King Arthur - the Movie

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
5 maybe? maybe... Go ahead and see it if you like this kind of genre I say. But like I said dont expect TOO much.

Its basically a Brave Heart meets Excalibur meets The 13th Warrior. Only not as good as any of those.

Well I love Braveheart, and Rob Roy,And....well those kind of movies. But King Arther has had so many different versions made up that I always wonder what will be next.

[Millane]

People, people take back your judgements until you have watched the directors cut, what a ****ing awesome movie Ill admit i liked the cinema version but this one is so much better...
Ok so it doesnt drastically change the story but ohhh how the battles have improved, i have a feeling that it was PG13 in america and it was M here (pretty much the same as PG13 i think) so when i saw it was MA my heart jumped for joy. So much more blood and violence (hooray) The end battle was infinitely better because of it. eg in the cinema version bors is pretty exhausted by the end of the battle, why? i asked myself, directors cut answered with a spear in his back and Lancelot stabs the saxons son through the neck (cant remember his name) and the blood the blood THE BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

[Nurvingiel]

Is the Saxon Cerdic? Is he is he that would mean they carried someone over from the legend that I like best woot!

Okay, I'm really excited because the movie is out on DVD now. But I don't know if I want to see it. I'm afraid I will be disappointed, LOTR-style.

Should I rent the movie or not...

[Nurvingiel]

Okay I rented it and... it kind of blew. I am very sad to say this about an Arthurian Legend. But I am using the words "Arthurian" and "Legend" loosely here.

The premise of the movie was to create a believeable historical backstory for King Arthur. My original question was... why? You do not need to justify or explain Arthurian legends. However, my second favourite book of all-time is just that - a very believeable and historically accurate story of King Arthur's origins (as a Briton of both Roman and Celtic descent), and this movie has the potential to be very interesting and cool.

With the "King Arthur" movie, they selected, seemingly solely based on his name, a Roman officer stationed at Hadrian's wall in 452 AD named Lucius Artorius Castos (Artorius being the Latin name for Arthur). They then whip a random country out of nowhere (or invent one??) named Sarmatia (near the Black Sea...) and provide no explanation or introduction for this obscure (or non-existent) country. The Sarmatian knights are the Knights of the Round Table, featuring Dagonet, Gawain, Tristan, Bors, Galahad (I think), Lancelot, and a bunch of guys who die before the movie.

This movie is stripped of pretty muuch everything we know and love about Arthurian legends, except maybe Bors and Lancelot. Excalibur is reduced to a random, non-magical, Roman grave-marker (a tradition created seemingly at the whim of the script writers). Arthur draws the sword from his father's grave as a boy, in a scene which attempts to pay homage to real Arthurian legends, but fails.

Guinevere is played very well by Kiera Knightly. I was very impressed. I found her totally random character quite believeable, a very impressive feat. Merlin also makes a cameo.

Now that we have no meaty elements from the legends (since this is supposed to be a historical movie, not a legend), we are left with two things for the meat of the movie. The plot, and historical accuracy.

The plot isn't bad, even though it sometimes doesn't make sense, but there are a lot of movies whose plots are 'battles connected with passable dialogue', so they need something else to shine. The parts that don't make sense are due to three characters who are extremely cruel for no apparent reason. The bishop Germanicus, the Roman noble guy N-what's-his-face, and Merlin.

They really blow it on historical accuracy. Upon not any attempt of an inspection at all, I still noticed that the frequently-used crossbows (by the Saxons) had not been invented by anyone until much later (early 11th century. This movie is set in the mid 5th century). Also, no Roman ever lived north of Hadrian's wall, ever. It was built for a reason.

I also sincerely doubt that the Saxons ever bothered attacking north of Hadrian's wall. Given their two easily fixable and obvious mistakes, they probably screwed this part up too.

With glaringly obvious mistakes like this, I shudder to think what a closer inspection might reveal. (I'm really trying hard not to think about the lake scene now.)

At the end, Arthur marries Guinevere and is proclaimed king by Merlin, in a scene which typifies the movie by making no sense at all. Marrying Guinevere has never been the key to kingship and they make no explanation as to why it is now (and he didn't do anything else worthy of becoming king), and this scene also impies that by being the leader of the Woads (aka Picts) he is now the king of all Britain. Um... no.

So now this is a movie that is not really about King Arthur, and is not very historical. All we have left is a series of reasonably interesting battles interconnected with decent dialogue and sometimes seemingly random insertions to flesh out the characters.

I haven't actually seen "Pearl Harbour", but apparently it wasn't very historically accurate movie either. It was also directed by Antoine Fuqua, who did this movie. Maybe he should try a different genre...

That is quite a mean comment, but this movie had a lot of potential. A lot. Compared to its potential, it was a bad movie. However, it was worth the 49 SEK I paid to rent it, so it is worth watching.

Watch, enjoy, and take it with a grain of salt. If you think of King Arthur as Artorius Castos, a Roman officer who has no connection to King Arthur whatsoever, the movie works much better.

So who else has scene it and would like to offer up a review?

[Millane]

Jesus thats one impressive post

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I haven't actually seen "Pearl Harbour", but apparently it wasn't very historically accurate movie either. It was also directed by Antoine Fuqua, who did this movie. Maybe he should try a different genre...

Nah Antoine Fuqua did Training Day, a half decent film, the monstrosity that was Pearl Harbour was directed by Michael Bay, at least i think thats right...
So Bors and Lancelot were the only characters you liked in this movie, what about Dagonet, i dunno i always have love for characters who go to their death for there friends, happens in Game of Thrones beyond the wall...
Did you watch the directors cut or not? now it probably wouldnt change your review that much but it does make the film much better to watch.
I dunno like Braveheart and Gladiator i couldnt really care if it is historically accurate they make for some good battle scenes and good personal character scenes, meh
Nah AFAIK Sarmatia was a real place, i dont think it was set in concrete where it was exactly but it was there...
Maybe im just looking at it from the simpleton pov but i still enjoy it.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Millane

Jesus thats one impressive post

Thank you! *bows*

Originally Posted by Millane

Nah Antoine Fuqua did Training Day, a half decent film, the monstrosity that was Pearl Harbour was directed by Michael Bay, at least i think thats right...

You're right. Odd... I could have sword the poster said "from the director of Pearl Harbour". Oh well, at least Ben Affleck wasn't in it.

Originally Posted by Millane

So Bors and Lancelot were the only characters you liked in this movie, what about Dagonet, i dunno i always have love for characters who go to their death for there friends, happens in Game of Thrones beyond the wall...

Well, Bors and Lancelot were the only characters that seemed to have a connection to the Legend. I liked all the characters, even though none of them really grabbed me. I liked Artorius too, even though he wasn't King Arthur. I thought Guinevere was awesome.

I gave the movie a pretty bad review because there were a lot of mistakes, but I did enjoy watching it.

Clive Owen wasn't as strong a main character as Mel Gibson was in Braveheart. But the reason I nitpicked the historical accuracy of the movie is because it billed itself (I thought so at least) as a possible historical explanation for King Arthur. I have no problem with this idea at all, but if you want to tell a story like that you just can't have Saxons attacking north of Hadrian's Wall (where some Romans live!?) armed with cross-bows.

My other complaint was the plot didn't make sense half the time. Characters and places that the audience can't be expected to know anything about didn't get a proper introduction at all.

Originally Posted by Millane

Did you watch the directors cut or not? now it probably wouldnt change your review that much but it does make the film much better to watch.

I did watch the director's cut. The extras were cool to watch too.

Originally Posted by Millane

I dunno like Braveheart and Gladiator i couldnt really care if it is historically accurate they make for some good battle scenes and good personal character scenes, meh
Nah AFAIK Sarmatia was a real place, i dont think it was set in concrete where it was exactly but it was there...
Maybe im just looking at it from the simpleton pov but i still enjoy it.

There's nothing wrong with the simpleton pov! I enjoyed the movie too. I just think they made unnecessary and glaringly giant historical mistakes which detracted from the plot, and was one of the causes of the not making sense issue.
They had an opportunity to make a truly great movie, and they made an entertaining movie. There's nothing essentially wrong with that, but cmon, people found Crossroads entertaining. That doesn't make it a good movie either.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The premise of the movie was to create a believeable historical backstory for King Arthur. My original question was... why? You do not need to justify or explain Arthurian legends. However, my second favourite book of all-time is just that - a very believeable and historically accurate story of King Arthur's origins (as a Briton of both Roman and Celtic descent), and this movie has the potential to be very interesting and cool.

Nurv - what book is that? That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

With the "King Arthur" movie, they selected, seemingly solely based on his name, a Roman officer stationed at Hadrian's wall in 452 AD named Lucius Artorius Castos (Artorius being the Latin name for Arthur). They then whip a random country out of nowhere (or invent one??) named Sarmatia (near the Black Sea...) and provide no explanation or introduction for this obscure (or non-existent) country. The Sarmatian knights are the Knights of the Round Table, featuring Dagonet, Gawain, Tristan, Bors, Galahad (I think), Lancelot, and a bunch of guys who die before the movie.
:
:
They really blow it on historical accuracy. Upon not any attempt of an inspection at all, I still noticed that the frequently-used crossbows (by the Saxons) had not been invented by anyone until much later (early 11th century. This movie is set in the mid 5th century). Also, no Roman ever lived north of Hadrian's wall, ever. It was built for a reason.

I also sincerely doubt that the Saxons ever bothered attacking north of Hadrian's wall. Given their two easily fixable and obvious mistakes, they probably screwed this part up too.
:
:

Actually - my impression was that they set the movie in the 3rd century (something circa 252 AD - rather than 452... was it the latter?), while most evidence points to a late 5th, early 6th cent source for Arthur. Sarmatia was one of many Roman colonies (as was Britain) - and the idea I think is that these were just Roman troops who were stationed far from home (and maybe best to do it that way - so they don't have any qualms putting down local rebellions). Perhaps the Sarmatians were noted for their cavalry units - and they wanted something like 'mounted knights'. Artorious was a historical Roman soldier... but as I say, much earlier than 452 (the Romans had pulled all their troops certainly by 410 AD - when officials in Britain received advice from the emporer that they 'take up arms in their own defense' - in response to their plea for help from Rome).

Romans DID live north of Hadrian's Wall though... which is why they built the Antonine Wall further north. They couldn't hold that territory as well - but when they retreated back to Hadrian's Wall... it's conceivable (though it would have been risky) that some stayed... very reasonable anyway to think that they still had a few allies north of Hadrian's.

Saxons might have fought north of Hadrian's wall - but probably in service of the Britons. By legend, King Vortigern (a predecessor of Arthur - probably a couple generations earlier) brought them over as mercenaries in the mid-5th cent to help in fighting the Picts. They later rebelled, and Vortigern's name was mud!

I didn't copy this part of your post... Germanus was a churchman who opposed the 'Pelagian Heresy' - which was pretty rampant in 5th cent Britain, or thereabouts. I don't know that he would have been mean... but that goes along with the 'negative press' often given to Christianity in the movies these days ("OK... let's have a Christian... a leader from the church... we'll make him a bad guy!" ). IIRC though, he was also a couple generations, at least, before a true historical Arthur.

Good catch on the crossbows.

If Artorius was stationed in the north (IIRC he was), in mid 3rd cent, he likely had no contact with Saxons... they were not really a great presence in Britain at the time, but were already making raids along the southern parts... probably just for kicks. The Romans built a string of outposts on the southern and southeast shores of Britain, which were called 'The Forts of the Saxon Shores' - to defend against these raids.

Also, IIRC, Artorius may have been one of those inummerable generals who rallied his army around himself and set off for Rome, in hopes of making himself emporer (one reason the island was depleted of soldiers... and when depleted like THAT a couple times, what emporer is going to replenish the troops?).

If they want to make an action movie and put King Arthur's name on it, fine... I just wish they hadn't made this whole charade about being 'historically accurate'.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You're right. Odd... I could have sword the poster said "from the director of Pearl Harbour". Oh well, at least Ben Affleck wasn't in it.

Bahahahaha it could have been the same producer

They had an opportunity to make a truly great movie, and they made an entertaining movie. There's nothing essentially wrong with that, but cmon, people found Crossroads entertaining. That doesn't make it a good movie either.

comparing KA to crossroads now are we, *Rocky V* My rings outside *Rocky V*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Millane

comparing KA to crossroads now are we, *Rocky V* My rings outside *Rocky V*

Okay, it was a bad example. Oh of course!

Here's a much better example. Later James Bond movies... entertaining yes, good no. (Both action movies.)

I guess King Arthur was okay, but there was no point arming the Saxons with cross-bows! That really annoyed me. Minimal research would have turned up a more believable setting. It's like the historical consultant didn't try. Maybe that's why it annoys me so much.

Not just the cross-bow thing, but the random placement of people. Having a Roman villa north of Hadrian's Wall was.... gah... And why were the Woads not referred to as the Picts? Since the Romans called them that, why wouldn't Artorius? You have to make at least a tiny explanation of things that are out of character for people, otherwise they will seem random or pointless. *cough* the Excalibur thing *cough*

What did you think of the ending? I liked the alternate ending from the director's cut better. (I'm glad I rented that one.)

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It's like the historical consultant didn't try. Maybe that's why it annoys me so much.

More likely he was over-ruled... I suspect that's how things go with movie-making.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Not just the cross-bow thing, but the random placement of people. Having a Roman villa north of Hadrian's Wall was.... gah...

Did you see my other post... just above Millane's?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Nurv - what book is that? That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in.

"The Skystone" by Jack Whyte. It's the first book in "A Dream of Eagles" series. Bishop Germanus is in it incidentally, but he isn't pointlessly evil.

Originally Posted by Valandil

Actually - my impression was that they set the movie in the 3rd century (something circa 252 AD - rather than 452... was it the latter?), while most evidence points to a late 5th, early 6th cent source for Arthur. Sarmatia was one of many Roman colonies (as was Britain) - and the idea I think is that these were just Roman troops who were stationed far from home (and maybe best to do it that way - so they don't have any qualms putting down local rebellions).

What you say make sense. As for the movie setting, the production notes from the movie site say 5th century, though I couldn't find the exact year. I may be wrong about 452.

Originally Posted by Valandil

Perhaps the Sarmatians were noted for their cavalry units - and they wanted something like 'mounted knights'. Artorious was a historical Roman soldier... but as I say, much earlier than 452 (the Romans had pulled all their troops certainly by 410 AD - when officials in Britain received advice from the emporer that they 'take up arms in their own defense' - in response to their plea for help from Rome).

There's two tidbits in the movie which lead me to think Sarmatia is near the Black sea. I think Lancelot actually says something like that, and also the Mongolian-looking yurts (round tents). I have no real problem with the whole Sarmatia thing, except... why? I think if you introduce something opposite to what people expect, it's only reasonable to explain it at least a little bit.
People logically expect the Knights of the Round Table to be Celtic, Britons, Britons of Roman descent, or something. That wasn't such a big deal, in light of the other things, it was just that little plot loop holes became quite frequent and added up to the plot not making sense for me half the time.

Am I not alone in this or was I totally over thinking it.

Originally Posted by Valandil

Romans DID live north of Hadrian's Wall though... which is why they built the Antonine Wall further north. They couldn't hold that territory as well - but when they retreated back to Hadrian's Wall... it's conceivable (though it would have been risky) that some stayed... very reasonable anyway to think that they still had a few allies north of Hadrian's.

They did! *eats humble pie* Okay, the rest of my historical innacuracies still stand.

Originally Posted by Valandil

Saxons might have fought north of Hadrian's wall - but probably in service of the Britons. By legend, King Vortigern (a predecessor of Arthur - probably a couple generations earlier) brought them over as mercenaries in the mid-5th cent to help in fighting the Picts. They later rebelled, and Vortigern's name was mud!

Yes. This is certainly possible historically too. IIRC Vortigern lived around Yorkshire (?) maybe farther south. I thought the Saxons mainly attacked the south-east of Britain.

Originally Posted by Valandil

If Artorius was stationed in the north (IIRC he was), in mid 3rd cent, he likely had no contact with Saxons... they were not really a great presence in Britain at the time, but were already making raids along the southern parts... probably just for kicks. The Romans built a string of outposts on the southern and southeast shores of Britain, which were called 'The Forts of the Saxon Shores' - to defend against these raids.

Mid 3rd century? The production notes definitely said 5th century. Did they get their own historical character wrong?

Originally Posted by Valandil

Also, IIRC, Artorius may have been one of those inummerable generals who rallied his army around himself and set off for Rome, in hopes of making himself emporer (one reason the island was depleted of soldiers... and when depleted like THAT a couple times, what emporer is going to replenish the troops?).

One of those guys. Heh heh, that would have made an interesting movie too actually.

During the movie, I thought the reason why they didn't get reinforcements is because Rome was keeping the rest of her defence at home; leaving a skeleton force in the outposts.

Originally Posted by Valandil

If they want to make an action movie and put King Arthur's name on it, fine... I just wish they hadn't made this whole charade about being 'historically accurate'.

I agree, it raised my expectations, only to shoot them down with a cross-bow.

EDIT: Cross-post with Val, I saw it, I just gave it special treatment here. ^

[Valandil]

Just found this on a timeline of the history of the Romans in Britain:

184 - Lucius Artorius Castus, commander of a detachment of Sarmatian conscripts stationed in Britain, led his troops to Gaul to quell a rebellion. This is the first appearance of the name, Artorius, in history and some believe that this Roman military man is the original, or basis, for the Arthurian legend. The theory says that Castus' exploits in Gaul, at the head of a contingent of mounted troops, are the basis for later, similar traditions about "King Arthur," and, further, that the name "Artorius" became a title, or honorific, which was ascribed to a famous warrior in the fifth century.

the "184" is the year - so he was actually late 2nd century. I was wrong about the attempt to march on Rome (unless it just isn't mentioned there) - but at least one, maybe two, later Roman generals in Britain DID try that.

Apparently - the Sarmatian part is consistent with Artorius then - yes, it was by the Black Sea. I had wondered if the movie just used them as foundational to a somewhat 'international' Round Table of Knights... honorable knights who came from all over to serve King Arthur...

[Nurvingiel]

Maybe the movie was about the famous warrior to whom the honourific "Artorius" was ascribed. The 5th century seems like the right political climate for King Arthur.

[Valandil]

There also seemed to be a great number of children from noble families being named 'Arthur' at about that time (late 5th / early 6th) - and there's a bunch of archeological and place-name evidence that Saxon advances were halted and reversed for awhile in there...

[Snowdog]

I did go and see this movie when it was in the theater, and it was good, but not really inspiring. The band-aid-boobs Guinevere, was a bit over the top, but still it wasn't as bad to me as the critics made it out to be.

I picked it up on DVd recently, and after watching it again, I like it better. This was a good movie.

Of course I got the Holy Grail on DVD too....

[hectorberlioz]

A pretty interesting take on Arthur is by Stephen Lawhead. He DOES put Arthur farther back, and there is a lot that has to do with the "Romans", but it's alot more researched than ANY movie, and probably more than most books.
Taliesen
Merlin
Arthur
Pendragon
Grail
Those are the five books. They ARE pretty tough reading...