Rate King Arthur [Spoiler-Free]

[reanjr]

I gave it a 6. Dour and serious and none of the characters felt real or believable. Did Skaarsgard have a Louisana accent or something?

It seemed to me to be his natural accent (at least the acent he has in all the other movies I've seen him in). And he's from Sweden. Maybe Swedes speak like their from the south of US, I don't know...

 

[Laurel]

Another problem I had was with the whole Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle. Arthur and Guinevere never seemed to really fall for each other, more of a lust. Also, wasn't Lancelot supposed to cheat on Arthur with her? The only signs of that was some quick shots of Lancelot eyeing Guinevere.

Just like with the sword being pulled from his father's grave, they were simply giving a nod to the familiar mythology. In truth, Lancelot never really existed, so...

Spoiler-free thread so spoiler in black:
Actually what Lancelot ended up doing was worse in some ways. He turned his back on Arthur in the last battle. He chose instead to go to Guinevere's side- to save her- to help her. Arthur and Guinevere we both in heavy combat and neither one looked sure to win, granted G. was worse off. Arthur had said earlier in the film that with Lancelot at his side he could never lose, yet Lancelot still turned away.
They did brush over the whole love triangle, but I think they actually did a good job of hinting and letting you see it there if you wanted to notice it.

They also over did the jokes about Lancelot being the one to run off with any woman and having no issues with leaving her with child or not. Pushing it in your face that it was possible for him to do it. He never actually did anything like that that we saw, so it may just have been he is so unlikely to do that... but minor point in the story and I think the triangle was only added much later to the myth when thought revolved around court intrigue.

 

[Laurel]

I might be wrong, but I think it was more of a statement about Christians in Dark Ages Britain only. It could also be construed as a simplification of the persecution the natives of Britain (and Scandinavia) suffered at the hands of Christians.

I would have to agree with you also in that logic.
And there were more then just Arthur as 'the good Christian.' Arthur talks of an uncle, and there was also the son of the land owner, and the wife. All non-evil Christians, and it did give hope that the next possible pope of the time was going to use all he had learned.

 

[Krug]

I thought the movie was going nicely until a bit after Guinevere was rescued. It was where it began to fall flat. Arthur's reasons for hating Merlin were well enough explained, but the 360 degree turn around was too fast for that one scene.

Ryan

*kof* 180 *kof*

ps: Don't worry Jason Kidd had that same problem.

 

[Molky]

*kof* 180 *kof*

ps: Don't worry Jason Kidd had that same problem.

Whoops...How'd I let that one slip me? I'm feeling too lazy to edit that right now anyways. Oh well, I think everyone got the point.

 

[Caliber]

Spoiler

All I want to know is who was opening/closing the doors on that damn wall, and why the Saxxons couldn't just kill them and leave the doors handing wide open?

 

[Krug]

movie is officially a bomb: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&e=2&u=/nm/20040718/film_nm/leisure_boxoffice_dc

Walt Disney Co.'s period fable "King Arthur," which opened disappointingly last weekend, fell three places to No. 6 with $6.9 million, giving it a $37.9 million total. The film was reportedly budgeted at more than $90 million. It lost 54 percent of its audience from last weekend, the biggest drop in the top 10. A Disney spokesman was unavailable for comment.

 

[Agamon]

I generally enjoyed the movie. There were a few problems, of course, but it was entertaining. I have to say, aside from Spider-Man, there hasn't been much in the way of great movies this year, so I wasn't expecting much from King Arthur. I tend to like movies better when I go in with lower expectations.

 

[Capellan]

Dire.

I'm fine with alternate versions of Arthur (I've read semi-historical 5th century versions before, and enjoyed them; I'd also like to see a post-apocalyptic modern update), but if you're going to claim to be the "true" story, then for goodness' sake make a movie where that's (a) at least moderately accurate to history and (b) doesn't have plot-holes the entire Knights of the Round Table could ride through.

Spoiler

Pelagianism was outlawed 50 years earlier than the movie was set, and Roman rule in Britain had ended even before that occurred. The Saxon conquest is generally accepted as complete about 20 years before the movie was set. Hadrian's Wall never looked anything like that. Lancelot's well-known as a late addition to the myth so how can he be in the 'true' story? For that matter, why does a Sarmatian have a French name? If the woads are so anti-Roman, how is the evil Roman Aristocrat able to indulge his sadistic whims so far north of the wall? It's not like he has a decent guard force. Why are the Saxons so freakin' stupid all the time? Who invented the siege equipment? Why didn't Arthur just defend the wall? The Saxons had no a siege gear, and would have been easily destroyed in front of that stone monster. How did they co-ordinate missile fire and cavalry charges so easily when the smoke was so thick you couldn't see 20' in it? For that matter, what were the woads aiming at? The list goes on ...

 

[Klaus]

Capellan -> For a post-apocaliptic modern update of the Arthurian mythos, hunt for the Camelot 3000 trade paperback at comic book stores. It was produced by DC Comics back in the 80's, written by Mike W. Barr and illustrated by Brian Bolland (Batman: The Killing Joke).

Can't beat King Arthur in chainmail wielding Excalibur and a laser pistol!