Rate King Arthur [Spoiler-Free]

[Dark Jezter]

All right, folks, you know the drill. Rate King Arthur on a scale from 1 to 10. 1 being the worst, 10 being the best. No spoilers in this thread please.

I ranked King Arthur as a 7 out of 10. It had some neat scenery and locations, and decent battle scenes (although not as good as the ones in Lord of the Rings, or even Troy). On the downside, the movie had some bad acting performances (did it seem like the Saxon warlord was perpetually stoned to anyone else?), some unlikable characters (Lancelot was an annoying whiner), general silliness (Guinevere as a post-modern feminist barbarian warrior queen), and an insulting portrayal of Christians (with the exception of Arthur himself, all the Christians in this movie were homicidal maniacs or scheming double-dealers).

As for the inevitable comparisons to Troy, I rank King Arthur slightly below Troy.

 

[storyguide3]

I ranked King Arthur as a 7 out of 10. It had some neat scenery and locations, and decent battle scenes (although not as good as the ones in Lord of the Rings, or even Troy). On the downside, the movie had some bad acting performances (did it seem like the Saxon warlord was perpetually stoned to anyone else?), some unlikable characters (Lancelot was an annoying whiner), general silliness (Guinevere as a post-modern feminist barbarian warrior queen), and an insulting portrayal of Christians (with the exception of Arthur himself, all the Christians in this movie were homicidal maniacs or scheming double-dealers).

I agree about the scenics. As for the battles, I liked them far more than those in Troy, because even when shot from a distance they looked real. The battle closeups in Troy were good, but the CG was a little too obvious in the long shots (and I liked Troy BTW).

I thought the Saxon leader was just taciturn.

I don't rate a movie badly for having unlikebale characters, that's just reality. Not all heroes are likeable and given what Lancelot gets up to in the legendary version of this tale, he can't be all that nice to begin with.

I don't see how portrayiing Guinevere as a competent and heroic character is "general silliness". I found it far more interesting than having her as a "damsel in distress". Heck, it was great to have a strong woman warrior who didn't manage to be killed off by the screewriter before the end of the film.

As to the portrayal of Christians in the film, I have heard others say this and I think they are being too sensitive to a perceived insult. Given the history of the Church at the time, it is not far off the mark. By this time Christianity was no longer the red-headed stepchild of western religions, it had become entrenched in society and held considerable temporal power. Not as much as it would eventually hold, but quite a bit nonetheless.

That power corrupted some of those who held it, and certainly the history of forced conversions and other events does not stand out as a shining moment in the history of the faith. The thing to remember here is that those to be condemned for those actions were the individuals who committed and condoned them. The religion did not preach these things that were done in its name. One has to remember that onw can decry the actions of those that do evil in the name of religion without attacking the religion itself.

I think this film handled that very well actually. The institutions were questioned. Some individuals were shown to be wanting in their interpretation of the faith. But, as both Arthur and the young man he was sent to save demonstrated, those evildoers did not represent the best face of the faith.

All-in-all I very much enjoyed this film. It felt right for the period, it gave an interesting take on a story that could have served as a basis of the legend. And I still love what they did with Lancelot.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I don't rate a movie badly for having unlikebale characters, that's just reality. Not all heroes are likeable and given what Lancelot gets up to in the legendary version of this tale, he can't be all that nice to begin with.

Heroes should be at least sympathetic or admirable. Lancelot spends a lot of time throughout the movie bitching and moaning to Arthur about their orders, when he isn't mocking Arthur for praying, that is.

I don't see how portrayiing Guinevere as a competent and heroic character is "general silliness". I found it far more interesting than having her as a "damsel in distress". Heck, it was great to have a strong woman warrior who didn't manage to be killed off by the screewriter before the end of the film.

It's not that Guinevere is heroic, it's that it seems like there's nothing she can't do. She's beautiful, she's wise, she's tough, she's fearless, she's a crack shot with a bow and deadly with a sword. Basically, she's Red Sonja in post-Roman Britannia.

Still, Guinevere wasn't the silliest part of the film. I would consider the sillest part of the film to be the

Spoiler

barbarians using trebuchets. I mean, for a movie that's trying to be somewhat historically accurate, I can't believe they overlooked siege weapons that won't be invented for several centuries.

(Yes, I know I said spoiler-free in my first post. But I used spoiler tags)

 

[GSHamster]

Guinevere as a post-modern feminist barbarian warrior queen

Umm, a post-modern feminist barbarian warrior queen like Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni?

I thought it was rather appropriate considering the setting is Roman Britain. Historical precedent and all.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

4/10

The actors gave it the old college try, and the crew in charge of sets and such did a magnificent job.

The director and the writer ought to be stopped before they work again. Too many absolute absurdities ranging from major plot points down to glaring errors that shouldn't have gone unnoticed.

Really too bad, because they had the elements of a good movie there and ruined it. I'd read the director was forced to make changes by Disney to lighten up the ending. I suppose I'll have to check it out when the inevitable director's cut is released on DVD.

 

[storyguide3]

Still, Guinevere wasn't the silliest part of the film. I would consider the sillest part of the film to be the

Spoiler

barbarians using trebuchets. I mean, for a movie that's trying to be somewhat historically accurate, I can't believe they overlooked siege weapons that won't be invented for several centuries.

(Yes, I know I said spoiler-free in my first post. But I used spoiler tags)

A quick search indicates that the item depicted was invented in ancient China and had arrived in the Middle East by the 7th century at the latest. So, not perfect but not that far off that it can't be overlooked in the name of fun.

 

[Abraxas]

I gave it an 8.
It was hands down better than Troy.

 

[Hand of Evil]

6 from me, action and acting but thought it moved too far away from the myth.

 

[Molky]

I gave the movie a seven. It was good, but there were a few things that kept it from being great.

The movie had a good introduction of the characters. It showed that these knights were badasses who could do nearly anything in a fight. The movie explained that they had been their fighting for fifteen years and had finally earned their freedom, after one more mission. After that it set up the Saxon invasion. So there were several layers of a plot set up.

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. It should have been a more prominent conflict. I mean Merlin was hardly in the movie it seemed, and you never really got to know him. There should have been another scene or two in there that made is change in opinon seem a little more believable.

It shoud have also had a few more scenes showing the direness of the situation between the native peoples and the Saxons. I didn't ever feel attached to these people or their situation. It seemed more like an easy way to create some nice battle scenes.

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.

My last and probably biggest gripe with the movie was the final battle. It seemed to come literally out of nowhere. I thought, how could the movie be at its climax already? Theres been no character development to the movie! There's been no middle to the movie. Just essentially a good long beginning showing off the characters ablities and beliefs and a large ending battle scene. I covered that in the above paragraphs though. The battle needed a good scene before it showing the knights figuring out how exactly the natives and they were going to fight off this massive Saxon army.

That's really all that I had a problem with in the movie. In a nutshell I basically thought there needed to be more plot development, a greater sense of urgency, and more character vs character conflicts. Otherwise I thought it was enjoyable show.

I doubt many of you read this whole thing, but thanks for reading anyway.

Ryan

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, in the some stories, yes, she cheated on Arthur with Lancelot. But in some stories, she didn't, and in some, she cheated with just about everybody.

Actually, if this was historically based, Lancelot wouldn't have been around - he was added later, apparently by Chretien de Troyes.

(Because of the review of Legends of Excalibur I wrote, I've been immersed in books on King Arthur)