• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

King Arthur

Status
Not open for further replies.

aparisi2274

Member
So I went to go see this movie tonight, and I must say it was pretty good. I did like how they tried to tell the story of a "real" arthur and his knights during the 5th century, where Arthur and his Knights were "slaves" to the roman army, and had to be in their service for a min of 15 years. I enjoyed how they portrayed them, and how there were no 12 knights, just Arthur and his ragtag bunch of guys who didnt even want to be there, but had to, or else face the wrath of the Roman Empire.

The only negative about the movie, was that I think it took itself to seriously. I mean there are some moments where u laugh, but aside from those moments, the movie takes itself way to serious.

Either way, I would say go see this movie.

3 out of 4 stars.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
I was bored throughout the film, something that's never happened to me during a Bruckheimer film no matter what I think the other flaws are.
 

MrCheez

President/Creative Director of Grumpyface Studios
Really disliked it. I found the performances good, but the story uninteresting. And no matter how hard I tried I couldn't get over my desire to see the "classic" King Arthur tale. =(
 

aparisi2274

Member
MrCheez said:
And no matter how hard I tried I couldn't get over my desire to see the "classic" King Arthur tale. =(


See, thats why I liked this movie. I mean how many times can u tell the same story over and over. Everyone knows that story. I liked how they tried to base this on a real person, as opposed to a fake character.
 

Screaming_Gremlin

My QB is a Dick and my coach is a Nutt
My expectations were pretty low coming into the movie, so I was pleasently surprised that I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.
 

MrCheez

President/Creative Director of Grumpyface Studios
aparisi2274 said:
See, thats why I liked this movie. I mean how many times can u tell the same story over and over. Everyone knows that story. I liked how they tried to base this on a real person, as opposed to a fake character.

True, but the problem is that this "new and fresh" story... was boring. =(

And there is something about stories that everyone knows... sure they aren't "new" but they are "classic" for a reason. Besides, it's not impossible to make old stories new and fresh themselves.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
MrCheez said:
True, but the problem is that this "new and fresh" story... was boring. =(

And there is something about stories that everyone knows... sure they aren't "new" but they are "classic" for a reason. Besides, it's not impossible to make old stories new and fresh themselves.

Uh, this isn't a "new and fresh" story. It's based on what historical evidence there was of a real "Arthur":

http://www.legends.dm.net/kingarthur/arthur.html

The Arthur of popular culture is variously a late Roman, a Celt, or a paragon of high medieval chivalry; a king, a general, or a guerilla warrior holding off the barbarian horde.

At the core of all the chronicles and all the legends, the seed of these tales, lies the shadowy figure of a leader who may have fought at Badon and perhaps died at Camlann, wherever those places might be...

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4186/Arthur/htmlpages/kingarthurfaq1.html

He fought everywhere. He won great victories. A strong tradition has him a Roman heldover who uses his knowledge of cavalry to rout the Saxons time and again, counting on their inexperience in fighting mounted men.

http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthurappendix.htm
 

MrCheez

President/Creative Director of Grumpyface Studios
Well I meant it was new to audiences, since he was saying the old story has been told a million times.
 

sonicfan

Venerable Member
But how did she look in the movie??

13.jpg
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I don't understand people saying she's hot.

Flat chest + blue dye on skin + leather belts = hot? I think not.

She looks like a 16 year old goth male with a different outfit on.
 
Dan said:
I don't understand people saying she's hot.

Flat chest + blue dye on skin + leather belts = hot? I think not.

She looks like a 16 year old goth male with a different outfit on.

She doesn't really look hot in that outfit, but whenever she's wearing the dresses and stuff she looks really hot.
 

golem

Member
haha.. it was allright.. it wasnt ridiculously terrible or anything. at least it was short. yes, one part feels strangely like tears of the sun, and pretty much every scene in it you've seen in other movies, but i guess i went in with such low expectations that i was pleased it was at least somewhat entertaining.
 

SyNapSe

Member
SolidSnakex said:
That's one super hot dude then. :p

A very sexy little boy :) Seriously, where did the boobs go? Maybe she lost them with all the working out.. she does have a pretty ripped abdomen in that pic.
 

lexbubble

Member
I saw it and really liked it - some sweet battle scenes to go along with a really interesting story. I'm a huge Arthurian Legend fan, and I was a little worried about the different take they took on the legend, but I definitely enjoyed a new perspective.

I'd recommend it
 

BuddyC

Member
SyNapSe said:
A very sexy little boy :) Seriously, where did the boobs go? Maybe she lost them with all the working out.. she does have a pretty ripped abdomen in that pic.

Uh, if you notice how tight that outfit is attached, you'll realize where her breasts "went."

Not like there was much there to begin with, but man oh man, not even Keira can get me to see this movie.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Ninja Scooter said:
she looks like Natalie Portman's bizzaro twin.

I thought I was the only one, I get them mixed up all the time.
 

7imz

Member
just came back from seeing "king arthur". I was bored throughout the whole movie :s... didn't enjoy it at all.

I have one question though, I missed the first 2 minutes or so when lancelot was speaking. Why were they required to serve under Rome?
 

Wolfy

Banned
The salmations were conquered by Rome, and in order for theiur lives to be spared, the men and their sons had to serve under the Roman military.
 

aparisi2274

Member
Hey 7imz, where did u get your avatar from? I know that is from the opening credits to spiderman 2. Is it on the official site? Or somewhere else?
 

Tenguman

Member
aparisi2274 said:
SI did like how they tried to tell the story of a "real" arthur and his knights during the 5th century, where Arthur and his Knights were "slaves" to the roman army, and had to be in their service for a min of 15 years. I enjoyed how they portrayed them, and how there were no 12 knights, just Arthur and his ragtag bunch of guys who didnt even want to be there, but had to, or else face the wrath of the Roman Empire.

That's all well in good, except for the fact that most scholars believe the legend of Arthur came from the British heroes who tried to drive the Saxons out of their land and bring back the Roman way of life.
 

DJ_Tet

Banned
It's the price we pay for TLOTR trilogy. Everyone in Hollywood thinks they can make an "epic". Expect to see more flics that make "Willow" seem like the end-all-be-all epic ever to come out of Hollywood.
 

DJ Sl4m

Member
I'm going to see it this week, I'm sure as hell not going to see a
Code:
sissy comicbook movie hero where he doesn't even beat his enemy through physical contact, but by talking to him instead.
 

BuddyC

Member
DJ Sl4m said:
I'm going to see it this week, I'm sure as hell not going to see a
Code:
sissy comicbook movie hero....

I don't know if I'm more confused by your use of code, or of calling Spiderman 2 "sissy."

Besides, your generalization about the ending is a tad off-base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom