|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Jul 15, 2004 13:05:40 GMT 8
Has anyone seen this yet?
I know a lot of Hans fans come via "The Mists Of Avalon" and there are more than a few around who are quite into the whole Arthurian legend etc. But from what I have read, this version is more examining the possible 'history' behind the legend and have removed the more mystical aspects in favour of a more gritty 'realistic' Dark-Ages story. Lots of battles and little of the romance Apparently even though they have cast Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot, little is made of any relationship with Guinevere. WTF?
I've heard it's boring and am not sure what to amke of blue-painted leather-bra-rocking Keira as a warrior Again WTF?
Still, so many Hanslinks I'm tempted Apparently Mads Mikkleson (baddie Niels from "I Am Dina")is attracting a bit of attention as a hottie !!?!!
So what is the verdict? Discuss
|
|
|
|
Post by IMeril on Jul 18, 2004 3:15:52 GMT 8
I haven't seen this yet, and I don't intend to until it comes out on video and I can rent it. I'm an avid fan of the Arthurian legend. I accept that the filmmakers of this movie were trying to make something "historically accurate," but even viewing just the trailer I can pick out many anachronistic things from the movie. From talking to friends who've seen this, it's not very good. I also have trouble buying into the idea that a woman as small as Keira Knightly swinging a sword on a battlefield and dressed in nothing but leather straps.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 20, 2004 6:56:20 GMT 8
I saw it just last Thursday. It was actually pretty good, I thought. Although I must admit, Keira's outfit did take a little getting used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabbs on Jul 22, 2004 23:17:21 GMT 8
Okay, I got my Clive Owen wish! not Bond (hate bond films anyway) but King Arthur! can't wait to see it. Talking of Miss Knightly, did anyone else hear how they made her busoms larger on the promo posters, because the male test audience didn't think them ample enough!  |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 22, 2004 23:22:45 GMT 8
Did they really? I hate out people feel they have to do things like that to make someone more appealing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Jul 23, 2004 11:47:44 GMT 8
Anyone would look flat with their boobs trapped in that outfit. So unconvincing: I just couldn't buy that whole scenario.
It was a disappointing performance for Keira. When she wasn't running around being Mini me- Xena (quote the local newspaper) she was just doing the pouty "You know you want me, ain't I purty" look> She had hardly any lines at all. She deserved better than that And somehow I'm coming around to the idea of her as Lizzie Bennett, if anyone has to do it.
And Ioan Gruffudd was wasted too - he should have had much more to do, and they should have developed the Guin- Lancelot thing too, cos I'm sure that's what people going to see a King Arthur movie expect.
Then again I wasn't the target audience. I heard the director was told he could make a R rated ( yeah, from Disney)and then Disney told them to make it PG 13 or whatever it's called to draw a larger audience eg Keira fans are mostly young people I think. So it's cut to pieces and you can really tell. Whatever, I got bored in the battle scenes and by the third one I was over the total experience. Don't ask me to explain the end Was it me who lost the plot? Or the screen writers?
And sorry Sabbs, Clive Owen was a huge disappointment. maybe he took the King = Gravitas thing a bit seriously but the man had NO CHARISMA. And the whole Arthur Guinevere relationship was so totally lacking in believability - OK maybe she was using him for political means ( I read that or I might not have realised) but he should have looked just a little interested. Where was andrew Davies with his "Imagine Darcy has an e******n" stage directions?.
As for roles that "Hans should have done", though I would imagine he would avoid another Arthurian interpretation, I though he would have done well as the guy who was the traitor/ spy to the Saxons. And who did that turn out to be? None other than Charlie Creed- Miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabbs on Jul 29, 2004 18:30:27 GMT 8
No need for apologies Virg. I can't give an opinion as I havent dragged my bones to see it yet!!! It's getting such bad reviews.....think i'll wait for Dvd! Oh and everyone buy Croupier then you will realise how amazing Clive Owen is |
|
|
|
Post by odybu on Jul 31, 2004 14:15:04 GMT 8
In response to Kiera Knightley's role, I haven't seen King Arthur (and I'll be among those who'll wait to see it on DVD) I fear that her spiral to stardom was spinning way to fast. With back to back rave reviews over her Bend it like Beckingham (is that right??) and Pirates, she is good talent, but that's a heck of a momentum to keep up. Even being a good actress, she sure is young to keep up a pace like that. Just a thought. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by nelleke on Apr 17, 2005 2:56:00 GMT 8
Hiya  Though "King Arthur" as a movie is quite amusing and the cast is fabulous (Keira is always absolutely lovely and Clive Owen is always absolutely wow), it annoys me. It annoys me that the producer or director or whoever has the guts to call it "The Truth" (with a big fat T   ). There were many little things about the movie that are just not in their right places. First of all, people from the movie tried to make the Woads look as real as possible, but if the story's as truth-related as they say, they should get that right too and just let the people walk around naked and painted instead of leather-buckeled and painted. Second, in the beginning of the movie there's this bit of text saying that we've been confusing Arthur with an Arthur that served the Romans much earlier than we'd always thought, and they base this theory on 'archeological evidence'... unfortunately that archeological evidence is nowhere to be found. They do have a point in leaving the Lancelot and Guinevere thing out of it, because that story is beautiful but based on nothing; the Lancelot-Guinevere storyline was first introduced by Sir Thomas Malory in Le Morte D'Arthur in the 15th century, and is almost surely based upon another (French) myth and not upon a known truth. As for Mordred, I'm quite sad they didn't give that part of the story a nice twist; but Mordred was nowhere to be found in this film. While he (officially reported under the name Medraut in Annales Cambriae from the 9th/10th century) is one of the few characters historians are quite sure of existed. Of course, we don't know if he was related to Arthur, but both Mordred and Arthur were at the battle of Camlann somewhere around the year 937 and only their names were mentioned, so that makes them both important people. What I found the least credible in the film was the fact that when they were running from the Saxons, Guinevere was taking a bath in her see-though private wagon... pity. ALSO Clive Owen was way too old to be the Arthur getting married; people married young back then, because they died around their mid-thirties (you were lucky when you made it to fourty, especially if you were a warrior). And Clive is 42. But I'm sure that's all just whining to you guys I did my final paper on Arthurian research, so I'm really critical towards Arthur movies. xoxox Nell |
|
|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Apr 19, 2005 10:43:29 GMT 8
I just had this out on DVD to rewatch and haven't really changed my opinion It's a mess> I think they just tried to do too many things - the whole 'love interest' thing seemed so tacked on and the various attempts to inject humour - Bors just annoyed me. And that silly quip of Guinevere's "Don't worry. I won't let them rape you!"
I'm sorry - amusing in a smart modern sort of way but realistically? Why was she even in the battle let alone going to protect HIM?
And I'm getting tired of the rousing faux Braveheart freedom speech. Is there some rule? Every battle movie seems to have it - LOTR, Troy, Alexander etc but no-one can write it like Shakespeare's St Crispin speech from Henry V
Actually I saw a doco recently which theorised that all 'epic' movies are basically the War of Indepencence re-enacted and thus the huge enphasis on FREEDOM I guess it depends on how you define freedom WQars are usually about one faction taking over the power from another faction - the lot of the little man doesn't necessarily change.
|
|
|
|
Post by nelleke on Apr 26, 2005 21:14:26 GMT 8
And I'm getting tired of the rousing faux Braveheart freedom speech. Is there some rule? Every battle movie seems to have it - LOTR, Troy, Alexander etc but no-one can write it like Shakespeare's St Crispin speech from Henry V You have a point there... though that sort of a 'pep-talk' was custom back then, it's gone too far in Hollywood. But the entire 'Epic Movie' and 'Historical Movie' scene has gotten out of hand. I realise films are about amusing people, but if they're just meant to amuse don't present them as true stories. It's the fact that in Pirates of the Caribbean (which is a great fun film, don't get me wrong) they left out that the majority of pirates raped whatever they got their hands on, the fact that knights weren't as clean as the people in First Knight, Kingdom of Heaven or King Arthur (though they're a bit dirty in some of those movies, in reality it usually got way worse), and the fact that in Troy ALL the women were pretty and the warriors were just sitting on their arses in their free time - and you'd wonder where they get the muscles from, 'cause it's not everyday a war breaks out. King Arthur, I believe, has a lousy rousing speech. |
|
|
|
Post by nelleke on Apr 21, 2006 16:54:19 GMT 8
Did I mention Pilagius was LONG dead in the years that this film was supposed to take place?
|
|
).