Jump to content

Night at the Movies - King Arthur


DeepFreeze
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let me save everyone time who doesn't want to read a long review and say that as far as movie tiers go, I would place this movie in the "upper so-so" tier of movies. This is your typical Jerry Bruckheimer summer flick. To me, this one didn't come off as what he would hope to be a summer blockbuster like his last big hit, Pirates of the Carribean, but you never know.

A lot of times, the story seemed rushed. You don't get familiarized with the characters until right before they die (oops, spoiler). The love story between Arthur and Guenevere is under-developed and rushed, and there is no sense of consistency between scenes in the movie. Everything seems chopped up and mashed together. I know that sounds pretty vague, but one second all the knights are saying "Screw this, I'm out of here," and then one second later they all miraculously develop a sense of duty and save the day without any explanation of why. This is particularly apparent with Arthur who instantly switches gears from "I'm only doing this because I have to" to "LOL I'm a hero, n00b." I would like to add that Arthur's "monologues" with god sounded more than a little corny, but then again, that may just be me.

As far as action goes, it was pretty good. Just as in Pirates of the Carribean, however, many of the action scenes (the last one in particular) were partially marred by bad camera-work. All the knights wear similar outfits, there were bad camera angles, and the camera switches angles way too fast. Ultimately, you can't tell who is getting diced by who, but there is a whole lot of ass-kicking going on, so that makes up for it.

Where I do have to give this movie credit is the pacing. Unlike many movies, it didn't drag ass between action scenes, which is really what makes me bored in a movie. There was a pretty good mix between plot sequences and action scenes. However, an under-developed and formulaic plot ultimately make this a forgettable action flick, but on the whole, it certainly wasn't a bad movie. Hey, you could be spending your money on Soldner, right?

7.5/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plan on seeing this (probably wait for DVD) but I still think it will be tough for any remake about the Arthurian legend to top the movie Excaliber

Is Merlin present? And is Guinevere portrayed as a warrior-type? That's the impression I got from the previews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with DeepFreeze.

I saw this one and couldn't help wondering why the f*ck anyone would let JB anywhere near a legendary story like this. He just totally stripped it.

*spoiler alert*

Then, there is the senseless and pointless death of a primary character in the King Arthur myth. I was so pissed, I almost choked on my drink.

Its the typical JB Summer flick and while I found the performances to be top notch (especially Clive Owen who I thought played the part of King Arthur well), the story is just shoddily put together. Not even the disclaimer at the start of movie, could account for how this legend was butchered.

8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so angry at the fact that they gutted the story of Arthur and his knights since we get a new Arthur movie every 7 years or so - but I really wish they would've called it something else so we could get that other movie a little sooner.

King Arthur was typical do-it-by-the-numbers PG13 mess of a film. The action sequences were about as irritating as the ones in Riddick - lots of motion and shaky-cam stuff but no real substance. I know lots of people try to defend those types of action scenes so let me expound on this a bit:

It's_just_bad_direction. It requires ZERO skill. ZERO planning. It conveys ZERO information other than than the idea that there is CHAOS. Good direction gives you a good sense of spatial awareness - of who is doing what and why. The danger is that filming such an action scene properly requires that you cut it a little more realistically (Like the opening fight between Achilles and The Big Guy at the beginning of TROY) - and that means, guess what, an R rating. Crappy fight scenes are a direct and deliberate byproduct of trying to make a PG13 rating. Therefore the sins are threefold: Bad direction, lack of realism, AND censorship.

When is Hollywood going to realize that PG13 war movies are crap. The one and only exception is LOTR, but even that would have benefitted greatly from a bump into R territory (at least in the third film).

What KA really reminded me of - Tears of the Sun. Honest to god that was the same exact movie. Soldiers sent in to rescue a VIP, ends up bringing along others, death and destruction ensues.

Then there is the claim that this is the 'true story' of King Arthur... omg is THAT a lie. 5 vs 5000? Yeah, right. Oh, and they really *do* turn into ponies at the end! I could hardly believe it.

Then, in typcial PG13 fashion, swords are used like magical instant-kill bludgeoning tools - you know the kind - you smack someone on the helmet and they fall over dead from the ringing in their ears.

If this is the true story of King Arthur, then Harry Potter is the true story of a kid who goes to a wizard school in another dimension.

If you've really, really got $10 burning a hole in your pocket then go buy yourself a copy of Excalibur on DVD. It's an immeasurably better movie AND it'll last longer.

If you're *still* thinking about seeing KA - just remember one word: "ponies"

3/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Scrivener:

If you've really, really got $10 burning a hole in your pocket then go buy yourself a copy of Excalibur on DVD. It's an immeasurably better movie AND it'll last longer.


You're not talking about the Sean Connery (?) one are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Scrivener:

It's_just_bad_direction. It requires ZERO skill. ZERO planning. It conveys ZERO information other than than the idea that there is CHAOS.


I have to disagree with you here. war is chaos, not a neat ballet of characters who dance with sharp objects. Especially given the ancient/medieval time period I think the shaky camera motion can help portray the grittyness and terror of hand to hand combat. Now as we progress toward modern times this motion still has its uses but should only be used sparingly for effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Eclipse:

quote:

Originally posted by Scrivener:

It's_just_bad_direction. It requires ZERO skill. ZERO planning. It conveys ZERO information other than than the idea that there is CHAOS.


I have to disagree with you here. war is chaos, not a neat ballet of characters who dance with sharp objects. Especially given the ancient/medieval time period I think the shaky camera motion can help portray the grittyness and terror of hand to hand combat. Now as we progress toward modern times this motion still has its uses but should only be used sparingly for effect.


I think he just wanted viceral gore - which I absolutely loathe. I have no problems with the fight scenes, as they were in line with the LOTR fight scenes which I found to be just fine. You don't have to see blood, guts and gore in order to justify a good fight scene. I even winced at Troy a little in some parts, but it was OK for the most part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord... some of the critical debate over this movie makes me wonder why I am bothering to reply but what the hell...

OK... let me say this. If you want a couple of hours of escapism in an action flick... King Arthur is not bad. If you aren't some psychotic that is married to a fairy tale told in one standard way (for the most part) then this might be worth a look. I much appreciated the fact that they changed the story to reflect a more realistic Arthur. I have Excalibur in my collection, it is a fine movie although aging very poorly. The armor and the acting leave much to be desired as well in Excalibur but apparently people are willing to overlook it for this "classic" *snickers*. If you go in wanting Lancelot and Guenevere to betray Arthur and for Arthur to father Mordred with his wicked half sister IT AIN'T IN HERE. This story is the telling of the legend in a way that while not realistic is much more likely. The Saxons attacking, the Romans being driven out, the wall... there was some fact in the telling. Color me crazy but that was refreshing. The Norse and the crazy Scots were a blight on Britain, they did build a wall to keep them out... not the nice "Troy" looking wall but a wall nonetheless. Just because they added a fantastic element like the horses (and were they not beautiful... man magnificent horses, I laughed at the camp of that scene but I also enjoyed it for what it was)... if this was a movie about Indian warriors we'd be hearing how COOL that was.

The direction is sketchy but not bad. I happen to appreciate seeing expression just as I appreciate dialogue (neither done to any greatness in this flick). The battle scenes were adequate and when you bother to research and find out that Touchstone made Fuqua BUTCHER his own work for a PG-13 you understand what likely happened. Fuqua is an adequate director and his work in this film is just that.

As for the death of a key character at the end... come on it's a movie. It's a jump from the norm. If you want to see a good movie that for the most part (though not completely) sticks to the normal, done a thousand times tale go rent Mists of Avalon.

Anybody looking to be entertained... will enjoy this movie. Anyone doing thesis work on cinema or Arthurian legend STAY AWAY. This is a pocorm and a coke movie.. PERIOD the END. I happen to love popcorn and a Coke movies... how about you?

8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen, Takvah. I really liked this movie.

The only thing I really didn't like was the Saxon king/commander, Cerdic. His quiet, soft-spoken demeanor just seemed out-of-place amidst his people. He needed to be a bit more, I dunno, lively or something, but not over-the-top...

8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

Good lord... some of the critical debate over this movie makes me wonder why I am bothering to reply

then why did you?

seen this today with spiderman 2... usually i disagree... immeasurably... with scriveners reviews, but on this one ill agree.

so to cut down on the lengthy reply, ill say it in words of one syllable or less...

IMO it is crap

nuff said

3.5/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Joel Schultz:

The only thing I really didn't like was the Saxon king/commander, Cerdic. His quiet, soft-spoken demeanor just seemed out-of-place amidst his people. He needed to be a bit more, I dunno, lively or something, but not over-the-top...


I agree. But you gotta love the menacing that Skarsgard gives on screen. In ALL his movies, he is like that. Creepy. I can't wait to see him in the new upcoming Exorcist movie. Thats going to be a hoot.

quote:


Originally posted by Grayfox:

so to cut down on the lengthy reply, ill say it in words of one syllable or less...

IMO it is crap

nuff said

3.5/10


LMAO!! We have got to teach Scrivener how to do that.

Anyway, it is already a box office flop. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

You're not talking about the Sean Connery (?) one are you?

Oh, good heavens no! That one was First Knight and starred Richard Gere (whom I loathe) as Launcelot, directed by the despicable Jerry Zucker - who was also responsible for such cinematic trash as Ghost and Rat Race (the 2001 remake).

The film I'M talking about stars Nigel Terry and Nicholas Clay as Arthur and Launcelot, respectively. It's directed by John Boorman (who has since done a plethora of decent, if not fantastic, low-budget and indie films) and has a brief appearance by Patrick Stewart. My only complaint about with Excalibur is that they purposely shone this green light on everything because of the poor light and terrible weather they were filming in most of the time. The idea was to make the forests more green and bright, but instead managed only to add this annoying green glint to everything metalic on-screen. Nevertheless, it is, by far, the best Arthur movie ever made.

Check it out on Amazon

Or Netflix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

im hard on movies people like, and I give this an 8/10 as well... someone showed me it on dvd... I think people didn;t go much to see it because they wanted a big battle thing from beginning to end, this was more adventurous sort of stuff and I liked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...