Antoine Fuqua Owes Me 2 Hours

[Mark Chance]

I let the historical inaccuracies bother me for about two minutes and decided, "To hell with it. Enjoy."

If it were just the wall-to-wall historical inaccuracies, I could probably let things slide. But there's more. Oh, so much more.

The dialogue was horrible. When the writers of a period piece seem to go out their way to have conversation seem authentic by having no one ever use contractions, when characters spout on and on about freedom 700 years before there was even a Magna Carta, when every speech Arthur gives is like a Shakespeare for Dummies version of the St. Crispin Day's speech, when Lancelot criticizes Arthur's religion for the way those completely ludicrous monks were treating prisoners but then later admits that he'd have left Guinevere and Lucan in jail to die.... GAAAH!

And why would a Roman official and father to the one the Pope's "favorite godsons" be given land deep within enemy territory? Why do the Woad, who hate all things Roman (because they apparently want to establish a constitutional monarchy or some such thing), allow this Roman official to live deep within their territory?

As previously mentioned, why would the Saxons group together in as small a space as possible while marching across thin ice?

And who or what kept opening and closing the portal in Hadrian's Wall at the end of the film?

Remember when Arthur and company first pass through Hadrian's Wall into Woad territory? On the Roman side of the wall, it's sunny and green, but on the Woad side of the wall it's overcast and foggy. Ooooh. Spooooky.

Arrows that can be fired with enough strength and accuracy to create curtains of barbed wire in order to corral panicked cavalry? GAAAH!

And who choreographed those fight scenes? No one who wants to live in a sword fight tosses his sword up, reverses the grip, spins around, and then strikes while his foe is at his back. And, yet, there goes nearly everyone doing just that very thing time and time again.

Arthur gets seriously banged around, cut, and stabbed in the final battle, but shows no sign of injury at Lancelot's funeral? It's just as miraculous as Guinevere's in-between-cuts transformation from starved, tortured prisoner into an emaciated Xena.

And what's with Merlin? Was there any point to his character at all? Does he get to be leader because he's covered with the most dirt?

And flaming arrows are so kewl! d00d, so let's use them again at the end of the movie.

And, to answer a previous question, no Keira Knightley wasn't "hot." She was built like a 14-year-old boy wrapped in leather straps. You could get the same effect from me in a push-up bra. Err. Not that I'm speaking from experience, mind you.

Now for some sample dialogue:

IOAN GRUFFUDD (V.O.): Greetings everyone. I play Lancelot, and I'll be your narrator tonight, even though I die at the end of the picture.

RAY WINSTONE: As the loud, fat ruffian, I will grimace and yell angrily! Ray Winstone Smash!

IOAN GRUFFUDD: And I shall whine incessantly about everything.

JOEL EDGERTON: I, with my fellow knights, will blend silently into the background and be forgotten.

KEIRA KNIGHTLEY: I'm not just some damsel in distress, I'm a strong, independent female character who is surprisingly progressive considering the time period.

CLIVE OWEN: Sounds familiar..

STEPHEN DILLANE: Yeah, my one magical power is to lift characters from successful films and insert them into this one.

KEIRA KNIGHTLEY: Try wearing a corset!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Mark, I give your rave a three star rating.

And despite agreeing with you, I still feel this was better than Van Helsing.

I guess because I just expected some dudes fighting it didn't leave a lot of room for me to be disappointed (which Van Helsing and the third Matrix movie taught me...)

 

[FCWesel]

Mark, I give the rant only 1 Star and prescribe a long and healthy hug twice a day, for the next three days from the hugger of your choice.

Your complaints are usually applied to any and every Arthurian movie that has been done. Most folks like Excalibur...yet they have super-goth full plate on in that POS. And then there's First Knight...My personal favourite not because of the movie itself, but because of the groans and anger that it engenders from people becuase they hate that movie so much.

I will say that with this movie it pleased me in one respect. Lancelot got killed before he could scew up everything...and he wasn't that great of a fighter. But then I always hated that prissy twit.

For me, it is only slightly better then Van Helsing.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Your complaints are usually applied to any and every Arthurian movie that has been done.

The main difference being that this movie advertised itself as historically accurate.
But, I doubt anyone ever figured it actually would be at all.

 

[Crothian]

so, why did you sit through the whole thing if it was this bad?

 

[Mark Chance]

so, why did you sit through the whole thing if it was this bad?

Well, quite obviously, I hate myself. Of course, my self-loathing doesn't demonstrate that King Arthur isn't a truly dreadful movie. In fact, my self-loathing only reinforces my perception of what a complete dog this movie is. After all, since I hate myself, if the movie had been worth watching, I would have obviously turned it off in favor of some sort mind-numbingly banal reality show.

 

[Klaus]

A steady dose of Excalibur for you, followed by a serene reading of the Camelot 3000 miniseries by DC Comics.

That should make you feel better.

'O Fortunaaaaaaa/Velut Lunaaaaa/Staaaaaaatu Variabiliiiiiiiiisssss..."

 

[David Howery]

of course, it'd be hard to make a historically accurate version of King Arthur, since noone is sure just if there was one and who he really was or who the mythology might have been based on. About the only thing the movie did get historically right was that Arthur and his knights were Romanized, not medieval. Still, the end battle at Badon bugged me... the one thing the historians agreed on is that 'Arthur', if he existed, tromped the Saxons because he had a large and powerful cavalry force... there should have been more than 6 guys on horses at the battle...
still, the movie was fun to watch....

 

[Taelorn76]

I agree with Captain Tagon. I rented it this weekend and I enjoyed it. Was it historicly correct? No. Was the acting good? No. Did the movie entertain me for two hours and not bore me? Yes.

To me a movie is good if it lets me escape for a few hours.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And then there's First Knight...My personal favourite not because of the movie itself, but because of the groans and anger that it engenders from people becuase they hate that movie so much.

Aargh! Grr! I hate that movie so much!

Ahem.

Mark - your sample dialogue had me laughing out loud.

Despite that, I actually managed to shrug aside the bits that made me wince and rather enjoy the film.

Twice.

And it was the 'background knights' that made the film for me. I really enjoyed Tristan especially (16th level rangers rock), and Dagonet; Gawain, Galahad, and Bors were all rather cool.

I just tended to tune out Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere a bit

-Hyp.