King Arthur
 

So I saw King Arthur today and I was wondering who else has seen this movie (or wants to see the movie).

I really enjoyed it. I pretty much love all Jerry Bruckheimer movies. I swear I think in my mind he can do no wrong with making good movies and tv shows.

Plus, I really thought the guys who played Arthur and Lancelot were kind of cute. LOL.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I thought it was really good. I like the jokes in it. Even though it was a giant battle field, it was not gory. A major plus for me.

You are so right. I have seen far worse gore in movies but this was extrememly well done. No extreme close ups when the men were fighting.

Plus, I have to say I thought the love scene between Arthur and Gwenivere (spelling issues with her name, sorry) was well done. It was a "classy" love scene. I've again seen far worse. :)

I haven't seen, but my parents have and they said it was silly.
I also read a review and they didn't give it much praise. They had issues with the fact that this was supposed to be an historical account of "Arthur" yet the movie was intertwined with "historical accounts" and the ledgend.

But I still want to see it. It still looks pretty good to me and Clive Owen is a little bit of alright :D

Ack, sorry about the 2nd thread!!!

Mods, can you delete my thread?? :)


Anyway, loved it also!

Saw the preview. Thought it looked cheesy. Maybe I'll see it then if y'all say it's not so bad.

Keira Knightley looks like Winona Ryder to me.

I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to see it.

It's a good movie. I'm sure it will be nominated for a few Academy Awards (like sound effects & maybe score). But for me, I don't go see movies based on what critics say because that is their opinion. I want to see a movie because it looks interesting. Which is why I wanted to see King Arthur. I thought it looked good and I have, so far, loved all of Jerry Bruckheimer movies.

Let's put it this way, it's not Academy Award winning movie on the Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress level (IMPO, doesn't mean that in Feb 05 it might not get nominated), but it is GOOD entertainment.

The script is good. It has a few laughs.

[hijack] As for the "history" or "legend" factor. One thing people need to remember that Historians have found proof that their was an Arthur during the Dark Ages but this proof was "written" in the Middle Ages. As a person who has a BA History, I have to mention that the reason they have no record in the Dark Ages, was because there is pretty much LIMITED written records for the Dark Ages, that is why it is called the Dark Ages. Like I said there is "proof" that an Arthur existed but if he became king and if he had a round table with knights, we will never know. [end of History lesson hijack] :)

(If someone out there has more than just a BA History and has more collegiate knowledge on the Dark Ages, please feel free to correct me. I'm basing this off of all I learned in my History courses)

I agree. I never take the criticts word for anything. Most of the time I feel they are wrong about the movies they review, so if it interests me I'll go see it.

However, for the history lesson. I am aware that there is some historical fact in the Arthur ledgend. The problem that I have read about (as I have not seen the film so I am going on reviews and also my parents reviews, who I trust more than the critics) is that the film didn't stay true to the historical fact. For instance, "Arthur" should not have been called "Arthur", he should have been called "Arturius" or something along those lines.

While I don't have a BA in History, it seems to me that the problem here is that the film was poorly researched.

But like I said before, I still want to see it. If nothing else, it does look entertaining, and isn't that what movies are really about?

I saw it Wednesday, opening night. I say that unless you are dying to see the battle scenes on the big screen, wait until it comes out on video.

While I liked that it dealt with Arthur in his likely-historial context, Anton Fuqua's directing/storytelling stunk! He did a terrible job of explaining who Arthur really was (aka - why he ended up fighting for/with the Woads). Also, some of the dialog was mumbled and certain important pieces were not clear.

I happened to see the History Channel's special about the history of Arthur and it was a large part of why I was interested and understood what was going on.

Lady Pi Phi, they did call him "Arturius", but not often. It was like the supporting cast of the movie called him that but his "friends" called him Arthur. Does that make sense?

LeslieAGD: I saw that History Channel presentation too, which I guess in part helped me to understand the movie better. :) But then again I have seen soooo many TV movies and movies and taken classes on Arthurian legend that I was pretty up to speed. :)

Ahhh...I see now. That does make sense. Thanks.

I enjoyed it. Cinematically, I thought it was really good. The battle scenes were great, especially the scene on the frozen river. I didn't regret the money I shelled out at all.

Historically -- eh. I think that most historians agree that the Arthur legend started from two or three actual historical figures whose stories got blurred and jumbled together with a good dose of Christianized Celtic/British myth thrown in, and with some French romance legends being added later. The movie focused on the figure of Ambrosius Aurelius (who was named Arturius in this movie, and who, according to some medieval sources, was the brother of Uther Pendragon, Arthur's father) and on the battle of Baden Hill (where Roman commanders supposedly led British tribesmen to repel, at least for a while, the Saxon invasion, but which the movie somehow moved from near the Thames to Hadrian's Wall). But while they used some of these historical nuggets, they mixed them all up with parts of legend -- Lancelot, Gawain and all. Oh well. Movies is magic.

And I am impressed with any movie script that can work in the pelagian heresy, even if they were a bit predictable in making Pelagius out to be the voice of reason against the supposedly evil Roman pope.

The two things that distracted me throughout, historically speaking, was that they kept calling Arthur's men "knights" rather than "warriors" or "soldiers," when the concept of knighthood didn't develop until centuries later, and that the "knights" were sometimes seen wearing chain mail, which wasn't invented until centuries later. Oh well. Movies is still magic.

Sounds like you watched he History Channel special as well :D

I did, although it is a subject I have read a fair amount on over the years, having simultaneous interests in Arthurian legend, Welsh/Celtic myth and British history.

Seemed to me that they missed a chance with Merlin. Instead of just showing him as a tribal leader, they could have used him as a "conduit" if you will to show how British myth came into the story.

There was a really good article about King Arthur in this week's Entertainment Weekly magazine. The movie was supposed to be a winter - not summer - release, and a lot of material was sacrificed due to fewer months for filming.

Also, Fuqua was like the third or fourth choice as a director. He wanted to make a bloody, violent "R" rated version, but Disney kept asking him to cut it down for a "PG13" rating. Fuqua's version may be released as a Special Edition Director's Cut DVD.

http://www.npr.org/programs/wesun/ph..._fuqua_140.jpg

Mr. Fuqua is sooo fine.:D

Sub-Roman Britian is one of my specialities so here goes historical:

Badon Hill - estimated to fall somewhere between 490-520AD - most likely around 500AD (the writter Gildas claims he was born on the day of the battle, although he makes no mention of Arthur). Following the battle a period lasting at least 25 years saw a respite from "barbarian" inursions, so it had to be a pivotal battle. While the exact location isn't really know (Geoffery says around Bath) it is almost certainly a location in Southern England - not near Hadrain's Wall... the movie probibly borrowed from another battle epic: "Gododdin".

The equipment - suprisingly (well from what I have seen on previews and commericals) is pretty much historically acturate... in that yes people wore armour and used weapons like those in the movies... as for the chain mail comment - chain mail based armours were used by the Roman Cavalry in the late Imperial Period, or about 200 years before the film takes place.

The concept the "knight" or a elite cavalry trooper had been around since the founding of Rome, and indeed there was a "noble" sub-class roughly equivilant to the "knight" - however most people attach the concept of the knight with the much later evolution of the warrior class around the Gothic period...

Pelagius - well his teachings had a lot of supporters in the British Isles, and apparently a popular support base amongst some of the cultural elite of the time - most contemporary accounts (well favourable) portray him as a supporter of the common man and an impassioned debater.

Thanks for the info, especially about chain mail. A few comments:

As for "knights," certainly there was a more noble, if you will, horse-soldier/cavalry class as early as the Romans. My objection to use of the word "knight" was two-fold: (1) It is not an historically accurate word in that it is Germanic, not Latin (or Celtic) -- the roots of it would have come in with the Saxons (and Angles and Danes) that "Arturius" and company were fighting. It seemed a more Roman term should have been used. And (2), it implies a connection to medieval concepts of chivalry. These things being so, use of the word seemed a strange choice in a movie attempting to get at the "truth" of the Arthur story.

As for Pelagius -- true, he did have quite a following in Britain. He was British himself. And he may indeed have been a champion of the common people. But I was struck at how the movie subtly suggested that support for the common people vs. the establishment was why he was declared a heretic, rather than as a result of specific teachings he espoused.

saw it, was dissapointed.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was much better than I thought it would be.

ASUADPI and RACooper said it better than I could myself.

I did go see the movie and I will definately buy it when it comes out, I'm hoping they do make and extended version with the stuff that was edited out. History stuff aside, I did enjoy the movie. Oh yea, and Clive Owen is a total hottie :) ...had to add it!

Well as for the "knight" issue... really it doesn't matter as the film has so many other glaring historical issues... the Roman noble class, "Equestrian" rank, ranked below the Senatorial rank... and was identified with the middle upper class that gained presitge through military service, while their wealth came from business... they could be considered the "hands on" nobles, that personally oversaw their estates and investments as opposed the Senatorial class.

Pelagius teachings were considered heretical for esentially two reasons: that man isn't born with original sin, and that man could deal with God directly... without the oversight of the church.. so in a way the movie was somewhat accurate...

Overall if the movie wanted to be more "historical" it should have tried to use the writtings of Bernard Cornwell or Jack Whyte.

I'd have to quibble with that. The concept of original sin, promulgated particularly by Augustine, is basic in the Western Church, but the Eastern Orthodox churches never have accepted the western idea of original sin, yet they are not considered heretical.

It's a little more subtle -- Pelagius taught that Adam's sin affected him alone -- which is a little different from saying that man is born without original sin. Again, the Eastern Orthodox reject the idea of original sin yet teach, along with Western Christianity, that Adam's sin brought death to humanity -- that is, the result of Adam's sin was death not only for Adam but for his descendents (whether understood literally or metaphorically). Pelagius taught that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned.

The crux (no pun intended) of Pelagius's teachings that were (and still are) considered heretical was that a person's salvation was achieved through his own good works and righteousness, not through the atonement and resurrection of Christ. It really is not so much a matter of dealing with God directly without the established church -- although that can flow from Pelagius's teachings. It is really a rejection of what had come to be considered, from Paul on, perhaps the central defining tenet of Christianity.