Posted by *Jojo*
Well, so I watched this one last night and was left at awe after viewing it's entirety
Just a magnificent film to date 
It is almost comparable to that of the films: Troy and The Gladiatior, same setting, era and plot. I rarely do a 'review' of such films here, if ever, sure it's a - HIT !
Here are some images taken:
1. The Knights of the Round Table (though not complete
):
2. Some 'selected' fight (prior) scenes - ARCHERY (form of combat aside from the use of their swords) was mostly highlighted in the entire movie :
3. A scene where one of King Arthur's knights hit the thin ice with his weapon to drown their numerous enemies, they were outnumbered, only 8 girl included:
The Hit:
The Result:
4. I love this scene, their final battle with the Saxons (only 6 of them left, though was helped by Merlin's battalion . . . King Arthur giving the final instructions (trooping the line) to his men:
Before the Final scene Fight:
The Result - 4 Knights remained standing (girl excluded):
5. The Wedding:
@scotsboyuk - I can still vividly recall back then when a website where the discussion was purely about -ARCHERY, was ahead in ranking with that of the Esato site, and you commenting (though not verbatim) - saying that you find it hard to understand why a site like that of - Archery is ahead to that of a site where celfone (Esato) matters were purely discussed - complicated technically etc., what is there in Archery aside from pulling the arrow from the bow and hitting the target - as easy as that! Try watching this film mate, in a way you (and the rest) will understand, Because I was made to . . .
!
_________________
Q: Why did Magic Johnson acquire AIDS while active with the Lakers in the NBA?
A: Because he was playing with Larry's Bird!
* It doesn't matter if you walk SLOW, as long as you don't - STOP!
*E.G.O. - a moron/lunatic at it's - BEST!
[ This Message was edited by: JN on 2005-02-01 02:41 ]
[ This Message was edited by: JN on 2005-02-01 12:32 ]
Posted by Jim
That movie sucked big time !!! One of the worst films I ever saw.
Sorry but that's my opinion
Posted by nickorooster
Sorry, but I'll have to agree with Jim!
I mean, Clive Owen is a great actor (see the BMW short film series, "The Driver"! They're all good!) and so is Kiera Knightly, but it really wasn't that great a movie
. And here was me looking forward to it too..
Nick
Posted by plasmadog
it lacked the depth and the sheer terror factor the lord of the rings trilogy had.
i'd say it was just above average. sorry jojo.
Posted by *Jojo*
@jim - Well everyone's entitled to their own - I guess
@plasmadog - Having been a movie critic (in my own rights) for the past years now, it's been one of my 'basis' not to compare real stories with that of the ones made with the very 'imaginative' minds
Also, I am more at awe watching 'classic' ones . . . Troy/Bravehart and The Gladiator are the ones which TOP my list mate. Though I cannot contest what the LOFTR garnered in the recently concluded Oscar's - they made a clean 'sweep' - awards and according to critics abroad, that was only attained by a number of few . . .
More 'criticisms' please - hopefully positive ones
Posted by FunkRabbit
I have to say I was really looking forward to this film, and I was incredibly disappointed. I mean Keira Knightley is a great actress , Clive Owen a great actor, but this film lacked any real substance.
It was nice to see Ray Winstone doing what he does best, but other than that - poor. I also though Troy was a disappointment too. Gladiator has some great moments but is about 1/2 an hour too long, not one of my favourites.
But hey as you say, just opinion!
Posted by *Jojo*
Hmmm .. . nice thoughts, I guess I 'll just have to shift to - Adult movies next time, to please some of our members here
! Keep 'em coming . . .
Posted by *Jojo*
Hmmm . . . looks like some 'morons' ENVY my presentation here
Why don't you make your own and I'll comment on it . . . 'imbeciles' indeed!
Posted by Vlammetje
Is it my imagination, or are your posts tending towards the rude as of lately? 'morons' and 'imbeciles'?
| Quote: |
|
The legend of King Arthur is not a true story
Posted by masseur
I didn't enjoy it either and if it wasn't for Keira Knightley being in it I would have listened to my friends who all said it was rubbish too
Posted by *Jojo*
@vlammetje - It's more of an INTERNAL problem, they don't know how to use the Private Message thing, and 'hits' me openly in the threads . . . so, I better play their game.
Hmmm . . . King Arthur is NOT a real story
Does this also apply with the plot in the movie - Gladiators and Bravehart ? The prologue in the movie says: "There are so many stories TOLD about this legend, but the scenes you were about to see are - what really transpired" . . . I am not quite good with History, but . . .
Posted by sadako
i believe the story of king arthur is a classic, it is a legend. but i don't think the movie can come close to the story itself. i appreciate lotr whether i would see it in the movie house or read the book in my room.
Going back to king arthur, honestly, i'd rather read the book. For me, it cannot be compared to Troy. I love greek mythology, i know it and the film has been as interesting as the book interpreted by Edith Hamilton. I am entitled to my opinion, right? Respect it as i respect yours.
Posted by FunkRabbit
@JN, Sorry if I offended in anyway. Certainly not my intention. I assume the "imbeciles" and "morons" comments were not aimed at me? I cannot see any reason why they would be for expressing an opinion about a thread you started. I assumed adult discussion was the purpose of the thread?
Posted by Bammers
Interesting "take" on the King Arthur legend!! Nice views of Keira though!!
Posted by nickorooster
Yah. Definitely the nice views of Kiera
. But is she 18 yet? I thought she was my age...
Nick
Posted by Bammers
She's legal, thats all I need to know!! You're only as old as the lady you're feeling!!
Posted by FunkRabbit
Keira is 20 in March.
Posted by Bammers
Even better!! I've just knocked a decade off my life!
Posted by FunkRabbit
As a relatively "old" man, a decade would be good for me too! If only it were that simple!
Posted by Bammers
Nice dream though, my bed, soft lights, Keira Knightly........
Posted by masseur
time to get back on topic please
Posted by Bammers
Sorry, King Arthur, a very interesting view of the legend. Special effects quite good but had anyone any thoughts on how true to history was it? Did the Romans really "conscript" their troops? Obviously I can see the advantages and have heard of this before but did they really let them go back to family after a set time etc?
Posted by pasaway
@funkrabbit
nope, jojo is not aiming at you. he is aiming at his co-filipinos whom he called monkeys who are morons and imbeciles.
the story is classic really, but i cannot agree with the movie. just like what the other poster posted, i would rather read it than watch it. So that my imagination will not be constrained by special effects.
Oh by the way, I am also a monkey.
[ This Message was edited by: pasaway on 2005-02-01 18:38 ]
Posted by FunkRabbit
@pasaway
Thanks for clearing that up. Seems to have some kind of problem then!
Posted by Bammers
I think its always a problem when you take a legend and try and make a film out of it. Same with books, how many films have been adapted from books and been utter trash? Its very difficult for a film, even with todays special effects etc to live up to peoples imagination. The Arthurian legend will live on in peoples imagination whatever films are made alleging to prtray the "true"/"real" story.
Posted by gelfen
it was an average film - although i'm willing to forgive much in a movie if it offers up something a bit different than previous interpretations.
in this case the film tried to incorporate modern theories of the historical "arthur", rather than the overly-romanticised mythology of mallory et. al. which is traditionally used for arthurian tales. there is enough archeological evidence to support the existence of a "king" (read "warlord") in early post-roman britain who was probably either roman born or educated and managed to unite various of the tribes. the arthurian legends are believed to be based on this or several such individuals.
btw - lancelot and guinnevere were french innovations, never part of the original tale. the whole grail quest thing was also a fairly late development.
Posted by Bammers
Interesting things to add! Do like the whole "arthurian" thing though. I have a feeling though that people "prefer" the whole legend thing to the "real" thing!
Posted by *Jojo*
| Quote: |
|
@funkrabbit - Pasawy is right back then mate . . . am not aiming at you nor the other 'foreign' members (about those nasty words) who even replied 'negatively' (entitled to it)
As I read Vlammetje's reply last night (my time) I was made to do a little 'searching' if the Legend was really TRUE
Gelfen's reply was very much the one which I just read at (Encyclopedia - 13th Century Edition ) . . .
Just like with the other Greek Mythologies that we learned in school . . . it is truly a "MYTH" ! Just like with that of Helen of Troy (Troy - Movie), The Gladiator, some Greek Ancient figures: Plato, Venus, Pegasus, Lexus . . ooops not that one, Neptune et al. Just like in the movie - Clash of the Titans in the early 80's to sum it all up !
In short, it's just like that of John McLane in the Die Hard movie series - fictional characters !
How I just wish that they (my classical movie choices) were
ALL true
Well anyway, It still got a 4 star rating (5 being the highest) in my LIST!
Case is still open to attest if this movie - King Arthur, still holds TRUE
Posted by Rookwise
Watched the film last summer. Put it on and did something else after twenty minutes. The legend of Arthus (not Arthur. Correct me if i'm wrong) could have been told much better but it was too Americanised to be any good.
Posted by Vlammetje
| Quote: |
|
So why fight your national; feud or whatever in any random thread? Even if it is your own thread.
I don't see that anybody you say you aim at (all filipino's??) posted int his thread.... so the assumption that your comments were aimed at the early posters in this thread is a logical one.
Besides if you do have some beef with others... is it really necessary to let the whole forum take part in it?
As for the movie: i thought it was crap
It lacked most of the 'feel' reading material gave me.
Posted by Davo_169
| Quote: |
|
i believe the correcy term is "hollywoodified"
Posted by gelfen
yeah - but the battle on the ice was pretty cool. the whole "woad" warriors" thing was a bit much though. much like Troy - an average film.
(for those who don't know, woad is the blue war paint)
Posted by Gigs
Hmm further opinions of the rest of the world that I shouldn't waste my time waste my time watching this movie.
mind you I did just buy species2 lol
Posted by Bammers
The "woad warriors" was quite true to life though!
Posted by *Jojo*
Others please . . . Myth or what
Posted by gelfen
i'm not questioning the accuracy on that point. it was more 'Keira Knightly: The Woad Warrior Princess' where the whole film as history lesson fell apart. the "let us put aside our generations of enmity and fight together as brothers" thing was also a big leap.
King Arthur: The Abridged Script
Posted by *Jojo*
Hmmm . . . I guess I should also be doin' a REVIEW on the life (made into a movie) - of General Douglas Mc"Arthur" . . .