Just saw King Arthur

[Heathen]

I don't get it.....

The critics say it sucked it was horrible it was really bad and don't go see it.......

Well I went in anyway, and boy do I have a few words for the critics......

I enjoyed this movie as much as gladiator, this movie is really good. The acting is VERY good, the story is great, the sound is cool, the fighting scenes are really cool.

I would definetly say go see it and screw the critics, they don't know what they're talking about, this movie is a great movie and is WORTH SEEING.

SO GO SEE IT NOW!

[Artha]

they don't know what they're talking about

They just...you know, make a living doing it.

[Volstock]

They just...you know, make a living doing it. [/quote]

Even if they make a living out of it doesn't mean they are right. I mean they are human afterall.

[Xcalibur]

No, it is not great.

Movie lack passions, there's no real ennemies. You don't know the background of 6/8 of the heroes.

The saxon aren't put as EVIL doers, just conquerers (as much as the Romains was before). The fight scenes are so badly put, man! Worse than Gladiotor! (and that is a lot to do).

You always see that awful slow motion that totaly destroy all the fun in battles. Worse, WHEN someone throw a good hit into someone, his hit doesn't connect! It just push the guy to the ground as if the guy was butter.

So, no, no holes in armors, no big wounds, nothing. Just dead people with small wounds even if the guy had a 2 handed axe.

BOOOOOOOOOOH!




SPOILERS







Lancelot dies like a wealkin, he fights what, 3 times? The 3 times, one of them he just fire arrows, the other times he just charges and the last time he DIES IN A ONE VS ONE DUEL!

That, alone, throw the movie into the "pathetic" kind.

p.s. Arthur, at least in that movie, rocks.

[Artha]

Even if they make a living out of it doesn't mean they are right. I mean they are human afterall.

Sure. But they know what they're doing.

[LordSagan]

Simply because someone reviews a movie does not mean they know what they are doing.

They are giving you their opinion of something...it's biased, just like anyone else's opinion. Simply because they do not like something, does not mean that others won't.

[Caiylania]

I can't wait to see it. When I first heard about it, I was like..... GREeeaaaaaaaaat another King Arthur movie. But it sounds like it's a whole new way to go at it.

From what I've heard, its about what 'really' happened that inspired the legend. The whole, even myth's must have basis type thing. Is that it?

[Xcalibur]

Simple interpretation with bugs.

Simply. (as, catapults used by people that still live in huts, big thick castle made of stone, et cetera).

Booh:(

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Simple interpretation with bugs.

Simply. (as, catapults used by people that still live in huts, big thick castle made of stone, et cetera).

Booh:(


You need to do research on trebuchets

[fallenSaint]

Granted it was no breath taking film but I didnt feel as if I wasted my money after seeing it. I enjoyed it for what it was, and Gwen was hot ;)

[Xcalibur]

It takes not a lot of research to see a problem with people living in huts in a far away place being able to construct trebuchet or catapults, when they aren't even able to make armors or complicated weapon such as crossbows.

[Makkah]

Great... yet another thread taken over by Xcalibur's idiocy.

Step 1: Go to school. (BECOME EDUMACATED)

Step 2: Learn to speak\type English.

Step 3: Put this all to use by NOT being a moron.

rht

[gcstader]

I went and saw it. It was terrible; I actually left the theatre before it was over.

~Greg

[Latrinsorm]

Anything that makes use of Excalibur can't be "the real story" behind King Arthur.

Anything with STONE CASTLES in it can't be "the real story" behind King Arthur.

Now, although X thinks Braveheart and Gladiator were bad (both were awesome), it sure sounds like he's right this time.

[pennywise]

The real story behind Arthur is that he is mentioned twice, either in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, or, if not listed in it, then in the Easter Annals (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is a collection of a large variety of different sources). They are very short entries in the early 6th century. I have a copy of the anglo-saxon chronicles around somewhere, if I find it Ill look it up and see if its in the book and if it is, what it says.

[Bobmuhthol]

King Arthur and the Knights of Justice was the shittiest game ever.

I liked Knights of the Round, though.

[Makkah]

<<The real story behind Arthur is that he is mentioned twice, either in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, or, if not listed in it, then in the Easter Annals (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is a collection of a large variety of different sources).>>

Just because his history is shittily documented, doesn't mean he didn't exist ;)

We'll likely never know the "real" story behind King Arthur.

rht

[pennywise]

Im not saying he didnt exist, Im just pointing out that the real story is pretty much two sentences (excluding Graham Hancockian style "History and archaeology"). The different approaches to Arthurian history would be a fantastically interesting class, but not exactly something Im going to find at my university.

[Czeska]

Saw it last night...

Yes, it's the "here's who the hero that was known as Arthur may have actually been".

It was entertaining, at best. I loved Gladiator and Braveheart, this was not in their league.
The acting was nothing special, although I've definitely seen worse. Yes, Gwen was hot, and Lancelot was fairly annoying. Arthur IMO looked too much like Nick Cage, and I found it distracting.

Biggest problem? No real background to make you give a shit about the characters. My favorite was the knight with the 11 bastard children. He gave some comic relief.

Interesting that it touched on the pagan/christian conflicts. I didn't expect it, and the scene where Arthur finds Gwen and the boy did make my stomach fall a few levels.

[Xcalibur]

But but but, the stone castles are so thick and marvelous :(

The dark age, the darkest era of our history, seems to be just too cool for people living in it:(

Seriously, why a film that will be labeled as having great fighting scenes resolve them with wind attack? (I am waving my super strong sword at you to kill you, it doesn't connect and you fall dying).

King Arthur won't be remembered in 2 years, I think it's the only thing to say now.

Latrin: I loved Braveheart, but Gladiator was a waste of time.

[DianaBanana]

I didnt care for Gladiator when I saw it in theaters. Once I got it on dvd and watched it again I fell in love with that movie. Braveheart is also awesome. In fact, I've watched them both this past week.

I'm still unsure as to whether or not I should bother with this King Arthur movie.

[Czeska]

Rent it, Diana. Even if you love it, there is no a big-screen requirement.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
I am waving my super strong sword at you to kill you, it doesn't connect and you fall dyingMaybe Danzig was their martial arts advisor.

X retains movie critic integrity by loving Braveheart (even though he's still wrong about Gladiator, heh).

[Czeska]

Also, Keira Knightly - much hotter here than in Pirates of the Carribean.

[DianaBanana]

She has a weird mouth though, and strange teeth. But I think she's a fun actress to watch.

[CrystalTears]

I don't think she's that hot. Her smile looks to me like it has a perpetual set of braces on it because it just looks to puckered out and wide to me. Oh well. Different strokes for different folks.

I'm not interested in seeing this movie at the theater, to be honest. I have too many other movies to invest in. I,Robot being a big one.