Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
In case anyone is interested in reading it:
http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=2675
http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=2675
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
King Arthur review in Boston Globe
- Thread starter Thornir Alekeg
- Start date
Wombat
First Post
Well, I saw it. It was ok as far as summer action flicks go - about as watchable as Troy.
Objectively speaking, though, it was a horrible incoherent mess interspersed with some good battle scenes and visuals.
The plot has huge holes - although none of them leave you scratching your head wondering what's going on, because everything is so predictable, so it just feels like parts of it ended up on the editing room floor.
Arthur's development as a character is clumsily done, and full of anachronism... This includes constant cringe-worthy babble about democracy from a guy who after all gets crowned as a king (I was expecting to hear "No taxation without representation!" at some point, and perhaps a scene with Britons dressed as Saxons dumping stacks of Roman togas into the harbor) and some really shabby and mocking treatment of Arthur's Christian beliefs and early Christianity. (the only thing missing there was a pedohile priest)
Objectively speaking, though, it was a horrible incoherent mess interspersed with some good battle scenes and visuals.
The plot has huge holes - although none of them leave you scratching your head wondering what's going on, because everything is so predictable, so it just feels like parts of it ended up on the editing room floor.
Arthur's development as a character is clumsily done, and full of anachronism... This includes constant cringe-worthy babble about democracy from a guy who after all gets crowned as a king (I was expecting to hear "No taxation without representation!" at some point, and perhaps a scene with Britons dressed as Saxons dumping stacks of Roman togas into the harbor) and some really shabby and mocking treatment of Arthur's Christian beliefs and early Christianity. (the only thing missing there was a pedohile priest)
Dark Jezter
First Post
At the very least, King Arthur looks like it will deliver some good battle scenes. For that reason alone I'll be going to see it. The Boston.com article even claims that the final battle in King Arthur is better than the battles in Troy or the Lord of the Rings. That's some high praise right there, and I'll have to judge for myself the validity of such a claim. 
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Wow... the local TV channel just gave it a scathing review.
"Clive Owen is stunningly miscast, playing the wrong role, in the wrong movie. He would have been far better suited to Troy... as the wooden horse."
But he had some good things to say about Ray Winstone. Which doesn't surprise me, 'cos he's been awesome ever since Will Scarlet.
-Hyp.
"Clive Owen is stunningly miscast, playing the wrong role, in the wrong movie. He would have been far better suited to Troy... as the wooden horse."
But he had some good things to say about Ray Winstone. Which doesn't surprise me, 'cos he's been awesome ever since Will Scarlet.
-Hyp.
Dark Jezter said:At the very least, King Arthur looks like it will deliver some good battle scenes. For that reason alone I'll be going to see it. The Boston.com article even claims that the final battle in King Arthur is better than the battles in Troy or the Lord of the Rings. That's some high praise right there, and I'll have to judge for myself the validity of such a claim.
Better than Troy? Sure, but is that saying much?
Better than the Lord of the Rings? Not on your life.
TracerBullet42
First Post
Saw it yesterday and found it to be rather boring...a couple of good scenes and one interesting character...
Not a horrible waste of time...but it's no Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle either...
Not a horrible waste of time...but it's no Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle either...
MaxKaladin
First Post
I've seen a number of reviews that basically trash the movie for trying to find the Dark Ages roots of the Arthurian legend rather than doing yet another Mallory-esque version full of all sorts of high medieval anachronisms. The part I find most cringeworthy would be how a number of reviewers basically said that the version told was a bunch of hooey because everyone knows the real historical Arthur was just like in Mallory.
Laurel
First Post
Saw it last night... sigh, one to go in with very low hopes and then you may be happily surprised with one or two good points.
?Spoiler?: Biggest bummer was the ice battle. I thought it was going to be really climatic, but then- thud and sp?- Kira Knightly's outfit for the last battle.
The last battle I thought was very cool though (no, not lord of the rings awesome, but blockbuster hollywood good).
And it did have most of the basics for an Arthurian legend -though some of it was very subtly done.
?Spoiler?: Biggest bummer was the ice battle. I thought it was going to be really climatic, but then- thud and sp?- Kira Knightly's outfit for the last battle.
The last battle I thought was very cool though (no, not lord of the rings awesome, but blockbuster hollywood good).
And it did have most of the basics for an Arthurian legend -though some of it was very subtly done.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
