View Full Version : King Arthur (2004)
Sun, 9th Jan '05, 4:33am
I just saw this movie on dvd. I was surprised, it wasn't nearly as bad as all the critics claimed it to be. It demystifies the Arthurian legend, to be sure, but it still wasn't a bad movie.
Did anyone else see this? What did you think?
Sun, 9th Jan '05, 4:40am
I saw it on DVD as well and thought it was pretty good.
Sun, 9th Jan '05, 4:47am
I thought it could have been a hell of a lot better if it hadn't butchered the plot so much for a worse one ... it was kinda cheesy :)
Not bad, but nothing special.
Sun, 9th Jan '05, 10:02am
Agree with Aik, it was a little cheesy to me, but I kinda like cheesy movies, liked the action and the characters, made a IWD2 party based on my favourite characters from it.
P.S: New gem, yay!!! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
Sun, 9th Jan '05, 10:17am
I saw it, and I liked it a lot. Sure it wasn't the Knights of the Round Table stuff one *expects* with an Arthur movie, but I think it was pretty well done, with cool battles and a really original take on the genre (assuming one can call 'King Arthur movies' a separate genre).
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 11:24am
Everyone knows that Arthur was Welsh. The guy playing King Arthur (forget his name) was missing a personality.
The movie was also missing a lot of the story.
I was very disappointed.
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 11:36am
I liked the movie because of the non-glorious nature. I expected another romantic lovestory about the heroic king Arthur who smited evil whereever he went, but this wasn't the case.
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 11:39am
I liked the movie because of the non-glorious nature. I expected another romantic lovestory about the heroic king Arthur who smited evil whereever he went, but this wasn't the case. I think I would have prefered that :p
And yeah, Arthur had 0 personality and two facial expressions...
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 12:19pm
True, true... Arthur has less personality than a brick. Rumor has it that his facial expressions where robot-controlled due to the amount of plastic surgery needed to perfect his chin and facial hair ;)
The Kilted Crusader
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 1:02pm
I thought it was a really good movie, IMO at least (So much so that I bought the Director's Cut).
If you enjoyed the idea of a Dark Age Arthur, then I suggest you read Bernard Cornwell's Warlord trilogy, which has all the grittiness of this film (and then some ;) ) and some of legends of Arthur. An excellent set of books, and some of my favourites :)
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 9:57pm
To be honest it demystifies the most known Arthurian legend just to create another one.
The movie is really good action-wise but as was stated before the cast is a bit weak. I also want to give Lancelot as an example of bad acting.
I think that the guy with the bow and hawk steals the spotlight from Lancelot, who was supposed to be the stylish guy (2 swords? yeah, yeah...).
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 10:19pm
Aaaah, the guy with the bow and the hawk. ;)
Pretty average movie IMO, didn't expect much of it to start with, so I wasn't really disappointed.
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 10:38pm
It's crap. Even Ray 'God' Winstone couldn't save it.
Warrior of the World
Mon, 10th Jan '05, 11:00pm
When at the opening titles, and it proclaimed that new archaeological evidence disputed the myth, I thought "Yay! A historically accurate Arthur film!". But lo, I was disappointed. Greatly so. What happened to Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon? They made him half-Roman! And Roman knights? Pah. The Celts were too skinny, Merlin was rubbish, and the things that made me saddest were the trebuchets and crossbows. The film was, to me, a great big saddening-fest. Oh well.
Tue, 11th Jan '05, 11:01pm
As a movie, it was great. As a recreation of the story, it was awful.
Warrior of the World
Tue, 11th Jan '05, 11:10pm
Precisely my opinion on the Lord of the Rings films, as films, they are very good, but they are just... not the Lord of the Rings.
Wed, 12th Jan '05, 12:35am
IMO Crap. Poor acting.
There were kings but the Legends of King Arthur is Myth - possibly built on several kings but mostly fantasy. Leave it fantasy.
Wed, 12th Jan '05, 10:33am
Fun movie to see, build together nicely.
It's a (Hollywood) movie people, not a documentary :rolleyes:
Wed, 12th Jan '05, 10:44pm
Two words: Horrid Tripe.
Wed, 12th Jan '05, 11:46pm
Put the name King Arthur on it to define it as "Epic" and drag out all the King Arthur fans, put Clive Owen (handsome male lead) and Kiera Knightly (pretty female lead) for sex appeal, throw in ragged barbarians (also starring in Gladiator, LOTR and Braveheart) for enemies, give a stirring, rousing speech at the start of major battle (Braveheart, LOTR), major battle with lots of wanton destruction (Braveheart, Troy, LOTR, Alexander) and we have regurgitated Hollywood crap with no soul bound to pull in millions. Thank god with "Alexander" and "The Aviator" doing poorly at the box office it signals to Hollywood the end of the "Epic" films
Sat, 15th Jan '05, 6:21pm
There is a very funny parody of the film here:
Woad House (http://www.web-ho.com/blog/index.php?p=252)
We haven't seen the film yet, but my husband frothes at the mouth during the trailers because of all the historical inaccuracies, especially regarding weaponry. But on the other hand: Keira Knightley wearing string. So I imagine that on balance it will be worth seeing.
Sun, 16th Jan '05, 7:02am
I liked it, Clive Owen hasn't very good as Arthur. Mads Mikkelson (Tristan) was awesome, as was Ray Winstone. The battle scenes were well done and they had a good storyline. As for the historical side of things I didn't really care that they butchered the legends, it was a nice new outlook at the story.
Sun, 16th Jan '05, 9:38am
wow, people can be very critical here on SP, I liked it. Granted it was slitly prodictiblr and that crossbows didn't exist ehn but it was enjoyable.
Sun, 16th Jan '05, 11:18am
I just saw the movie, and I liked some things, the battle scenes, :love: Keira Knightley in a string :love: , their version of Merlin, not some blue-hatted guy with an owl who chances a little boy into fish, squirrel, bird and while he is at it he optimizes the cleaning department, but a cool shaman with a painted face, long sentence isn't it?
The story was crap, the Saxxon army too small, the blood too few, no water-ceremony with a wet tart and a sword, no Camelot, no coconuts and holy grails(something that should be in every Arthur movie), too much crossbows and too much trebuchets, the random babble of Freedom(tm) "We britons are now all freeeeeee!!!!! With me as your king of course"
But still it was enjoyable.
Son of Bhaal
Sun, 16th Jan '05, 12:00pm
I can't watch it a second time, not even to skip to the battle scenes, I was extreemly dissapointed as it took 6 days to d/l the dvd... uurraaagghhhh!
Sun, 16th Jan '05, 6:18pm
After seeing this movie I felt like bashing down a wall with my head :bang:
Same thing after seeing Troy. I hope I never see Alexander.
Sun, 16th Jan '05, 10:45pm
The storyline was stuffed up but 'Tristan' in the movie, was cool. He was my favourite character, apart from keira knightley of course... ;)
Mon, 17th Jan '05, 12:01am
I think his name was Tristram, doesn't really matter I guess.
Warrior of the World
Mon, 17th Jan '05, 12:12am
Actually, its both, depending on which version of the legend you know.
Mon, 17th Jan '05, 4:09am
Ray Winstone...man, he doesn't look like he's aged a bit since he played Will Scarlett in Robin of Sherwood (wonderful TV series by the way), but of course, he looked kinda old back then too. :p I thought he and the other knights were great in the movie. Alas, I don't think they spent enough time fleshing them out. Arthur and Lancelot probably could have used different actors and could have had a better story. Stellan Skarsgard (Cedric) looked like he'd rather just take a nap than wage war. Merlin was kinda lame. Keira, although a bit on the slim side, did look quite fetching once she got her Woad on.
All in all, I thought it was entertaining, and might even watch it again sometime.
Mon, 17th Jan '05, 7:36pm
Load of bollocks it was
The Kilted Crusader
Mon, 17th Jan '05, 9:39pm
I have to agree that Tristram (that's how it's spelt in Le Morte D'Arthur) was definately the best character.
BTW, did anyone else wonder why the hell Cerdic had an American accent? :p
Mon, 17th Jan '05, 10:10pm
@KC -- Well, they probably figured: "Hell, we've screwed with everything else, why not their accents too?"
I STILL think the movie is utter tripe. Horrid. I Second Sarevok - load of bollocks.
Chandos the Red
Tue, 25th Jan '05, 4:43am
It seems unlikey that there ever was a real King Arthur. As for the legends, they are fabrications, but great ones. But I have not seen the movie.
Fri, 4th Feb '05, 6:36am
I can accept a modified version of the story as an interpretation, just like any other adaptation of the legend to film, but there were only 3 things I liked about the film. The Briton warrrior women wearing nothing on the battlefield, that was so realistic, and the amazing line where Guenivere says she'll protect the guy from rape. I larfed at that one. O and the attempt at a Briton language. Was it Welsh or was it Gaelic?
Other than that I was so glad I waited till it was on DVD and I didn't waste money at the cinema. I hated it from the first 30 secs and the acting (was there any?) was really poor.
Fri, 4th Feb '05, 12:58pm
Not that good of a movie, but damn, it was so full of Teh Pretty that I was pretty much the reason why I even bothered...