This is topic King Arthur in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000797

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-07-2004, 10:17 AM:
 
I saw this last night after midnight ao I was too tired to review it then.

I thought that this film was great. The action was amazing, the dialogue wasn't that corny either. It helped me understand the legend better. not to bad for 8 reels. Definately kept my attention.

Kiera was a plus too

overall 3.7984332567 / 5
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-07-2004, 01:08 PM:
 
I liked this one as well. It was an interesting and engaging take on the Arthurian tale that we have all heard. I felt the casting was one of the strong point of the film, as each actor portrayed their given role very well. When I first watched the trailers, I wasn't sure if Clive Owen could pull off Arthur, but I was very wrong. He did a great job of portraying a man we want to follow and root for. He was also a man that loved his men and would die for them.

The film also really put you into the times with the dark and murky atmosphere. Sure, it didn't look to pretty but hey, it wasn't all that pretty back then. It was the friggin dark ages!

I reccomend this one.

Beware of CAP code on reel 3 (blech!).

AJG
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-07-2004, 02:33 PM:
 
Antione Fuqua's direction really made this one an enjoyable popcorn film, but I can't stand Bruckheimer's methodical action movie formula. A lot of the scenes that were Pagan vs. Roman Catholics were really underdeveloped, I thought the audience deserved to be educated a little more on that background in British history. The Keira Knightley/ Clive Owen romance was well acted, but the romance was rushed... I thought their love scene didn't have a lot to back it up at the point in the film where they had it happen.

-SPOILER- I was cringing at the marriage scene at the end. What a typical way to end an action film.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Luby (Member # 2520) on 07-07-2004, 11:32 PM:
 
I would write a lengthy review about everything I liked and hated about this movie, but that is work and work is not fun and by having to work to explain my review of the movie I would be less happy with the movie by the end for making me write a two page analytical review and as a result like the movie less. My happiness is already deteriorating for having to write this explanation of why I will not go into a detailed explanation of the movie.

So, here is my super (lazy) review of King Arthur:
I liked it. There were parts I liked and parts I didn't like. Overall I was entertained. I give it somewhere between a 3 and a 4 out of 5. That is good enough for a
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 07-08-2004, 07:59 PM:
 
I liked it.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 07-09-2004, 07:45 AM:
 
With my taste for blood in these type of flicks, I was dismayed at how many times the natural sword-swing was avoided for a censor-friendly version. This movie would have been fantastic with an R-rating. Instead, It's only "hey, pretty good".
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-10-2004, 04:40 AM:
 
I went into this movie only to kill some waiting time, and was very positively surprised. While we really don`t know anything about the historical backgrounds of the Arthurian legends, most scholars believe they originated from tales about a warrior who fought the Saxons (why are Germans always the bad guys in movies?) when the Romans pulled out from the British Islands after 400AD. This movie takes this assumption up and develops a very credible, mostly kitsch and cheap magic free version in believable historical settings.
I agree some of the characters could have been developed a bit more, especially the relationship between Arthur and Merlin, but it really is a quite good movie as it is.
The casting was really good, Clive Owen is great as Arthur, not the grinning beau most would have cast. Stellan Skarsgard as the stoic Saxon leader was really cool too.
 

---

Posted by Nicole Halper (Member # 2299) on 07-15-2004, 12:11 AM:
 
I thought the movie was well done- if you don't include the butchering of the Arthurian Legends! Ok- so it wasn't that far off- but what ever happened to Lancelot and Guinevere? He dies before an affair? They did imply some sort of connection through the glances they made at each other but that was all. I'll stop there, for I am too tired to overanalyze the rest~
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-21-2004, 12:35 AM:
 
This movie sucked! No reason whatsoever for this movie to have been made. And the Saxon Leader guy had a country accent... I was expecting him to say "ya'll"... It would have made this movie soooo much more funny. The only thing I enjoyed from watching this movie was the fact that I missed the first 20 minutes because of a phone call. AWESOME! I would have committed suicide if I had seen the whole movie.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-21-2004, 02:45 AM:
 

quote: Jennifer Pan

---

And the Saxon Leader guy had a country accent

---

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

Didn't you think he was hot though?

---

No... He looks too much like Geoffrey Rush... A total turn off.

Hmmm... as I think back into the movie I did enjoy the scene. Only because my friend nodded his head and said... "Now that's what I like... " It was hilarious to see him want to pay attention to the movie because he was falling asleep.
 

---