PDA

View Full Version : The Legend of King Arthur



Baal_Lord
August 31st, 2004, 03:38 PM
I dont know if many of you have seen that movie that was released about 1month and a half ago. It was a great movie! Best Character by far was Tristram, with his falcon and his amazign archery skills! :D

greytop
August 31st, 2004, 04:06 PM
A friend and I went to see it. It was one of the better outlooks on the legend of Arthur. It gave me a new slant on the legend.

I notice the Stonehenge was near the sea in the movie. I thought it was more inland. Could there have been more than one and the one inland was the one that survived the years?

Baal_Lord
August 31st, 2004, 04:40 PM
I noticed that also, it was during the wedding. But i loved the part when tristram was just turned wiht his bow shot randomly and hit the spy, lol that was must have been one of the funniest parts in the whole movie :D

greytop
August 31st, 2004, 04:52 PM
It was like he knew the guy was there :D

Baal_Lord
August 31st, 2004, 04:55 PM
lol, it was so unexpected, all i remember was that the lead bad guy told him to go to a tree to see the death of his fellow contry men, no one else knew but his son!

Elwe Singollo
August 31st, 2004, 05:56 PM
I didn't watch the movie, but i was a little dissapointed when someone said magic was taken out of the movie, but i guess i'll watch anyway :D

omnian
September 1st, 2004, 01:19 PM
Ooh, I loved this film! I was kinda wary cos all the reviews I had read really butchered it! Merlin definitely wasn't how I imagined him to be, lol, but other than that it was pretty cool.

Just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read :p

Baal_Lord
September 1st, 2004, 02:18 PM
merlin in this was not a magician, in real life, like history ( as told by the directors, that hey found more evidence of the real Kign Arthur) he was like a barbarian. It did have many twists, it was way different then Excalibur made in hte 80's i think

greytop
September 1st, 2004, 02:53 PM
merlin in this was not a magician, in real life, like history ( as told by the directors, that hey found more evidence of the real Kign Arthur) he was like a barbarian. It did have many twists, it was way different then Excalibur made in hte 80's i think
It was very different than Excalibur made in the 80s. In the legend of the movies, except this one, there wasn't any Romans, I believe.

Lugal
September 1st, 2004, 08:48 PM
I missed it, stupid local movie theater!

I heard they went with the Sarmatian hypothesis in this which was one of the main reasons why i wanted to see it. When's it coming out on DVD?

LoneStar1836
September 2nd, 2004, 12:11 AM
I enjoyed the movie when I saw it some two months ago. Granted it’s no Oscar winning “Gladiator”. The story, IMO, was simple but good. Yeah it breaks with the traditional telling of the King Arthur story, but how many movies like that do we need? I thought it had good action in it, and the action sequences were good even if they weren’t all bloody and realistic like in “Gladiator” and “Braveheart”. I liked the sequence when they met on the frozen lake. The director did a good job and had an interesting take on how he “told” the story.

Even though the actors are relatively unknown to me, except for the guy who plays the Saxon leader (“Good Will Hunting”), I liked the cast and thought they did a good job. I enjoyed the Arthur character and the way he’s torn between his men, his country, and his beliefs. On a shallow note, Clive Owen who plays Arthur wasn’t too bad looking either. :D I liked how Guinevere wasn’t the typical female. Her archery skills and swordsmanship rivaled the men when it came to the battle scenes.


I heard they went with the Sarmatian hypothesis in this which was one of the main reasons why i wanted to see it.They did. Of course, this was the first time I had ever heard of it, but it was an integral part to the movie that added to the emotional aspect of the story. I found it to be an interesting possible derivation to the “classical” Arthur story.

So yeah I liked the movie even if it was bashed by movie critics. I never rely on their word anyway because stuff they like I usually can’t stand. I saw the trailer for this at two other movies I had seen, and it looked good even though I didn’t recognize any of the actors at the time. So I didn’t just go see this one because someone’s name was slapped on it.

Baal_Lord
September 2nd, 2004, 12:52 PM
I enjoyed the movie when I saw it some two months ago. Granted it’s no Oscar winning “Gladiator”. The story, IMO, was simple but good. Yeah it breaks with the traditional telling of the King Arthur story, but how many movies like that do we need? I thought it had good action in it, and the action sequences were good even if they weren’t all bloody and realistic like in “Gladiator” and “Braveheart”. I liked the sequence when they met on the frozen lake. The director did a good job and had an interesting take on how he “told” the story.

Even though the actors are relatively unknown to me, except for the guy who plays the Saxon leader (“Good Will Hunting”), I liked the cast and thought they did a good job. I enjoyed the Arthur character and the way he’s torn between his men, his country, and his beliefs. On a shallow note, Clive Owen who plays Arthur wasn’t too bad looking either. :D I liked how Guinevere wasn’t the typical female. Her archery skills and swordsmanship rivaled the men when it came to the battle scenes.

They did. Of course, this was the first time I had ever heard of it, but it was an integral part to the movie that added to the emotional aspect of the story. I found it to be an interesting possible derivation to the “classical” Arthur story.

So yeah I liked the movie even if it was bashed by movie critics. I never rely on their word anyway because stuff they like I usually can’t stand. I saw the trailer for this at two other movies I had seen, and it looked good even though I didn’t recognize any of the actors at the time. So I didn’t just go see this one because someone’s name was slapped on it.
Who here does not think keira Knightly is hot (well girls, dont answer) :D

alaskannut
September 18th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Who here does not think keira Knightly is hot (well girls, dont answer) :D
Hey..whats wrong with girls answering :D ( no I'm not one!)

Xenan
September 19th, 2004, 02:04 AM
She is hot indeed :p

I saw it on the day it came out. Good movie, and funny too.

'We stopped naming the kids after the first one, we gave the others numbers' (or something like that) :D

Mr Prophet
September 19th, 2004, 04:00 AM
I notice the Stonehenge was near the sea in the movie. I thought it was more inland. Could there have been more than one and the one inland was the one that survived the years?

There are many hundreds of stone circles in the British Isles; that one wasn't Stonehenge.

greytop
December 17th, 2004, 09:45 AM
Living in the US, we have a channel called the History Channel and today they have been having things about King Arthur.

The Quest for King Arthur talks about the legend and how it might have came about.

The show, History Vs. Hollywood, talks about the legend and how Hollywood precieves the legend of Arthur. They talk about mostly about the film, King Arthur.

Bast
December 17th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Its not real history !

A more realistic Arthur would be a Celt Warlord who controls a large hill fort , Thwarted the saxxons by using the abandoned 300 year old roman roads , Guess what its in the 8th century not the late roman period 5th century but far after, Evidence shown the saxxons were walled for 30 years some force held them back , The suspect "the true warlord Celt leader Arthur".

The 2nd suspect for the real deal was a Roman general , The movie makers choosed him because he could look well groomed and fancy dressed, be almost a knight in shining armour.

The celtic one would be more like William Wallace of Brave heart, So it would be to much of a rip , Almost a prequeil if you think of it the Scottish ancestors vs the English ancestors.Celts lose and Brave Heart is payback!