King Arthur

[Jon Lyrik]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/862598.jpg

This one is looking quite mediocre. The trailers felt very blah, word on it isn't so good, and now it's rated PG-13 after being toned down (heavily, I'd guess, and I don't like movies getting watered down). Probably won't see, unless there's a matinee and I'm bored silly.

[ilovemovies]

I'm dissapointed with the PG-13 rating, nonetheless I still think it looks really good. Can't wait!

[Tom Samborski]

Not looking forward to it. Am I the only one who is really getting sick of big budget historical epics?

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
Not looking forward to it. Am I the only one who is really getting sick of big budget historical epics?

Nope, I'm getting sick of them too. If I see one more big epic battle, I'm gonna...I'm gonna...

*explodes*

Oh well, at least it has Knightley in revealing clothes. Delicious. Not enough to see the film, though.

[Strider]

While the PG-13 rating is a huge turn-off, King Arthur still looks somewhat appealing, and I do want to see it in theaters. However, I have no expectations for this film whatsoever. If the film is no good, at least I get to look at the lovely Keira Knightley. :D

Strider

[Fisting Ackbar]

Get the impression that it will be a typical brainless Jerry Bruckheimer flick with the pretenses of a big historical epic. I'll probably wait for the DVD unless I hear good things about it, but like Lyrik and Strider mentioned, at least Keira Knightley will offer some comfort whether the movie will suck or not.

[sharkstank]

Originally posted by Strider
While the PG-13 rating is a huge turn-off, King Arthur still looks somewhat appealing, and I do want to see it in theaters. However, I have no expectations for this film whatsoever. If the film is no good, at least I get to look at the lovely Keira Knightley. :D

Strider

my exact thoughts

WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[daddiefatsacks]

PG 13.......i hate it so much

it is the death of movies

[Schatten]

Like I've said in the past: They should have left the King Arthur legend to Monty Python.

I'm also getting sick of trailers with "choir" music in them. Almost every trailer lately has had this kind of music in it (King Arthur, Spiderman 2). It's annoying to hear a bunch of ancient druids sounding like they're getting their testicles squeezed by big burly men all the time.

[Moviefan1234]

I used to be excited for this. I like Clive Owen and Antoine Fuqua a lot. Then the negative reviews started pouring in and then the PG-13 rating. I like seeing realism in my epics, not watered down battle scenes. Anyway, I'll still go see it. But my expectations aren't very high.

[Lynn7]

I'm horrible when it comes to history but did women used to fight in battles as Knightly is doing in this one? It looks kind of odd for a woman to be in hand to hand combat with a man. I guess Joan of Arc used to fight though right?

[cstroman]

True, but Hollywood has to have a "strong female role" in their films nowdays even if they have to make it up.

Joan of Arc was a fighter, but I haven't read any Myth or Legend authorities say that Guinevere was a bullseye archer.

I still hope it's good though despite that loss of authenticity.

[HHH123007]

Originally posted by Strider
While the PG-13 rating is a huge turn-off, King Arthur still looks somewhat appealing, and I do want to see it in theaters. However, I have no expectations for this film whatsoever. If the film is no good, at least I get to look at the lovely Keira Knightley. :D

Word.

Hopefully it's one of those ultra-violent PG-13's like Riddick or LOTR.

[Benny]

This one could go either way, but nevertheless I'm not too intrigued by it, even though my girl Keira is in it. I've heard/seen the story many many times, and this movie looks like it just retreads the story and adds nothing new Although, Ms. Knightley's first big hit did come out the 2nd weekend in July last year, so history might just repeat itself...

Plus, how can this movie top Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

[m ali]

Im looking forward to seeing this in the theaters. But I hope its not horrible like the alamo. I hope It will be just as good as troy.

[thompsoncory]

I'm looking forward to KING ARTHUR. It looks cool and has Keira Knightley in it. That alone guarentees me there on opening weekend.

[systemdwn]

how much do you think the opening weekend be for this movie? how about the 5 day numbers?

This movie has a chance to bomb or it may find moderate success!

[MadsenOMC]

I think this is shaping up to be that rare Bruckheimer bomb. It's up against the second weekend of Spiderman 2 as well as Anchorman. I also sense very little interest in it. The reviews won't be any help, as per usual for Bruckheimer movies, so older viewers who may have given it a chance will skip it. I would be surprised if it did well.

[moviegroupie]

Yeah Pirates of the Carribean was decent until the over-CGI'ed skeletons started popping out. I'll wait until DVD. looks like an unexciting, bloated epic.

[moviegroupie]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I think this is shaping up to be that rare Bruckheimer bomb. It's up against the second weekend of Spiderman 2 as well as Anchorman. I also sense very little interest in it. The reviews won't be any help, as per usual for Bruckheimer movies, so older viewers who may have given it a chance will skip it. I would be surprised if it did well.

RARE Bruckheimer bomb? Do we not forget Bad Company ?

[MadsenOMC]

Notice I used the word rare. I did not use the word never. Of course I remember Bad Company. And Veronia Guerin.

[moviegroupie]

Oh ok. Sorry for being picky about your word choice :D

[MadsenOMC]

Not a problem. I actually paid to see Bad Company. I could never forget that Bruckheimer bomb. I'm still angry about it.

[RobertPaulson]

Bad Company sat on the shelf for a while before it came out - and was in script limbo before that - there were a number of signs of that going wrong.

This film is totally different and hasn't had any problems. I applaud the filmmakers for going with quality actors instead of one big name talent - it makes it easier to go to the movie and accept the characters without bringing in character baggage (ie. Ben Affleck or someone!)

I'm seeing a preview screening tonight so I'll report back - but i think if you go in looking forward to a new take on the legend and not trying to see Excalibur part 2 you will not be disappointed.

[systemdwn]

im hoping that the movie makes around 45 million during its 5 day! I have a bet going and I was being a bit optimistic with my estimate! hehe!

[DareDevil]

Originally posted by Strider
While the PG-13 rating is a huge turn-off, King Arthur still looks somewhat appealing, and I do want to see it in theaters. However, I have no expectations for this film whatsoever. If the film is no good, at least I get to look at the lovely Keira Knightley. :D

Strider


ditto

[Labbla]

Im not really looking forward to King Arthur but my dad really wants to see it so I'll go to it.

[systemdwn]

im going to check out the movie this weekend for sure. I just want to see a fun action movie!

[dellamorte dellamore]

The main attraction for me is Clive Owen , i'm dying to see what this great actor can do in a big budget epic . Someone once said that he could make reading the phone book interesting , and i agree , he should carry this film with no problem . I'm not so sure about everything else though .

[RobertPaulson]

Well Owen was great you'll be happy to know. As was Winstone, Skarsgard, and the guy that plays Tristan the scout. The rest of the cast was good too- but these stood out.

Also - knightley is fierce in this. Forget your sexist conceptions - she plain kicks ass in this - especially in the final scene where she runs about like a blood thirsty demon. She won me over!

Overall the movie was solid- best action movie I've seen all year because it had much more of a story and some great dramatic moments. This isn't just a popcorn movie - the performances are great, and you really get involved in the story and the relationships in the film. It isn't some superficial action film with a ton of one liners (although there is humor) - instead it is really a movie that gives you a variety of emotions, some powerful scenes and some exciting battle sequences (particularly one on a frozen lake - when you see it you'll know what i mean!)

Another thing it did well was hint at elements of the story that might have evolved into the Arthur legend - a boy pulling a sword from his father's burial mound might have become the Sword in the stone legend, a mysterious woodsman named Merlin could easily grow into a wizard as stories are passed on, etc.

Anyway - the audience I saw it with liked it a lot, even clapped at the big climax - a sure sign of an enthusiastic audience in my book.

I'd give it an 8/10 easily, and have no problems recommending it. Go in without any preconceived notions of the arthur you want to see, and you'll enjoy it.

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!

I had really low expectations for this one. Reviews have been all over the place, but mostly they've been negative. The trailers did nothing for me. It's a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. There wasn't a lot to instill confidence as far as I was concerned. I could care less if it's historically accurate or not. I only wanted to be entertained. Unfortunately, I can hardly remember ever being more bored in a movie theater. It felt like the longest movie ever made. It took every ounce of will power I possess to not fall asleep or get up and leave. I hate doing that when I've paid to see something.

What did I like? Well, not much. The cinematography is excellent. I really thought it looked beautiful most of the time. And the battle scene on the frozen river was mildly exciting and fairly well staged. And that's about it.

The scene on the frozen river was just as much a negative as a positive for me. It reminded me of a B-action movie, where the good guys never miss and the bad guys can't hit the broad side of a barn. Same thing here. The knights strike a fatal blow with every single arrow they fire. I swear they never miss. Not once. Meanwhile, though there are many more of them, the bad guys (Saxons) can't hit a fucking thing. Their arrows all fall short or miraculously sail wide or long. Funny how that works, and pretty damn stupid IMO.

There's plenty more on the negative side. The first hour or so, up until the frozen lake, is painfully boring. Nothing interesting happened, and I found myself daydreaming about other things. I'd catch myself and realize that a few minutes had passed and I had no idea what I'd missed. Nor did I really care.

So they rescue Guinivere, and she is in bad shape. She's been in a horrible, nasty prison. She's been tortured and has broken fingers on her left hand. Not good. But suddenly, five minutes later, she is drop dead gorgeous, clean, and shooting a bow and arrow. Um, what the fuck? Her hand is healed, as is the rest of her. Now, some might say, it's just a summer action movie, so who cares? But this movie is supposed to be taken seriously. Bruckheimer is telling anyone who will listen how historically accurate and serious the movie is. So you can't have it both ways. And there's more with Guinivere that makes no sense. She really is a stupid character. One second she hates Arthur and lectures him on what a piece of shit human being he is, killing his own people and all. 10 minutes later she is praising him and throwing herself at him! Again, what the fuck? What caused the drastic change?

Guinivere is just like the rest of the characters, extremely underdeveloped. I did not care about a single one of them. Other than Arthur and the guy with 11 kids, I couldn't even tell them apart. Even Lancelot was boring as sin. We learn next to nothing about him, and he's given nothing to do. Now, I love Clive Owen, Stellan Skarsgaard and Ray Winstone, but they are given nothing to do and are stuck with underwritten roles. Even Owen failed to make an impression on me. He has some lame ass speeches we've heard 1,000 times before, and that's about it. There are no great moments of heroism or anything like that. He's stiff and lacks the charisma he has shown before. Blah all around when it comes to the performances.

The battle scenes at the end of the movie are nothing more than mediocre. Nothing we haven't seen before. Nothing special or noteworthy about them whatsoever. The PG-13 rating means they aren't brutal or horrifying or anything like that. They are PG-13 battle scenes. They cut away from all brutality and are very tame. I also laughed my ass off when some knights died in slow motion. Clearly I was supposed to care, but why should I? I didn't even know who was dying. I didn't get to know them at all through the course of the movie. I could care less if any of them died. Dumb.

This is seriously a terrible movie. I kept thinking about Braveheart, Gladiator and Troy, and how much better each one of those movies is. There isn't even a comparison. This is an incredibly boring and stupid movie.

3/10

[adamjohnson]

King Arthur: Proof that a movie CAN have too much Color Correction.

[RobertPaulson]

how someone could say this is boring I don't understand.

I saw it with a large group of people, and not one person compalined about it being boring - even people that were less enthusiastic about it than me.

And I disagree that the characters are underdeveloped. I thought the film did a good job of setting up character decisions so you could understand why the character was making that choice.

Like Arthur's transformation from loyal Roman to Woad leader is understandable - because throughout the film his respect for certain things about Rome get shaken by events in the film- corrupt Roman leaders, religious persectution, and the way Rome treats his knights

[MadsenOMC]

I'm sorry, but Arthur is the one and only character with even a hint of character development. The rest are not developed at all, period. Lancelot just pouts and looks gloomy the entire time. The rest are impossible to tell apart. None are given anything to do, except say a few standard lines of dialogue and fight with Arthur. And even Arthur has very little character development. The absolute minimum for a character who's the lead. There's hardly anything to him, and there's nothing to anyone else. I was bored out of my skull. This is one dull movie. How someone could say this isn't boring I don't understand.

[chinton]

Maybe Im just getting more and more cynical but I just dont see whats so special about this film. Ok so it looks nice and the action scenes are well done. I especially like the fact you can see strategy within the battle but aside from that I found this film much like Troy to simply be another unimpressive big budget epic. As this movie was ending I couldnt think of anyhting blatantly wrong with it. I mean yes we have another generic butt-kicking female lead and a bland romance and okay lines but nothing was truly truly horrible. Its just that this whole film reeked of unimpressiveness if thats a word. The minute I elft the theater the film exited my mind in a heartbeat. Maybe Im just g etting harder to please.

4.5/10

[MadsenOMC]

No, I think you're actually being way too kind. This movie is really fucking awful. I think Devin's 2/10 review over at chud.com is extremely accurate, or Berardinelli's 1.5/4.

[systemdwn]

...and so far the movie is opening pretty dissapointedly with just 4.8 million opening day.

Does anyone know the budget of the movie?

[MadsenOMC]

$100 million.

[MartinGPB]

listen i know based on my following experience, im in no position to judge this movie, but here goes anyway-- lemme explain:

i work at a movie theater so obv i see everything for free-- i had a shift from 5-11 tonight and saw we offered a 240 showing of King Arthur, so i figured what the hell, it looks pretty shitty, but for free, I'll sit and watch it . I go in, I'm watching it, I'm thinking "wow, this is pretty terrible. but maybe its just my expectations". Anyway, 35 minutes in, I fall asleep. That's right, i just passed out. I was awoken about an hour and 45 minutes in by my cell phone vibrating. I leave the theater to talk to my college roommate who I hadn't spoken to in a while about the great movies we'd both seen lately (Before Sunset, Spider-Man 2). We talk till the movie's over, and I find the experience infinitely more rewarding than what I saw of the movie.

So-- I know it's not fair, I only saw the beginning, but does anyone think I should bother watching the rest? And did anyone else find it deadly dull? Not that I should trust the masses, but when asking patrons coming out of a later showing of it, they almost unanimously called it "excellent". So yeah, the messages are mixed-- be happy to hear some of your thoughts.

First 35 minutes--- 2/10


BTW, I saw "Anchorman" last night-- I know the reaction has been positive but muted, but I thought it was one of the funniest films I've ever seen

[The Prowler]

This movie would have been better placed in the spring time when there was not much competition. Judging by the early numbers this film is gonna tank which is a shame.

I saw this on Wed. and it actually wasn't that bad. I thought Clive Owen was very good as Arthur and the most memorable performance of the lot. The cinematography was very nice and fun to watch especially the snow filled battle on the frozen lake. The ending battle was also fairly well executed. I think the problem is that most people are bored with these long repetitive battles now with other films doing them. This film was actually way better than Fuqua's last film, Tears of the Sun. Not a bad little movie but I am afraid without the star power this one is gonna tank bad. This movie was miles better than some of the other stinkers out there like VanHelsing and Chronicles of Riddick. Both aweful movies that will make much more than King Arthur which is a shame. King Arthur is the better movie out of the 3.

7/10

This movie would make a great back to back with Troy once both come out on dvds

[moviegroupie]

To be entirely honest with my fellow readers, I hated this movie. Jerry Bruckheimer produced this menace, and Antoine Fuqua directed the PoS. With Fuqua (I know, it's a funny name) having decent movies under his belt like Training Day and Tears of the Sun, I had expected this one to be mediocre at the very least. Well it was worse than my expectations led me to believe. Most of the actors stand out as one-hit wonders, with the exception of Keira Knightley playing as Guinevere. Yes she was hawt, but she lacked character development, as did the rest of the cast. The most convincing part of her role was that she had devilish lemon-squinty eyes, but I'm not certain if they truly portrayed her being angry, as that's how she looked at her peaceful marriage. To pick apart Guinevere's role some more, the "aesthetic crew" went apeshit crazy with excessive makeup to make her look at times albino, and at other times to look like some ewok popping out of the dunes. A great expression fits well here: less is more. To quote a fellow JoBlo forum member, that calls himself 'adamjohnson': "King Arthur: Proof that a movie CAN have too much Color Correction." I couldn't agree more. The blood on Arthur's sword and the "ponytail thing" on his helmet are saturated to hell. You can not simply make a movie appear to be better by nuking the hell out of its original footage. The next major flaw with the film is that its timing was poor: when I wanted dialogue, I got long battle sequences and when I wanted long battle sequences, I got dialogue. The paragraph that opened the film was minimal and was so dumbed down that a kindergardener could easily understand the premise, or lack of. From that moment on, I knew I wasted money (and it was a twilight showing too!) The trailer was very deceiving, and the acting was laughable. Avoid at all costs, and in fact never see it! Just pretend this movie didn't come out. Even loud stoners five rows behind me were making fun of the movie, and commented before it started up that they were going to be subjected to crap (and they were by no means, connoisseurs of cinema).

-> A Booger Flicker

Off my site www.cinematichell.blogspot.com it gets 3/10

[chinton]

didnt realize it cost that much to make, looks like another movie which will cost the studio lots and lot s of money afterwards

[chinton]

its always intereting to come here after seeing a big budget film in a packed house. Much like Riddidck and Troy people were clapping and cheering this movie. A lot of people were sobbing to by the end. Although maybe they were sobbing from pain. Its nic e to come on this board and see that not everyone can be entertained so easily.

ooops double post

[dellamorte dellamore]

Looks like Clive Owen is destined to be an art house favorite , maybe even a legend , because this was his chance to prove he could carry a big budget film , and the numbers indicate he didn't . Maybe he'll get another chance sometime in the future , but i would be more than happy to see him keep on doing the small character driven films he's so great in . No shame in that , not everyone is ready for or should be doing mainstream fare .

[gyro_44]

Chalk up another overblown epic from Hollywood this year (after TROY). This film did absolutey nothing for me. It was muddy, dreary, and too narrow in its scope.

Apparently Bruckheimer and Fuqua were going for the gritty, realistic take on King Arthur, and it just didn't gel.

4/10

[MartinGPB]

what's with all the TROY bashing? personally, i enjoyed the shit out of it. anyone with me?

oh yeah, hated KING ARTHUR

[moviegroupie]

Originally posted by MartinGPB
what's with all the TROY bashing? personally, i enjoyed the shit out of it. anyone with me?

oh yeah, hated KING ARTHUR

i hated both

[dellamorte dellamore]

Maybe they should have gone the mystical route and not bothered trying to demystify the legend . The legend was always more appealing than the reality , so it seems .

[Wildbilld]

Classic 4 Star Rating:
http://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/halfstar.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/emptystar.bmp

Letter Grade:
C+

1-10 Scale Rating:
http://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/6stars.bmp

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by MartinGPB
what's with all the TROY bashing? personally, i enjoyed the shit out of it. anyone with me?


I certainly am. I'll probably go catch King Arthur sometime this week. But mainly just to support Fuqua, Owen, and Knightley.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Damn Owen , he deserves so much better , Knightley has already had her hits .

[MadsenOMC]

Agreed, dd, Owen does deserve better. He is an extremely gifted actor. But this movie did nothing to show that. Fear not, though, he has I'll Sleep When I'm Dead and Closer coming up, the latter of which is supposed to be serious Oscar bait, and word is he's the best thing in it.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I def want to see Dead , it looks like another film that he carries all by his lonesome , and Closer looks like it could become one of those art house hits that breaks out because of all of the Oscar attention you're saying it could get , i hope .

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
and Closer looks like it could become one of those art house hits that breaks out because of all of the Oscar attention you're saying it could get , i hope .

There's no way a movie with Julia Roberts is going to be an art house flick. With the cast and budget it has, it's going to be very mainstream.

[MadsenOMC]

Actually, moviefan, you're dead wrong. Do you even know what this movie is about? It's based on a play and is a dark, scathing look at modern relationships. It has an all-star cast, but that is because of the material. It has a low budget and is definitely an art house movie.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Maybe , but i'm thinking a midlevel release that heats up because of Oscar noms , not some out of the gate breakout hit , an adulterous spouse doesn't sound too mainstream to me , no matter who is in it . With the rare exception , people still feel uncomfortable with that subject matter , unless , again , there is some Oscar buzz , nominations , or even a couple of statues to go along with it .

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by moviegroupie
To quote a fellow JoBlo forum member, that calls himself 'adamjohnson': "King Arthur: Proof that a movie CAN have too much Color Correction." I couldn't agree more.

I feel special.

:D

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Actually, moviefan, you're dead wrong. Do you even know what this movie is about? It's based on a play and is a dark, scathing look at modern relationships. It has an all-star cast, but that is because of the material. It has a low budget and is definitely an art house movie.

Incorrect. Awhile back I read about the movie and was very surprised about how big the budget was for the material. I don't remember the exact figure, but if I were to guess it would be in the $50-$70 range.

[MadsenOMC]

Are you serious? That is just not true. Again, do you know the subject matter? What it's about? There is no way the budget is more than $20-$25 million. They are all doing it for no money because of the dark material and prestige of it. What would that money go to? It's all about people talking. You are flat-out wrong my man. Find me a story that claims that kind of budget. There is no way that you will. This is an art house, low budget affair with a great cast because of the material. Simple as that.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Are you serious? That is just not true. Again, do you know the subject matter? What it's about? There is no way the budget is more than $20-$25 million. They are all doing it for no money because of the dark material and prestige of it. What would that money go to? It's all about people talking. You are flat-out wrong my man. Find me a story that claims that kind of budget. There is no way that you will. This is an art house, low budget affair with a great cast because of the material. Simple as that.

Yes, I know all about the premise. It's been on my radar for months. But I still stand behind what I read. I remember reading about Roberts and Law taking paycuts, but still being surprised at what the studio was giving it in terms of a production budget. Now that I think about it, the more convinced I am that it was right around $50.

[MadsenOMC]

This has gotten off topic, which is my fault. I have been looking for budget info, and I can't find a thing. I stand by what I said. There is no way it cost that much. If you find something, please PM me, and I'll admit I'm wrong.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
This has gotten off topic, which is my fault. I have been looking for budget info, and I can't find a thing. I stand by what I said. There is no way it cost that much. If you find something, please PM me, and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Same here. I can't guarantee what I read is true, and if it does end up being wrong I will apologize, but it was what I read and until I hear differently will believe.

[JoeChar4321]

Originally posted by gyro_44
Chalk up another overblown epic from Hollywood this year (after TROY). This film did absolutey nothing for me. It was muddy, dreary, and too narrow in its scope.

Apparently Bruckheimer and Fuqua were going for the gritty, realistic take on King Arthur, and it just didn't gel.

4/10

I agree. King Arthur was the most average movie I have seen in quite some time. It was average to the point of tedium. There is really only one battle scene in the entire film. Most of the time, the viewer is “treated” to a dark pondering film. This set up was dull and so very uninteresting. When Arthur and his knights set out on their last mission, the film’s director chooses to spend over five minutes of screen time on them opening a giant door and them riding through the rain. I remember my eyes glazing over and being forced to look around in the theatre. It was the equivalent of filming someone tying their shoes very slowly. YAWN. Keira Knightly fans will be disappointed. She only appears at the halfway point and has a total of about 20 minutes of screen time. When she does appear, she’s usually dingy and dirty. This dull cast gets lost in this period piece.

SPOILER ..................... .............................. .......................... .................... ................... ......................... ........................ ............... One question, what kind of strategy did Arthur employee during the final battle? He had catapults and plenty of archers but choose to abandon the walls and their advantage? He simply opened the gates and invited the larger army in to do battle? Huh? Smoke screens aside, not very smart…just like this entire film.

5/10

[mrsfuz]

I think that average might be a little harsh. I enjoyed this movie -- and really thought it was sucessful as a summer popcorn flick. (though i will admit, it had its moments, but then again, so did Troy and so did Gladiator, so no big complaints out of me).

The cast is what made the film for me -- while Ioan Gruffudd and Clive Owen were phenomenal, i think that the supporting cast really meshed well together.

The action sequences were good, and I was more impressed by King Arthur's dialogue than i was w/ that in other "epic" films.

[MadsenOMC]

I think average is way too kind. What is so exceptional about Arthur's dialogue? I would say it's weak at best, absolutely awful at worst. And Gruffudd was terrible, not that it was his fault. Nothing was required of him other than standing around looking gloomy. That's all he did. There is zero characterization in this movie. Absolutely none. Everyone is one-dimensional or even worse.

[chinton]

King Arthur sums up one thing for me:


To me in the movie buisness when a legend is way more intersting than fact then go with legend

[dellamorte dellamore]

Know what the bigggest prob seems to be , that this film was released smack dab in the middle of braindead time . Shrek 2 , Day After , Van Helsing , Anchorman , White Chicks , Troy , SM 2 they are all mindless exercises in excess , with inane dialogue and throwaway cliched narratives , it's the Summer season .

Can't say for sure , because i haven't seen this yet , but i'm guessing there is some art house flavor to this film , and it just might be something somewhat intelligent , a big no no during this time of year .


All the reasons people are pointing out why it didn't work are reasons i feel i'll prob like it , i need a break from all the nonsensical cash cows that have been regurgitated all summer long , and King Arthur looks to fit that bill .


But , i still wish the legend was brought to life again , because i feel Excalibur , a brilliant film , could have been improved upon .

[MadsenOMC]

dd, believe me, I have no problem with an action movie that wants to throw in "art house" elements, you know, character development and a slower pace and all that. That is not the issue with King Arthur. It is anything but intelligent. Intelligence has left the building with this one. That's the problem. The script and the acting are terrible. Even worse than that at times. I would have loved a break from the big dumb loud movies, but this is exactly that, a big dumb loud movie.

[dellamorte dellamore]

We usually agree on these B Buster films , so this time i hope i'm going to disagree because i really want to like this .

[MadsenOMC]

Hey, I hope you like it, too. But IMO, this movie has zero character development and intelligence.

[the humble narrator]

I will never forget King Arthur.
The first film that I have EVER walked out off.
I just sneaked in and watched Fahrenheit 9/11 again.
After an hour, the movie was so dull and silly. So pretensious and the acting was laughable, even from Clive Owen. Within those 60 minutes, the only thing I liked was some of the cinematography.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Damn , there were some great moments , and some moments that seemed to offer some hope , but the film was an utter disappointment .

I never really cared about anyone's plight , and there never really seemed to be that " bad " guy you could hate . I don't know , this one wanted freedom , this one wanted that , this other one wanted this , i just didn't care after awhile , it became mundane and boring .

I felt myself wishing for someone to cast a magic spell or something , because the film desperately needed it .


Once again Clive Owen proves why he's one of the best actors alive today , because he was great , but i fully expected that , and all the other perfs are solid also , it's just that the narrative is lacking , and the visuals are nothing to get excited over . This is a 130 mil B Buster , they got ripped off , there is nothing that stands out visually , man what a letdown . I don't know what the hell is going on with these budgets as of late , where is the money going ? It certainly isn't going to the visual effects department because this thing looks like it's from 4 or 5 years ago . They could have saved a ton of money and dropped the fight scenes altogether , and just focused on the dramatic elements , those were actually effective .

Here's a tip , forget about debunking the legend next time , instead celebrate it , and explore it deeper , like Excalibur did , because this thing is dreadful .

I hate to bring this up , but this really is just a poor man's Two Towers , that's what i thought while i was watching in many instances , i was waiting for a Ura Kai to make an appearance , too bad they never showed up to get this thing rolling , it could have helped .

Sorry , Excalibur is still the cinematic standard when it comes to the King Arthur legend , this one can't even come close .

[Lynn7]

I've never seen Excalibur- is it out on DVD-it's an oldie isn't it?

You know, Disney's "The Sword in the Stone" is based on King Arthur's legendary life as a youth- I'm suprised no one has made that story on film yet.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Intelligence has left the building with this one. That's the problem. The script and the acting are terrible.
I think the acting was far from one of the worst elements in the film. I agree, the characterization was virtually zilch, but I thought Clive Owen did alright in the lead role.

When you've got actors like Owen, Stellan Skarsgard and Ray Winstone (who have all done stellar work in the past) and they can't bring much levity to the script, you know your film is in trouble.

[Scarface98.9]

This would've been such a better movie if Clive Owen said "Screw this", got a BMW, and started running over all of the nameless henchmen

[tcopen]

well put Scarface

[dellamorte dellamore]

Excalibur is prob the best telling of the King Arthur legend , and it's way dark , it doesn't shy away from the sex or violence , and it's not afraid to show the " heroes " of the story as fallible men in a brutal world .

It's no doubt dated visually , but the film still works on many levels . The cinematography , set design , soundtrack and costumes are brilliant , i can easily see how it influenced a ton of men in armor epics that came after it ( LOTR ? ) .

I highly recommend it , even though it is somewhat cheesy by today's standards . The last 30 minutes or so , beginning with the quest for the Holy Grail and culminating with the battle between Arthur's knights and his illegitimate son Mordred's minions , is stunning .
( check out one of the " Two Towers " off in the distance .)


Heard the director , John Boorman , may do a sort of remake , or something related to King Arthur again , now that would be awesome , especially with the modern day technology at his disposal , now that is something i would like to to see , it would get the bad taste of King Arthur out of my mouth . ( By the way , Boorman was looking to adapt LOTR to the screen as early as the late 70's , but he couldn't get the rights , that would have been crazy ) .

[Lynn7]

Thanks for the info- I'll have to check it out. I think my brother has it on VHS but I'll see if its on DVD at the store.

[DareDevil]

Originally posted by gyro_44
I think the acting was far from one of the worst elements in the film. I agree, the characterization was virtually zilch, but I thought Clive Owen did alright in the lead role.

When you've got actors like Owen, Stellan Skarsgard and Ray Winstone (who have all done stellar work in the past) and they can't bring much levity to the script, you know your film is in trouble.

agreed

i'd give the movie a 5 or a 6