new King Arthur movie

[Vincula]

No -- it's like when someone asks you to open a jelly jar and you can't budge the lid, but when you give it back, it opens magically! "Oh, I must've loosened it."<br>
Obviously the carthorses "loosened" the gates for Arturius. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

How was the actor who played lancelot? He's the same guy who played "Horatio Hornblower" in that A&E series...awesome. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"<br>
Niagara Falls, Canada</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I thought he was just okay. He's also going to play Mr. Fantastic in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie lol<br>
<br>
The only entertaining character in the movie was Bors (the shaved-headed Sarmatian knight with all the bastards), though Keira was nice to look at =p <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

seen it.<br>
<br>
it's naff.<br>
<br>
Conal <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Lancelot/ he was using two swords, and was killing backwards, wasn't he? Just more Hollywood stuff, and looking more like Samurai movies than anything of this hemisphere..<br>
<br>
I found Keira very much looking like a pouting spoiled teenager than a Pictish (Woadish?) warrior!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

also saw the movie...<br>
<br>
what can i say: nice fantasy movie....<br>
<br>
i think i´ll leave it to that.<br>
<p>-------------------------------------------------------<br>
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings -- they did it by killing all those who opposed them.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pelgr003>pelgr003</A> at: 8/9/04 7:39 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

For me, the most annoying issue about Hollywood historical movies is that they make a lot of lazy mistakes. It doesn't annoy me if the main scenes of the movie are not historically accurate, but they just don't bother to make even the easy parts correct.<br>
<br>
For example, in "Gladiator" it doesn't matter much that Maximus kills Commodus in the arena - it is almost a necessity in a Hollywood movie - but it does annoy me when Maximus rides almost mortally wounded from Germany to Spain. That is just stupid, they could have made him to figth the baddies in Spain (riding hard from Germany and arriving just a bit too late to save his family and then getting wounded and left for dead - or whatever). These kind of issues could be easily avoided by paying just a minimum of attention to the facts in the script. <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>seen it.<br>
<br>
it's naff.</em><br>
<br>
Something of an understatement, I feel. I saw this turkey for the first (and only!) time this week. I could forgive all the historical inaccuracies, plot non sequiturs, Greek-fire-wielding trebuchets, and even the carthorse-powered gates on Hadrian's Wall (ho ho!) <strong>IF</strong> the dialogue had not been so crass and lumpen. Only Ray Winstone looked as if he was enjoying himself, all the other (many of them fine) actors looked as if they were concentrating hard on the bottom line, rather than the lines they were forced to utter.<br>
<br>
This was not a bad historical film, it was simply a bad film. If the writer(s) is/are not ashamed, he/she/they ought to look the word up in a dictionary.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>It doesn't annoy me if the main scenes of the movie are not historically accurate, but they just don't bother to make even the easy parts correct.<hr><br>
<br>
I completely agree. Almost all Hollywood Historical fictioni movies spend a *ton* of mony and do a lot of things right, but then fall down on some of the easy and trivial stuff. My favorite example is in the movie "Pearl Harbor" where the producers went to enormous trouble and expense to acquire 3 of the only 5 flyable *real* Japanese Zeros in the whole world for the movie, and then painted them the wrong color. Which, somehow, every other movie made about Pearl Harbor was able to avoid doing, even if they didn't have authentic A6M's.<br>
<br>
Likewise, I can accept Maximus killing Commodus (it is historical fiction), but using Napalm on the Germans?<br>
<br>
Rich K.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[rekirts]

Okay, I finally saw this movie on DVD today. I would probably be willing to forgive the complete lack anything resembling real history if there had been a) an engaging plot (you know, with conflict, and drama and stuff) and b) character development (including any sort of chemistry between any of the characters). And I am sick to death of hearing characters in "historical" movies continually spouting speeches about FREEDOM!!! GAH!!! <p><span style="color:orange;">If you think the problem is bad, wait until you hear the solution</span></p><i></i>

[Lepidina]

I agree with Mike B. I loved Gladiator, despite it's historical inaccuracies. The plot, dialogue and acting were good enough to make me overlook the leather armor, the SPQR tatoo, and the other Hollywoodisms.<br>
<br>
King Arthur - gads, what a waste of a good cast. You've got Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffud, Ray Winstone, and Stellan Skarsgård for goodness sake!! It would have been a much better movie if they had left out all the origins of the knights drivel and just had them be an elite unit or a bunch of kick ass cav guys and left it at that and instead, focused on how they were going to work with the Woads (why couldn't they just be called Picts?) to defeat the Saxons. Like Gladiator, it could have been a good character piece with some cool battles thrown in instead of trying to be an action flick with some character bits thrown in to tie it all together.<br>
<br>
*sigh*<br>
<br>
deb<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Indeed -- why let a few facts get in the way of a good story...<br>
<br>
Except there really wasn't much of a story at all, let alone a good one.<br>
<br>
There was great potential in the basic idea, but it was never realized.<br>
<br>
Waste of a lot of effort on the part of a lot of people.<br>
<br>
Now, I just saw the trailer for Scott's Crusade film (Kingdom Of Heaven). As I am less versed in that period of history I might be more "forgiving' of historical error, but I have no doubt that it will be full of them. I must admit that it looks good, but that is from an eye un-schooled in the history of the Crusades.<br>
<br>
Getting the look 'right' no longer seems to be a major issue anymore. Getting the film to say something worthwhile, or tell a story worth hearing -- now that is an entirely different problem.<br>
<br>
Narukami<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

Absolutely forgettable movie. What's worse, I had put the DVD on my "wishlist" for Christmas before I had seen it...and I got it. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Seeing the box cover and the previews were enough to dissuade me from watching it. The movie looks akin to Xena : Warrior Princess .<br>
<br>
And this is from the same director of "Pearl Harbor". The fool tried to remake "Tora, Tora, Tora !" which was a masterpiece.<br>
<br>
The new TV movie "Spartacus" was an attempt to do the same - remake a masterpiece- and it failed of course. I think that's the worst Roman film ever made.<br>
<br>
Ever notice that most Roman movies are anti-Roman ?<br>
Why must the Romans always be the villians as if everyone else in the ancient world were so virtuous ?<br>
<br>
We'll have to wait and see about Ridley's Scott's next project about "Hannibal" (not the cannibal). I hope not to see segmented armor. <p></p><i></i>

[Lepidina]

>>Seeing the box cover and the previews were enough to dissuade me from watching it. The movie looks akin to Xena : Warrior Princess .<br>
<br>
Hey now, don't be dissing on Xena. Up until the last few seasons, that was a great show - and it never claimed to be historically accurate or authentic in any way. Hercules was great cheesy TV as well.<br>
<br>
>>The new TV movie "Spartacus" was an attempt to do the same - remake a masterpiece- and it failed of course. I think that's the worst Roman film ever made.<br>
<br>
I'll agree with you there. It had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br>
<br>
>>Ever notice that most Roman movies are anti-Roman ?<br>
Why must the Romans always be the villians as if everyone else in the ancient world were so virtuous ?<br>
<br>
Someone has to be the bad guy. And they did kill Christ afterall.<br>
<br>
>>We'll have to wait and see about Ridley's Scott's next project about "Hannibal" (not the cannibal). I hope not to see segmented armor.<br>
<br>
He's also doing another one coming up called "Kingdom of Heaven" about the crusades staring Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons. While Ridley is clearly not a history buff, I do think he's a great director so hopefully it should be an interesting movie.<br>
<br>
Deb <p></p><i></i>