actually brings more to the film which ended up being quite good, however it has a bumpy path toward getting great reviews from people unless they do some research into the film's origins.
Rating: 
Summary: King Arthur
Review: Coming off of last year's "Pirates of the Caribbean", Disney's hopes had to be high for Jerry Bruckheimer's supposed factual retelling of the Arthur legend in "King Arthur". Instead, they get something that is hit and miss, no doubt in part to a studio mandated editing that turned a n R-rated violent and bloody movie into a PG-13 family affair. Arthur (Owen), is presented as Arturius, a commander for the Roman empire. On the brink of gaining freedom for himself and his knights, he rescues Guenivere (Knightley), turns on Rome, and alighns with the Guenivere's people, the Woads. Eventually, this turn will lead to him becoming the ruler of all the Britons. This movie is filled with action and fighting, but as I mentioned earlier, it has been toned down and sometimes feels choppy. Clive Owen does not have enough screen presence or noteriety to carry the role of Arthur. Kiera Knightley is most likely the only recognizable name in the cast to Americans, and she does not show up until almost halfway through the film. She also seems to be a little too small to be wielding the swords that she does, especially against some very large men. I like the idea of Guenivere being a warrior, but perhaps they should have chosen someone that fits the part. Perhaps I nitpick too much, but this movie for the most part did little for me. That fault does not lie on any one person's head, and perhaps I will have a different opinion when the R-rated version comes out on DVD, probably this fall.
Rating: 
Summary: Fact - History / Fiction - People Who Don't Know
Review: I don't understand how people could honestly say that this was a "bad" movie or that it isn't history. I'm not afriad to admit I read Ancient Civilization and Medieval books every so often and this movie has portrayed a classic known to anyone who reads or someone who has even heard anything about the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages. It had a great plot which is an original and shows an excellent view of the Knights of the Round Table. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys it of the sort or likes ancient or medieval times.
Rating:
Summary: This could have been so much better........
Review: I enjoyed it........my son enjoyed it and I REALLY appreciate the alternative ending. But it failed to live up to the hype that Jerry B and Antoine generated.
Visually it had some great moments - the richness of a beautiful English summer........the drama of the frozen lake.......the gruesome battles.
The dialogue however was lamentable.......bad, bad, bad......all the best lines seemed to go to the illiterate saxons........maybe they contributed to the script!
Then you have the plain silliness......if you ride for two days north from Hadrians wall in the height of summer there is no snow........ANYWHERE! So, no frozen lake either. Why have the woads speaking their own language and then have the locals north of the wall with Dick Van Dyke London accents? Then there's the wall..........as it still exists how come the basic design was ignored? Any decent wall of the time would have a substantial ditch to deter would be attackers.......no CGI budget?
Worst of all?........the ending. Why? A combination of schmaltz and sheer lack of creativity.
So, what was potentially a great opportunity for retelling a great tale with guts, reality, panache and substance was tossed away leaving us wanting for a more capable handing in the future.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT!! AWESOME!!
Review: I found the movie very different from the "original" story-king arthur yet enjoyed this one even better. Keira Knightley was ravishing. If you like action and some suspense with some history then King Arthur will be a winner!!
Rating:
Summary: Braveheart meets Gladiator
Review: I wasn't expecting much of this movie so I was quite thrilled when I sat down and watched it. The cinematography is brilliant. Its beautiful people getting gritty and dirty and yet gives an message too. Defiantly not the usual overly Shakespeareic melodrama. This movie is Braveheart meets Gladiator in its story and vision.
And *thank you* whoever had the brilliant idea to show the Woald women doing their stuff in the fight sequence! Briton was a "barbarian" place during this time, if women were needed to fight they do their best.
Rating:
Summary: I loved it!
Review: My husband hated it. I had to think about his reaction to the movie for awhile, and see if I could understand where he was coming from before I could write this review.
I didn't go into this movie expecting a "deep thinker". I just expected a well-known story to be played out yet again on film. I got what I wanted - the action was great and the characters well-cast.
However, thinking back on my husband's summary of it - he had a point. His stance is that the characters were never given chance enough to develop, so he was never truly drawn in and able to become interested. I agree with this. Everyone's introduction is abrupt and fast paced, and the romance that develops comes out of nowhere.
More history and more time to get to know this story would have made it 5 stars for me. Until then, it's great for what it is.
Rating: 
Summary: "Arthur", Thy Name is Blow
Review: Normally, "boring" is a term I avoid. Why? Well, it's usually a word simpletons use to describe movies they don't fully comprehend, either intellectually or emotionally (think of the average man's lackluster response to the amazing "Lost In Translation"). But in the case of the mind-numbingly shallow and seemingly endless "King Arthur", I think the simpletons would put "boring" to its most appropriate use. This embarrassing Jerry Bruckheimer production yearns to tell us the "true story" of the legendary king, which apparently happened years earlier than in the "fairy tale" version and involved not only the Romans but some of the most uninteresting events in the history of the world. I thought the film would delve deeper into who Arthur (portrayed here by Clive Owen) was, or at least focus on more than the one story it does, which involves the future king and his noble knights going on a final mission before being released from their Roman contracts (don't ask). Along the way, they rescue religious prisoners and pick up the feisty Guinevere (Keira Knightley). The movie might've been at least passable at an hour and a half -- or less. Even with the laughably overdramatic narration at the beginning and end. Even with the characters who would be indistinguishable from each other if they didn't at least look different. Even with the wholly un-involving action set-ups. But no...we get two hours and ten minutes of this sh**. And man, let me tell ya, it's rough going. In fact, I might have actually fallen asleep if it weren't for all the times I checked my handy cell phone to see how much longer I had to suffer. And speaking of suffering, we see very little on screen, thanks to Buena Vista's last minute decision to turn the film, which was created specifically to be R-rated, into a poorly edited, ridiculously blood-free PG-13 money-maker. Well, that backfired. The $130 million production took in a mere $23 its opening week. A hit this ain't. As I think back on it now, perhaps I should have given in to the inclination to take a snooze. I'm sure I could have dreamt a better, more exciting movie.
Rating:
Summary: King Arthur (Unrated Widescreen Director's Cut)
Review: The Roman Empire is stretched across many nations, including Britain. In their conquest for more land, the Romans went into Sarmatia where they fought the very brave Sarmatian cavalery. The Romans, impressed by the Sarmatian's weaponery and fighting skills, included them into their army as knights. After 15 years of serving and fighting for the Roman Empire the Sarmatian Knights, lead by Arthur/Artorious Castus, are about to receive their freedom as the Romans are leaving Britain. But the Knights must carry out one final order before they are free. A Roman priest and his family, especially his son Alecto, must be rescued from the invading Saxons. But there is another danger lurking on the road to freedom - the Woads, British rebels who hate the Romans.
|
