Support NeoGAF

[Warm Machine]

I never saw the original movie in the theater but I watched the DC yesterday.

First I think that they should have never called the movie King Arthur. Call it Warriors of England or some such title and rename the characters. I say this because the King Arthur legend was getting in the way of me enjoying the movie because otherwise I really liked it. Fuqua make it look and feel very gritty and somewhat realistic for an adventure movie. The characters all felt really unique and charismatic and although the dialouge was somewhat modernized the lines never felt hackneyed.

There are certainly some pacing issues and it does become a slave to convention at points but when the battles start or the action ramps up I was really into it.

 

[Dead]

Considering its a Directors Cut, the alternate ending shouldve replaced the theatrical one, as Fuqua has time and again mentioned its the original and his preferred ending and he was forced to replace it with the theatrical one by the execs. Oh well. Still wouldnt be anything more than Marginal at best.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

I fucks w/ Fuqua, even before TD.

They never should've released the movie when they did... Would've been better in '05 IMO.

 

[COCKLES]

Didn't the movie get a shitload of cash taken away from it by the studio before it started filming resulting in some drastic cutbacks? It's an OK movie - WTF was up with Stella Skarsand's Mad Biker viking with an American accent? :lol

 

[Gorey]

......(snip)First I think that they should have never called the movie King Arthur. Call it Warriors of England or some such title and rename the characters. I say this because the King Arthur legend was getting in the way of me enjoying the movie because otherwise I really liked it....(snip)

I might have gotten something out of it had they done that, good point. As it is, it fails severely as a revisionist arthurian tale. Good premise, flubbed execution. Go buy Excalibur cheap if you want to see a satisfying arthurian tale- even with its heavy b-movie trimmings, it beats the living crap out of Fuqua's take.

 

[bionic77]

Go with this for all your King Arthur movie needs.

 

[Macam]

It's a Bruckheimer movie, of course it's going to be shit.

 

[Warm Machine]

It's a Bruckheimer movie, of course it's going to be shit.

Um...

Pirates of the Caribbean
Black Hawk Down
Crimson Tide
Bad Boys
Enemy of the State
The Rock
Beverly Hills Cop
Top Gun

...are not bad movies.

 

[Brian Fellows]

Yep pretty much all those movies kick ass. Hating Jerry is just the elite thing to do.

 

[sefskillz]

Um...

Pirates of the Caribbean
Black Hawk Down
Crimson Tide
Bad Boys
Enemy of the State
The Rock
Beverly Hills Cop
Top Gun

...are not bad movies.

wait, this list was supposed to disprove macam's statement? bruckheimer co-produced mann's thief, i can respect that.

 

[quin]

his movies might not have the greatest stories in the world but they are fun to watch and thats fine by me. But Black Hawk Down is one of my favorite movies ever so don't talk bad about it One thing I do admire him for is using actual composers for most of his movies and i like that

 

[Macam]

Um...

Pirates of the Caribbean
Black Hawk Down
Crimson Tide
Bad Boys
Enemy of the State
The Rock
Beverly Hills Cop
Top Gun

...are not bad movies.

Thanks for proving the point. I wasn't really aiming at his '80s material in particular, but it's largely safe to say that his last ten to fifteen years of movies have been garbage. And while you're entitled to your opinion and I understand a few of those movies have their followings, I really wasn't aware that Enemy of the State was one of those. People liked that one?

Besides, I wouldn't say people hate him to be elitist, but it's more likely that people that dislike him probably have whittled away countless hours enduring two hours of bad one-liners and the most overproduced, basic cinema this side of public television broadcasting.

 

[Warm Machine]

Besides, I wouldn't say people hate him to be elitist, but it's more likely that people that dislike him probably have whittled away countless hours enduring two hours of bad one-liners and the most overproduced, basic cinema this side of public television broadcasting.

You are just simply ignoring the fact that the directors Bruckheimer has worked with are some of the most visually exciting and cutting edge people working in cinema. Ridley Scott and Tony Scott are genius film directors. Gore Verbinski is probably one of the best of the newest generation of block buster directors and Antoine Fuqua is a very impressive young director. Anyone who has in the past hired these guys or Adrian Lyne shouldn't get anywhere near the shit he does.

As much shit as Michael Bay gets he at least has a seblance of style, though without an adult sensibility and restraint.

I seriously doubt you know what you are looking for when watching a movie to tell whether it is quality or not.

 

[Odnetnin]

now.. this movie is gawd awful. Hated it. Up there with Van Helsing.

 

[ManaByte]

I might have gotten something out of it had they done that, good point. As it is, it fails severely as a revisionist arthurian tale. Good premise, flubbed execution. Go buy Excalibur cheap if you want to see a satisfying arthurian tale- even with its heavy b-movie trimmings, it beats the living crap out of Fuqua's take.

Uh, it isn't a "revisionist arthurian tale". While there is no real historical evidence that a "King Arthur" existed (at least in the terms of Arthurian legend), the closest thing is a soldier named Arturius, which is what Fuqua's King Arthur is based. Arturius or Artur is the correct 6th Century spelling of "Arthur". You can do the research yourself, but movies like Excalibur or First Knight are about as far away from the "real" Arthur you could get.

 

[Macam]

You are just simply ignoring the fact that the directors Bruckheimer has worked with are some of the most visually exciting and cutting edge people working in cinema. Ridley Scott and Tony Scott are genius film directors.

I seriously doubt you know what you are looking for when watching a movie to tell whether it is quality or not.

I've seen plenty of projects backed by talent that end up in shambles, and despite the talent that Bruckheimer often works with, the movies that come out of those unions aren't often worth watching.

And don't take it personally, I know what I look for in movies as far as quality goes. I certainly don't have a formula or anything that I plug numbers into and it's undoubtedly different than the things you may look for in a movie, but I'm hardly alone in voicing a strong distaste for the movies that Bruckheimer involves himself with.

 

[Gorey]

Uh, it isn't a "revisionist Arthurian tale". While there is no real historical evidence that a "King Arthur" existed (at least in the terms of Arthurian legend), the closest thing is a soldier named Arturius, which is what Fuqua's King Arthur is based. Arturius or Artur is the correct 6th Century spelling of "Arthur". You can do the research yourself, but movies like Excalibur or First Knight are about as far away from the "real" Arthur you could get.

Firstly, get your First Knight garbage as far away from my Excalibur as possible.

Secondly, Fuqua's story is revisionist in that it takes the literature of Sir Mallory and Chrétien De Troyes, throws in a dash of Geoffrey of Monmouth, splices it into the work of scholars like Geoffrey Ashe, and attempts to come up with a historically plausible figure. This line of scholarship is relatively new to the field, considering the age of the myths, folklore, and poems involved. It is interesting, however, that scholars have been trying to pin down a 'real' Arthur for a very long time; for instance, the various attempts of English Royalty to connect themselves to him. The 'real' Arthur you are referring to, in this case, is the result of work done by modern scholars to place Arthur in the immediate context of post-roman Britain. I agree that the work of G. Ashe and his contemporaries is fascinating stuff, and has greatly expanded the mythology and romance of Arthurian studies in general. Revisionist may not be an entirely accurate term to use, but it was the closest thing that came to mind. Historical Revisionism is probably better, but I'm not sure there is an 'accepted history' where arthur is concerned. Nevertheless, you are dealing with a form of revisionism.
Wikipedia definition of Historical Revisionism:

Historical revisionism is the reexamination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and/or less biased information. Broadly, it is the approach that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate and should be revised accordingly.

Edit: wow, that comes off all huffy, and stuff. Didn't really mean to, I'm just a big Arthurian buff, is all.

 

[Mrbob]

Does hotty chick on the cover get naked in the unrated directors cut?

 

[Matrix]

Does hotty chick on the cover get naked in the unrated directors cut?

Sadly no.

 

[Brian Fellows]

Besides, I wouldn't say people hate him to be elitist, but it's more likely that people that dislike him probably have whittled away countless hours enduring two hours of bad one-liners and the most overproduced, basic cinema this side of public television broadcasting.

And I would say it...again.