King Arthur

[Michael]

http://www.empiremovies.com/movies/2004/king_arthur.shtml

Yep, they've gone and made a movie about him. This is more of an historical interpretation than myth. Supposedly, Arthur and his knights are based off a real group of people. It should be good.

[Straylight]

Hmm, about King Arthur -- I'd probably say there's more fiction than fact surrounding that... it's more of an English legend really. Looks interesting anyway.

[Ashley]

I'll be first in line, for sure! I'm a huge nut for Arthurian lore, as my bookshelf shall attesteth.

[Michael]

I honestly prefer Norse mythology, but Arthur's a close second. It looks great, I think Lancelot looks cool.

[Retten]

Hey this looks like it could be really good and about the reall king arthur even better! I like all of the medieval lengends and such so this is really exciting to me.

[Ashley]

Finally got a chance to dl and watch that trailer...and all I can say is wow. It's interesting to note that there are two major views of the "real" Arthur--one, that he was a Dux Bellorum, a leader in the Roman army that was posted in Britain at one time, or two, he was the clan leader of the Votadini who fought to keep out the picts, angles and jutes. From what I can tell of the trailer, the movie seems to have a good blend of both, if not leaning towards the Roman side. So I am highly intrigued, especially to see how they treat Guinevere (i.e. will she be the headstrong queen in the older legends, or the fierce adulteress in the later legends that were reconstructed by gynophobic monks).

Anyone interested in this subject, I highly suggest you check out The Search for King Arthur by David Day. Excellent reference book.

[cbwing0]

This should be good, although it is part of a disturbing trend in Hollywood. First there is the Alamo, then Troy, and now this. It seems like Hollywood has run out of good ideas, so now they are forced to retell old stories.

[Ashley]

I say, bring on the history movies! Is that a bad thing? As long as you realize Hollywood is not trying to "present" as much as "retell" a historical event, I'm all for it. Just don't take them (or the history channel, for that matter) as gospel truth. I for one am estatic to see this trend in Hollywood--movies like the Patriot, Braveheart, and other historical (or historical fiction) movies are my definate cup of tea (except for the civil war. blegh). Can't way to see Troy either. Although, I am a wee bit concerned about the Alamo movie...simply because I am a Texan and I hope they don't make us look like a bunch of wimps or something.

[cbwing0]

I'm not questioning the quality of the movies; on the contrary, I plan to see all of them, and I thoroughly enjoy watching them. The problem is, they are presenting/retelling things that have already been told and retold many times, rather than coming up with any new ideas. Of course, there is room for the talent on the actors, directors, and writers to improve upon past versions of the stories, but they are still telling the same stories.

I don't think you have to worry about the Alamo presenting an unflattering view of Texans. From the trailers and material on the history channel, it looks like a good, inspiring film.

[Ashley]

Well, I think the problem of having something new to retell is going to be resolved in this new Arthur movie. Sure there have been plenty of movies on Arthur from Camelot to Excalibur to The Sword in the Stone but I have yet to see one like this, where they try to dismiss the fantasy and the romantized era and get down to what life would have been really like if there was an Arthur. That's what's exciting to me--sure Arthurian lore is all well and good, but real history? That's even better. My guess is it will be something similiar to seeing one of Stephen Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle books thrown on screen, just without Atlantis and probably the Christian elements.

[Technomancer]

This is the first I've heard of the film. Unweaving the myth from the fact in the Arthurian myths is an interesting endeavour, largely complicated by the different layerings that history has given the stories. The versions that we're most familiar with are the ones developed (and embellished) by the French troubadors, who borrowed them from the Bretons. And of course, the stories didn't really appear in England proper (i.e. excluding Wales and Cornwall) until after 1066. For that matter Lancelot himself is wholly a French invention.

Anyways, I tend to be leery of Hollywood's attempts at historical films, since they usually rewrite critical parts (e.g. Amsitad, U-571, etc). Personally, I'm not really interested in the Alamo film- what I've seen of the trailers seems to indicate that it will be a lot of patriotic chest-thumping at the expense of any real history.

[madphilb]

I hope they don't make us look like a bunch of wimps or something.

I'll make a deal with you..... if they do that this Transplant Yankee will come over from Florida and help you guys string 'em up!

[Lehn]

OOooOOooOOOh Thread Necromancy!!!!!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/

King Arthur came out today in the States. Gonna go see it on the morrow with the sister siblings.

Anyone seen this yet? Comments? Rants? Death for necromancy?

[madphilb]

Saw it about 6 hours ago, and I'm glad I did......

The only thing I can say is, forget Author, Tristian (?) rules!

[Zedian]

Going to make plans to see it, I love the story of King Arthur and this one has Galahad too, a figure missing in Excalibur the movie.

[Lehn]

Yes, Tristian rocks the boat in the movie, no questions asked. Lance was awesome too, with the world's most cocky expression on his face whenever he has out his swords.

I liked it. Better throw out your preconceptions about the legends and myths though; there's no magic what so ever in this. No pulling the Sword from the Stone. No Morgan. Merlin is in this, but as the leader of the Woads and they mention he is a black sorcerer, but that's it.
All in all, it was a very realistic portrayal of what might've happened.

The love triangle was toned down a good deal, [spoiler] Lance made a few joking sideways comments about how one of the Knights should be happy about how lucky he was that his children had the good fortune of looking like him, made mostly to establish his charater as a lady's man, but that was it. There was a few glances exchanged between him and Gwen that were somewhat suggestive of a deeper relationship, at worst him standing guard and catching Gwen bathing ( you couldn't see anything, so shut your mouths, boys) and the scene at the end where he chose to help her during the battle instead of Arthur. Nothing happens between them though, the movie is a total Gwen/Arthur shipper. [/spoiler] and if you don't know the legends, you probably won't even think twice about it.

Language could've been worse. There's a Knight whose name is lost to me at the moment that had some rather, uh, fond names for his children, but that was the worst of it that I heard.
There was some Christianity bashing because they run into some less the godly monks who where torturing people in God’s name, the lovely chaps. Save for Arthur, it's made quite clear that all the Knights are pagan and have seen too much killing and have too much hate for the Romans to accept the Roman's Christianity.

The ending wasn't as strong as it could've been, and there was some parts I felt like killing something, but I've seen worse.

[Savior_Sora]

Anything Medievil I like . Swords and shields...especially King Arthur. My Senior Term Paper was about King Arthur. So I say BRING IT!! lol.

[Spencer]

Me and my road dogs are goin to see it tomorrow. Looks pretty sweet from the previews I've seen. Whoo.

[Mangafanatic]

So, how was it content wise?

[cbwing0]

I saw the movie Wednesday afternoon, and it was excellent.

The movie presents a possible version of the history behind the legends, although the claim at the beginning of the film that there is enough evidence to completely reconstruct the original Arthur is somewhat disingenuous, as there is still no scholarly consensus about the "real" Arthur.

The battle scenes were well done, especially those that display the cunning and skill of Arthur's knights against overwhelming odds.

I also liked the fact that there was no adulterous relationship between Lancelot and Guinevere, since that part of the legend was undoubtedly a later development from the era of courtly love. Such an emphasis on romance would also have been extremely out of place in the context of the story, which focuses more on Arthur than on any of the other characters. The romance would also have distracted from the straightforward tale of a man who sacrifices his own peace and freedom to protect that of others.

Content-wise, there was no graphic violence (the characters don't even bleed much through their armor when killed), nudity, or coarse language. The only "questionable" scene was the previously mentioned scene with Guinevere bathing, but it is tastefully done; in other words, it is not revealing. There is also a sex scene with Arthur and Guinevere, which is also tastefully done (to give you an idea, they show less than the comparable scene in Braveheart ).

Finally, of all the movies I have seen this summer (Troy, Shrek 2, Spider Man 2, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, along with King Arthur), this is the only one that really seemed shorter than its running time. The pacing was so good that that movie seemed to last no more than an hour, when it is actually over two. Did anyone else notice this?

[Ashley]

Heh, I agree with you on one point--it sure didn't seem like 2 hours.

More like 2 years. I was so disappointed--I looked forward to this movie with such zeal, and came away so utterly disappointed. Bluntly, I thought it stunk.

First off, the history was whacked. I have a friend who is a british historian (yes, that's her real title) and she confirmed there was no Sarmatia. Thus, no Sarmatian Knights, the heart of the story. Add to that that the little theory about Rome sparing Sarmatians was hardly believable and you've got a bad taste in my mouth already. But, I was willing to forgive that if it got better. But it never did. You had Artorius leading a band of knights (which, by the way, if I remember correctly the word didn't even come into the language til hundreds of years later) for Rome like a bunch of forced mercenaries. The heart of the Arthur legend was that Arthur united the Britons/Britains/Bretons together against the picts, scots, irish, saxons and other invading hordes. Rome was already gone, and what was left of it Arthur and his people hated. Instead we're presented with this mangaled half-Roman half-British Arthur Castus and expected to believe it as "the true story behind the legend". Plus, look at all the other discrepancies. There was no historic tribe called the Woads--unless Woad is another name for the picti or some other tribe. Tristan looked Mongolian in his armor. They added Danae(d?). There was no mention of Irish raiders on the west coast, or the bickering between the tribes of Britain that provide the foundation of the legend.

Speaking of legend, they didn't even get that right! Merlin was made into a tribal leader of Woads, Guinevere a woad archeress who goes instantly from tortured prisoner to beautifully clad warrior princess [spoiler=not to mention her hands] which were dislocated what, maybe days before she slaughtered Saxons with Arthur on the ice[/spoiler]. Lancelot didn't fall in love with her. Oh, and let's not forget instead of the countless heroes that didn't get named, like Bors, Pelleam, Pellas, Percival, Garet, and so forth, there's a whole what, maybe 6 knights? Total? What kind of a king is that? No sword in the stone, no even mention of the name Pendragon....how can they possibly call this a movie about King Arthur?

I would even have gone so far to say it was a good movie but a bad retelling of the legend if they hadn't done such a sloppy job. No one is given explanations for anything, villians aren't even named, and they stretch the believability
[spoiler] like why a high ranking Roman family who's son is a favorite of the pope would be in Britain, how an arrow hundreds of yards away could strike a man in a tree, and how the Battle of Baden Hill was a fort?![/spoiler] They hinted at a few good inner battles, but never elaborated. Never built. All in all I thought it was a horribly sloppy, badly rendered and quite frankly insulting movie I wish I could get a refund for. Nothing makes me more angry than when Hollywood takes a popular character like Arthur and slaps his name on a horrible movie expecting the fact they put Arthur in it will make it sell. Because obviously we're too stupid to appriciate the real legend or know the difference.

And THEN they had the audacity to say that was the real story?!?!

[Technomancer]

I probably won't see it since it seems to have been such a bad movie. I'd expected some pretty substantial changes since they supposedly were trying for some kind of historical reconstruction (i.e. Lancelot was wholly an invention of the French, etc). Maybe something closer to the old Welsh/Breton stories or even Geoffrey of Monmouth's stuff, and thus quite a bit different from the stories we know which are largely based off of Sir Thomas Mallory's work anyways (itself largely lifted from the troubadors of the Languedoc).

Having a tribe called the Woads does sound pretty dumb. Woad is actually a blue dye that the Celtic warriors would sometimes paint themselves with. Remember Braveheart? That's woad. I don't know about what the film did with Sarmatia- it was a real place BTW just nowhere near Britain. It was originally used to denote the area between the Caspian and the Vistula, although in late antiquity it also came to refer to the area around the Danube and the Carpathians after the Sarmatians were driven there by the Huns.

[Spencer]

I just saw it...

I didn't really love it. I was really hoping Merlin would be a lot cooler. He was just some old guy in a lot of makeup...And sometimes the camera would get all shaky. It just didn't really satisfy me like I thought it was going to.