what's the word on Arthur?

[Fineous_Reese]

i've not had a chance to see it yet and won't get to for another week but i'm pretty stoked for it. anyone have non-spoiler reviews on it?

 

[InnerPhyre]

Looks kinda lame to me

 

[SUNSTONE]

Ok someone call the morge, we have a dead zombie posting here.
Lame???!!! whatever

 

[InnerPhyre]

Well....The trailers really haven't blown me away. I've just gotten a bad vibe about this flick from the start. I hope I'm proven wrong. After the disappointment of Troy, maybe I've learned not to get my hopes up for epics

 

[Ovda]

It is a good movie. All the stuff you read as a child: knights in shining armour, the sword in the stone, the lady in the lake, camelot, Merlin being Arthur's right hand man/advisor, etc. throw all that out the window. Go see it with new eyes.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

It is a good movie. All the stuff you read as a child: knights in shining armour, the sword in the stone, the lady in the lake, camelot, Merlin being Arthur's right hand man/advisor, etc. throw all that out the window. Go see it with new eyes.

aye, i've read it's basically a "prequel" to the usual arthurian legends. speaking of eyes, will i have to cover mine or does Ms. Knightly wear more than blue paint?

 

[BarbB]

I saw some strategic leather strapping to go with the blue paint!

 

[Fineous_Reese]

I saw some strategic leather strapping to go with the blue paint!

sounds reminiscent of Mila Jovovich's outfit in 5th element then... ah well. hollywood gives what sells.

 

[Roo6339]

it looks pretty good. i wouldn't mind seeing it, and since i didn't see troy i guess i can't be as disappointed with arthur as i was with troy

 

[Tyler Mckee]

I heard it was lame, i wouldn't rule it out because of that, but it's just what i heard.

 

[Wroth]

Reviewers in most newspapers can't tell a good movie from a spotted cow. They are idiots and really have no clue what they are talking about.

And it was awesome. The whole idea behind the movie is that this represents how it *could* have happened in terms of actual historical evidence. They take an actual historical figure (Arthuris Castor [sp?]) who was a Roman Cavalry officer and they take actual historical knights (the Samarians) and how the situation actually happened in those times (Samarian knights riding under the command of a Roman cavalry officer) and show how possible it could have been that Arthur was of Roman descent.

They throw out the magic and anything not possible in real life and offer up good alterntives for how it could have happened. Merlin isn't a sorceror, rather the leader of the Woads and who has knowledge in the use of fire/oil/demolition-type stuff.

And no, it's not really a prequel. Certain essential characters die in the movie that are important to the *traditional* Arthurian legends. It does, however, start with Arthur not a king, but he becomes one at the end.

 

[tyler4588]

Umm...To tell you the truth I didn't like it. For an "epic" scale movie, it wasn't very epic. Acting was below average IMHO, and it didn't really have the best plot to me.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Saw it tonight. It was ok. Didn't exactly show Christianity in the most positive light. Acting and plot was ok....battle scenes were ok. You could tell they edited out alot of the action scenes to grab the PG-13 rating. Average.

 

[BeanMak]

The story was an interesting. The knights were also interesting characters. The movie, however, was a little flat for me. The filming was "muddy." After the magnificance of LOTR this movie seemed to fall short. I understood that all this is shrouded in time and legend, but there was too much blue and grey, and not enough color. Keira Knightly as Guinevere was great- she played a warrior princess with gusto! Clive Owen as Arthur was only ok, not much fire. On the whole i would give it a C+/B-

 

[Fineous_Reese]

still haven't caught it (was out of town for a while) but it looks like definite matinee material thanks all for the reviews!

 

[ForeRunner]

I disliked it immensly.

There was little action. Character development was horrid, I didn't care about any of them. The plot was paper thin, and boring to boot. There was no sense of urgency, passion, or anything of that nature. The "villian" was your standard run-of-the-mill evil dude with a big army, he wasn't the least bit compelling.

The movie didn't make you care about what happened to the people, it was so bad that I got up to go to the bathroom as the big battle was about to happen. I couldn't have cared less if the "knights" won or lost, or whether they lived or died, that isn't something that should happen at the end of the movie.

Oh, and can we STOP using fire in war movies now, it has been done to death.

 

[Wroth]

Stop using fire? Why? It was a bloody effective tool in warfare. Still is (bombs go BOOM and spurt flames).

And done to death? I can only think of Gladiator as being the other war movie to show the catapolts throwing flaming oil pots. The fire on the ground herding the enemies into a certain area isn't exactly new to movies, but I thought it was fine. Fire arrows? Normal implement of war. They were trying to show a relatively plausible storyline. Why would they limit their arsenal to stuff that the audience doesn't think is overdone?

The characters? I thought the development was fine, even though much was implied in the movie. The only guys I never got a feel for was Galahad and Gawain. The rest I thought I understood well enough. Dag was my favorite, even though he rarely said anything. The scene with him on the ice was awesome. I loved the whole idea of it - just screaming and hacking - brilliant! Tristam was interesting as the knights' scout and having the more... stylized fighting style. Bors... well, being a man with great appreciation for rage and combat and how much fun it can be, I loved Bors. His loudness on the field of battle and his quips when with his friends are great, as is his softness for his children ("I especially like number 3") and his lover. Lancelot, well, you see that he is Arthur's second, you see his obvious attraction for Guinevere and even the conflicting emotions there (battle scene where Guinevere is getting her butt handed to her). And Lancelot, well, you can tell he's the lady's man there ("If Gawain finds himself that beautiful wife, I may find myself spending more time at his house. And he'll be left wondering why his children look like me." and (Bors)"I especially like number 3. He's a good fighter" (Lancelot)"That's because he's mine!").

 

[ForeRunner]

Stop using fire? Why? It was a bloody effective tool in warfare. Still is (bombs go BOOM and spurt flames).

And done to death? I can only think of Gladiator as being the other war movie to show the catapolts throwing flaming oil pots. The fire on the ground herding the enemies into a certain area isn't exactly new to movies, but I thought it was fine. Fire arrows? Normal implement of war. They were trying to show a relatively plausible storyline. Why would they limit their arsenal to stuff that the audience doesn't think is overdone?

Fire isn't that effective on a battlefield. It was almost exclusively used in sieges, or to cause mischief in an enemy encampment. It was much to unpredictable to you in an open battle, it was just as likely to cause damage to the army using it. Bombs aren't damaging because of fire, they are damaging because of their concussive blast (except the like of napalm and other incediaries in specific circumstances).

Off the top of my head I can only think of Braveheart and Last Samuri, I know there are more though, Troy (thankfully) didn't.

The characters? I thought the development was fine, even though much was implied in the movie. The only guys I never got a feel for was Galahad and Gawain. The rest I thought I understood well enough. Dag was my favorite, even though he rarely said anything. The scene with him on the ice was awesome. I loved the whole idea of it - just screaming and hacking - brilliant! Tristam was interesting as the knights' scout and having the more... stylized fighting style. Bors... well, being a man with great appreciation for rage and combat and how much fun it can be, I loved Bors. His loudness on the field of battle and his quips when with his friends are great, as is his softness for his children ("I especially like number 3") and his lover. Lancelot, well, you see that he is Arthur's second, you see his obvious attraction for Guinevere and even the conflicting emotions there (battle scene where Guinevere is getting her butt handed to her). And Lancelot, well, you can tell he's the lady's man there ("If Gawain finds himself that beautiful wife, I may find myself spending more time at his house. And he'll be left wondering why his children look like me." and (Bors)"I especially like number 3. He's a good fighter" (Lancelot)"That's because he's mine!").

I admit I liked Tristram (he reminded me of Drizzt Do'Urden I think), but the characters were still all very one dimensional, especially Arthur, who of all the characters should have been a complex figure. I didn't care what happened to them is also a problem, I didn't feel bad when any of them died.

The two movies I mentioned above, Braveheart and The Last Samuri had excellent character development. Compare those movies with this one and you can see why it was sorely lacking.

The plot was terrible as well. Arthur's "freedom" speeches made no sense, they weren't really fighting for anything except this ill-defined "freedom", there was never any real established reason for it, no driving force behind the movie.

I wanted my money back.

 

[Connections]

its a good movie

 

[heathen chemistry]

the movie was originally meant for this winter but after disney realized all their movies were tanking and didn't have a big summer release, they rushed production because they already have a holiday film in the form of the incredibles. but i'm not sure if the rushed production had anything to do with the mediocre story i've been hearing about.

as for the reviewers can't pick a good movie comment - i review for a newspaper and my taste is just that - my own taste. the only difference between me and you is that i make money from my hobby.