Most helpful customer reviews
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Please, quit whining about loosing your fairytale, Nov 17 2005
I have to admit that the scenario of the movie is a wee bit weak and that there are some anachronisms in time. But please! It's still the most likely representation of King Arthur that we've ever had in a movie yet. This movie is a historical INTERPRETATION, and that's exactly what history is, interpretation. We have no certainties so we interpret whatever clues we have and find the most likely source. And on this, the movie's done a pretty good job giving a good theory, though for the sake of Hollywood more was added to give it more appeal (but after all, it's not documentary, it's a movie, you need to invent at least some things...).
As for those who complain on the dress of Guenevere, the only thing that's wrong is that there's too MUCH of it, not too little. In fact, most reports of native Britons in battle picture them naked or near-naked, depending on the weather presumably, so that if the weather was like in the movie, she should have been naked, but there goes PG-13! And there are also many characteristics of the Arthurian myth that have similarities in the ancient Sarmatian myths as well (sword in the stone, lady of the lake, etc...) so that the theory still holds on that point.
In fact, King Arthur is one of the best history based blockbuster movie of 2005, and all the actors are really great for their parts (and the accents are great...).
And if you're still not happy, buy "The First Knight" and have your fill of impossible fairytales!
|
|
|
8 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
Clive Owen Sizzles as King Arthur, Dec 27 2004
Clive Arthur sizzles as King Arthur. He is a perfect choice to lead Britian to unity. This version is different than the previous versions. The love triangle is almost non-existant between Guninevere, Lancelot and Arthur. I feel not having Guninevere betray Arthur is more romantic and shows the loyality of the knights to each other. It is more realistic of the times that of previous King Arthur movies. It also has Merlin as a leader who appeals to Arthur to lead the people against Saxons to have one king to rule them all. The extended version is better than the one shown in threatres. It shows more battle scenes and a few more scenes between Guninevere and Lancelot.
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
somewhat entertaining but still make believe history, Jul 31 2006
I enjoyed watching the movie the first time (with the knight vision trivia track turned on) as I enjoy watching ancient battle re-enactments and accompanying commentary. However, what I take issue with is this movie's implicit claim to follow historical evidence, that being of the late Roman Empire during Rome's withdrawl from Britain. The movie's claim that "Recently discovered archaeological evidence sheds light on his (Artorius Castus') true identity" is simple nonsense since even if there were (there are not any that I am aware of) an inscription identifying such an individual from the early 400's the connection with King Aurthur and associated legends would not necessarily follow. Moreover, the claim that Christianity came to England with Joseph of Arimathea in 63A.D is as about as credible as the contempory middle ages mythological stories about Arthur himself. The most troubling aspect of this movie is its anti-Catholicism/anti-monasticism (and I am most definitely not Roman Catholic). The movie claims that Pelagius was killed in Rome as a Heretic, but according to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (Pelagius 1131, 2003) we do not know when or how Pelagius died. However, what really gets me is the depiction of monks murdering non-converting pagans through a long and grusome process of imprisionment, starvation, and torture - they make Saddam look sociable. Cenobitic Western monasticism grew during and after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, not before (Monasticism, in The Encyclopedia of Religion vol 10, 1987). Consequently, the community of murdering monks is too early. Moreover, its location is highly suspect, but geography is not the strong point of this movie since Badon Hill is mostly likely located near Bath though Badon Hill's location could be linked to Bowden Hill in Scotland. Stonehenge where the marriage ceremony takes place is in the south of England. Moreover, there is no solid evidence of Catholics - monks or otherwise - trying to convert pagans in the manner depicted in the movie during the period which the movie purports to recreate. There are some more "facts" which I could dispute (e.g. military diplomas are not paper but metal for durability) which would not appreciably add to my critique. In conclusion I would ask that the movie's creators be more forthcoming with their biases such as in Mel Gibson's Braveheart, that the winners are the one's who record history not the losers, and that Braveheart is a creative retelling of events, implying that you can skip the known facts. Still I admit to having enjoyed watching the movie while trying to igore its anti-Catholic/anti-monastic bias, but after doing some research this movie falls well short of Alexander and Braveheart in my opinion.
Was this review helpful to you?
| |
(3)
CDN$ 13.58
(17)
![The Patriot [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lEwlPYtZL._SL500_SS90_.jpg)
![Dances With Wolves [Blu-ray]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/15/dvd/icons/dvd-no-image._SS90_V45731239_.gif){kind=icon}
![Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dXlDxQogL._SL500_SS90_.jpg)
See all 8 customer reviews...
(248)
CDN$ 13.99
(
