What's new

*** Official KING ARTHUR Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Tim Glover

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 12, 1999
Messages
8,220
Location
Monroe, LA
Real Name
Tim Glover


Also agree. I wanted more from this character. He was certainly sadistic and brutal, but why????

As both of you have said, a very uninvolving experience despite galant efforts on our part to try and find something redeemable.
 

Zen Butler

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
5,568
Location
Southern, Ca
Real Name
Zen K. Butler
That's what it was it. WHy Stellan Skarsgard, a native of Sweden could only muster an accent reminescent of Michael Wincott's from The Crow.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
55,662
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "King Arthur" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "King Arthur" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,411
According to this week's Entertainment Weekly article on King Arthur, this is perhaps why the film felt too restrained in its drama and battle scenes:

It was originally conceived as a R-rated film for December, 2004, but Disney, in their eminent wisdom, wanted to use King Arthur as their summer tentpole film, so Fuqua was shorted 5 months to prepare for the film, and he was to deliver a PG-13 cut of the film. Fuqua was pretty much hosed by these decisions.

They reshot scenes in June to add in a happier ending, and comedic comraderie bits.

They cut out Guinevere's flirtation with Lancelot. Knightley described Guinevere as very political, and would pretty much screw men if it suited her purpose, so Guinevere was up for shagging Lancelot and Arthur if it got them to join in the fight with her Smurf tribe.

Lots of the bloody, action scenes were cut, and the final battle between Arthur and the Saxon leader was watered down. I guess for fans of the films, it's good that Bruckheimer promised Fuqua that his R-rated cut would make it on the DVD when it gets released. Too bad Disney didn't have the stones to go for the R-rated cut (given its paltry box office performance, somehow I doubt if the PG-13 cut gained them all that much in terms of box office revenue).
 

Jason Harbaugh

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,968
Just got back and enjoyed it. I did read the EW article before going so that probably helped since I knew that there is a much more gutsy version out there.

From the looks of it, I guess I'll be in the minority for liking it.

It was also refreshing to have a relatively unknown cast, and they all did pretty good IMO. Plus Knightley showing lots of skin, so it gets at least an extra star for that.

While it was pretty generic in a filmmaking sense, I did see some inspiration here and there with the camera movement, and shots like the first face to face with Arthur and the Saxon leader. It was interesting to see a spinning camera movement with one man on a horse and the other on the round and both continue to cirle. Maybe a little overboard on the smoke and fog ;) but I guess you can't say they weren't consistent. Thought the ice battle was the best of the bunch though. Some cool stuff going on in that scene, and the sound, mmmm. The rest of the battles and hand to hand combat were pretty much 'seen before'.

I noticed that there weren't any studio logos, or even credits at the beginning. Just fade from black to "King Arthur" and off we went.

I'll hold out for the R version on DVD, which I hope they follow through with.
 

Amy Mormino

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
537
I hope that the box-office failure (only 15 million on opening weekend- a disastrous gross) is due to the bad reviews and the fact that almost nobody wanted to see a de-mythologized movie about King Arthur. However, the fact that almost no movie about Arthurian legends has done well at the box office makes me fearful that U.S. audiences are just not all that interested in the subject. I hope that's not true and that one day we will get a really good version of this story- besides "Excalibur", of course.
 

DustinLC

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
543


I hope you're making up the Smurf part :).

A lot of people seem to criticize a movie because it's been there done that sort of thing whether it's story or CGI. I personally have no problem with that as long as it's a genre I like.

I didn't like the trailer but hoping for more in the movie.

So will I like this movie?

Movie in this genre (epic battle, semi-fantansy, sword fighting, heroic characters) I liked:

Lord of the Rings
Gladiator
Mist of Avalon
Troy
Man in Iron Mask
Count of Monte Cristo (most recent)


Disliked:

Musketeers
A Knight's Tale
First Knight
 

DustinLC

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
543
OK, I'll answer my own question :) because I just saw it.

It really does have a tv feel to it. If the names weren't given, you wouldn't even know this was about the King Arthur legend.

There's nothing spectacular. Everything is believable. Didn't even appear that any CGI was used for the battle scene. I think movies like Troy and Lord of the Rings really spoil us for movie like this.

For example, you have on one handle Aragorn giving a pre-battle speech to 500 men before facing 10,000 orcs, and you have Arthur giving it to 5 knights before facing several hundred saxons.

I go into this kind of movie hoping to seeing larger than life heroes and battles and this movie didn't deliver these things for me. For some, it might be for the romance and story and this movie didn't come through with that either. If it was a TV movie, I would think it's a decent movie but for a 80 million "epic", it's weak.

I wonder why it costed so much to make this movie. Sure doesn't show.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,411
The film was supposed to tell the story that occurred in the 5th century that inspired the 15th century legend of King Arthur, and the Knights of the Round Table, etc. So everything is pretty much grounded in "reality".
 

Julian Lalor

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 5, 1999
Messages
975
The mythology of the Arthurian legend is integral to its telling (and re-telling). It's not supposed to be grounded in reality. I just can't see the point of this film.
 

Ken Chan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 11, 1999
Messages
3,301
I avoided reading that EW article to avoid spoilers, but it explains things. It looks like quite a lot was cut out, maybe including more shots of Keira's "rock-hard abs". I feel cheated. The movie was pretty blah, and the fight scenes were awfully tame.

Anyone understand exactly why that Roman father wanted to take that little boy and hold him at knifepoint?
 

Alan-C

Auditioning
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
7
On a 1 to 10 scale I'd give it about a 6.. I love movies of this type, but after reading the King Arthur book. I think they could have done MUCH better with it. I just couldn't get use to seeing King Arthur in Roman armor.. I kinda thought the Merlin charactor stunk. Merlin was a GREAT wizard.. Not some barbarian woodsman that didn't do crap in the movie. They should have just used different names for the people and just made up a name for the movie. Then you wouldn't be thinking WTF? through the whole thing... None the less I'll probably buy it and watch it a couple more times...
 

BridgetJZ

Second Unit
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
262
Julian I'm sorry, but how many times have we seen the same story recreated the same way?? It was nice, at least for me to see this legend done a little differently this time.

the history angel was a nice twist i think, i saw PLENTY of point in recreating this film this way.
 

Steve_Tk

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2002
Messages
2,833
I thought it was ok, but I will not purchase the DVD. I just felt uninspired, it did not draw me in like others. Definately had the potential because I really enjoyed the unknown cast. I liked that instead of finding some huge name to play the lead.
 

Chad R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 14, 1999
Messages
2,182
Real Name
Chad Rouch


But it's barely de-mystified. For all of the claims that this is the true story of King Arthur, it's not even close to the story of Artorius whom some scholars think might be the basis for the legend, instead settling for a mishmash of legend and history.

The fact is that Lancelot, Bors, Gwenovere, Merlin, Tristamm, Gawain, etc. were all added by the mythmakers or from other (later) true instances that scholars believe began the legend. Their inclusion here is basically saying that they're taking all of the myth, changing only the background of Arthur, and planting it in some pseudo-historical setting.

The point is that the producers knew that if they did a straight story regarding Artorius, they would be without the other familiar characters they needed to have an easy sell. They proceeded to then add in all of the familiar characters, but leave out all of the romanticism and mysticiim that have made the legend endure for hundreds of years. They shot right down the middle and came up with a film that's neither interesting to fans of the various legends, or audiences interested in historical 'fact.'
 

david stark

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
256
I saw this the other night and thought it was ok. After seeing the trailers and the reviews I wasn't hoping for much so went in with low expectations.

As always when watching a film like this (or Gladiator, Braveheart, Monty Python and the Holy Grail) I don't expect it to be historically accurate so I didn't mind that Merlin was relegated to 'papa smurf'.

I thought it was a tad above average (6 or maybe 6.5 out of 10). Yes the battle scenes were cut down a bit, but again for me it wouldn't have been a much better film if I'd seen more blood. The thing that really took it down for me was all the really cheesy (and usually pretty poorly done scenes). At the very beginning Lancelot leaving the village, how it was filmed just didn't feel right, the wedding scene at the end. These two stuck out for me as they are in the worst possible places, right at the beginning (so that's your first impression of the film) and right at the end (so that's your last impression.

If there as a 'directors cut' on dvd then I'll probably rent it and see what it's like.
 

Jeff Adams

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 13, 1999
Messages
1,549


I try not to read about a movie before I see it and was blown away by the PG-13 rating. I was looking at a billboard of films the other day and saw it on there with the PG-13 rating. I was all like how can you make a midevil movie about King Arthur and make it PG-13. I will totally wait for the R rated directors cut version on dvd.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
348,798
Messages
4,857,934
Members
142,388
Latest member
gameover
Recent bookmarks
0
Top