King Arthur: The movie

[Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus]

Now I never trust Hollywood movies on their historical content, or lack there of, even if it is meant to be historical. There are a few exceptions to the rule, such as Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers. I saw King Arthur last night and thought it was an ok movie from the spectrum of someone who likes movies, however they did a particularly bad job with the historical dating. I will try not to unveil any of the plots or events beyond explaining mistakes they made as I know that most movies don't arrive in europe until about 3 months or so after they come out here. First the story takes place about 452 AD, which was a mere 3 years before the last sacking of Rome whic I thought was a little premature for the placement of this story. They also stated that there was archeological evidence to support that the events they described in the movie. Another thing I found to be bad casting was the physical characteristics of the cast. They made the knights of Arthur seem to be from Hispanic origin than that of Germanic, which I believe they were stating the knights were originally from. The last thing I can think of right now has to do with a seige weapon that was used that I think was used later than this period. Now I am no medieval siege machine expert, so I may have the dates wrong, but they used a trebuchet, i think i spelled it at least close. They used it a couple of times, and then they pulled a page out of the braveheart script. <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>

[Frank Miranda]

There's already an active [url=http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm10.showMessage?topicID=353.topic" target="top]King Arthur[/url] movie thread.<br>
<p></p><i></i>