King Arthur

Lost Traveler · Post by **Lost Traveler** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:55 pm

Here's a slate review. I was worried they would mess this up, and well with Roman troops on Hadrian's Wall in 452 and aparently Saxons north of the wall, well you might as well have stuck with the mythical version. Havnt seen it yet but Im already giving it :roll:

Times and places

Mother Mo · Post by **Mother Mo** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:00 pm

I may take my daughter to see it this weekend. Has anyone actually seen it yet?

Onibubba · Post by **Onibubba** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 8:43 am

Well, it couldn't possibly be worse than First Knight. Just rent John Boorman's Excalibur and watch that with her. Historical Arthur? Sure, who needs heroes, romanticim, legend, and myth when we can have Guinevere in body paint shooting down saxons with a longbow! :lol:

Maybe someday Mallory's Mort D' Arthur or Berger's Arthur Rex will be filmed, until then, Excalibur is your best bet.

Mother Mo · Post by **Mother Mo** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:51 pm

We've watched that one together already, but thanks for the feedback.

I'm a sucker for musicals, so Camelot with Richard Harris was always my favorite telling, outside written versions.

Lost Traveler · Post by **Lost Traveler** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 11:10 am

Ok saw this, this week end. First off I will simply review it as a movie for those of you who dont care about its historical significance (sp). Its meant to be an action flick except it seems to have forgoten the action. there is a total of three fights in the whole movie, a so so one at the begining that demonstrates that the "Knights" can defeat there opponets, a (long :roll:

)bow fight on a frozen river, and the final battle. Almost zero character development, and massive Plot holes even outside of historical context (if the wall existed to keep out the "woads" then why were thos romans living at the villa north of there? Oh thats right so theres a flimsy excuse to go there :roll:

) so just as an Bruchimer (sp) action flick it gets a C-. So if that is what you were after you can stop here because Im about to go on a rant.

Ok first off to be fair the movie plays a trick, it never actually says its based on any historical evidence....it mention that there may be some that indicate that there may have been an actual Arthur but never actually says this movie has ANYTHING to do with that. Okay for speed sake lets break this down into quick bites

the parts of history they got right:

1. there was a place called Briton
2. There was a place called Hadrian's Wall
3. People during this time did fight with swords
4. There were a people known as Saxons

Thats it.

Now to keep things simple I will pick out the sily points that anoyed me the most out of literaly thousands.

1.Picts/Calidonians refered to as "Woads" and these people being characterized as rebeling Britons who wanted there land back, sorry the picts and britons were a seperate people and the romans knew this.

2. Saxons north of the wall :roll:

never never never

3. Picts using trebuchet.

4. King Arthurs "knights" being Mongols (look at the armor)

5. The romans just picking a day and deciding "oh on thursday we'll shut down the wall and be off"

6. All the Long bow fighting (didnt happen several more hundreds of years before it is even invented and they figure out how to fight with it.)

7. All the samuri like swords.

8. That the Final battle was refered to as the battle of Baedon (sp)Hill :roll:

This literally tore a laugh and a WTF out of my mouth. Baedon Hill is NOWHERE close to Hadrian's Wall,, oh wait lets be fair, comparetivly (sp) it is close to the wall than say California or the Moon.

9. Romans living North of the wall.

10. And just for fun, Gwenivers (sp) wolverine like healing ability. "they tortured me with machines" really? wow what great machines not a scar or bruse. Here let me, Arthur reset your busted fingers...snap crunch pop...wow, careful with that bow your taking out guys from a thosand yards.

Its stupid, its stupid, PLEASE dont waste you money or your time on it.