King Arthur DVD
 

I'm thinking about getting "King Arthur".
I just realized that Arthur is the guy from the BMW films "The Hire" that's on DVD.
I actually think Arthur looks better than Lancelot.
What was the queen thinking?
I'm female by the way.

And your question is????

So it's all about looks to you. How shallow of you.

Have you seen this film? Rottentomatoes.com doesn't think to highly of this film. The promo material I saw of the film last summer made it look pretty interesting. Now I'm not so sure.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictur...lyGrail138.jpg :hscratch: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictur...lyGrail135.jpg

I'll bite your legs off!

The only positive thing about the film is that yes, Clive Owen is well cast and acts the role well, it's everything else about the film that is lacklustre.

Rent it.

The movie does have keira knightley, now if only she could stand naked in the corner and not speak :hump:

I enjoyed the movie for what it was . . . it could have been a little better, but I think that people are being overly-critical of it. I'm picking up the director's cut with thte hope that it's improved on a few of the weaker points.

If nothing else, I think that it did a pretty good job of capturing what I imagine the relationship would be like between a bunch of macho warriors who've been fighting together for years.

I saw this movie at the theater with a friend and we had a hard time suppressing laughter after we got about a third into the film. You have to understand, we weren't laughing in the first third because it was putting us asleep. We both thought the film was just awful. But it was so bad that we had were frequently amused by it.

But the actors are sexy! * * * * * / 5!

i'm sure you can find a better dvd for 16 bucks and a better way to spend 2 hours. This one is awful...no so awful that you have to see how awful for yourself just awful.

its your time, its your cash...but just remember all the good things you may have passed on this year.

I didn't think the movie was so awful, just nothing exceptional. I am curious as to how the unrate cut compares, since it is supposed to be what got released in the first place.

I'm still debating this purchase. I know everyone says it's awful, but I'm a huge fan of this type of movie (costume period pieces) and it's supposed to look and sound good, which is 50% of my enjoyment in a movie. I'll probably end up waiting a couple of months though and get it for $9 somewhere.



Stew

I couldn't agree more, Spartanstew.

Surely someone here must've really liked it!

(Aside from my brother, that is. But, then again, he also liked Battlefield Earth.)

How does this King Arthur movie compare with First Knight?
I'll probably just buy it previously viewed.
Yes, of course it's all about the looks!

For those that ended up purchasing this on Tuesday, did you have a chance to view it yet?

Thoughts?

It's been awhile since I've seen FK but I'm pretty sure I enjoyed KA more. I think the main problem w/ KA is that most people were expecting more of the mythic aspects of the Arthurian story. In and of itself it wasn't a bad movie... not great (some of the dialog was cheesy at times, I didn't really follow/believe the story completely, etc) but not a complete waste of time IMHO. To be honest the whole King Arthur thing seemed kind of thrown on at the end (change a couple of names, add a couple of scenes, etc). As if someone had a "13th Warrior" type movie and decided to add the Arthur aspect to increase name recognition/marketing.

From what I hear, it's not that bad. Realistic is the term I hear a lot.

And speaking of the worse knight movies ever, I didn't know Heath has 5, count them..FIVE movies in production or coming out in 2005. Woe is us who have to endure the previews next year--well, at least for me. Not sure about you. :p

Director's cut is more boring. The only thing that improved from it is the first battle scene. The last two battles are repetitive. Fuqua keeps showing the same things over and over again.

Sound is below average. Front-loaded. I think Braveheart sounds better.
Video is pretty nice. I enjoyed the movie at the theatre but watching the movie again on dvd was really dull.

Watched it last night and it was great, better than the in cinema cut kids version, with far more blood in the 3 main battles and loads of extra footage, well worth getting and I think its a cracking film with a cracking cast pity they messed up the cinema edition so badly by making it a kids film, ohh well thats what this directors cut is for I guess.

Watched this last night on a rental. If they would have left the whole King Arthur and the knights thing out of the picture it would be an ok rental/cable movie. Trying to pass it off as a King Artur movie is something I couldn't get out of my head. Becuse of that, it hurt my enjoyment of the movie.

Hey I live near Hadrians wall and I aint seen none of this stuff happen :) would be nice to go see this kind of crap happen at weekends, would beat going to the cinema.

Didn't see the theatrical cut, but watched my Netflix rental last night, and thought it was good enough to buy.

Mediocre screenplay. A combat action movie isn't a very good way to tell the the King Arthur legends... but it looks pretty, and the performances are solid across the board. If you like the cast, you'll almost surely like the film.

Sweet! I love the 13th Warrior and watch it all the time. One of my favorite movies!

Even before I read this thread, I bought the DVD. I got it for $12 so Im not going to complain. From what I read, the movie is pretty accurate (even women fighting, though not dressed and Keira is) and I love movies like this. I probably wont be able to see it till after christmas (Im on Christmas movies this week), but I cant wait! I tested it out, and it looks pretty damn good.

I didn't think it was the horrific garbage that many made it out to be, but it wasn't that great. I'd put it smack dab in the middle of the spectrum, titled slightly towards the positive insomuch that it looked good and was well cast. 6 out of 10.

I'd watch it again before Troy, that's for damn sure. And surely, you

I watched King Arthur and The Village last night. King Arthur was the better of the two by far if that means anything to anyone.

I didnt really care for the movie. I am a big fan of Ioan Gruffudd (who plays Lancelot) and he is the only reason I saw/own this.

While I certainly wouldn't consider this a great movie by any stretch, I did find it interesting, mainly due to the different take on King Arthur and the knights of the round table and the inhabitants of Britain. I had never seen this concept presented before.

I watched this last week, and thought it was a decent flick. I didn't go into it looking for a historical movie, and just took it at face value. It makes for a pretty good movie if you don't take into account any thing you may have read about Arthur, or just think of it as a stand-alone story where the characters just happen to have the same names as other characters in history.

Well see now, I enjoyed Troy. Maybe a little bit more than King Arthur. If rating the two movies on a scale from 1 to 10, I'd give KA a 6 and Troy a 7.

The problem I had with KA was the color pallette they used. The dark washed out blue tint they used for everything was a bit overdone in my opinion. Gave the film a cold look...although it did take place, pretty much in the winter.

The beginning and final battle scenes were pretty cool. About as thrilling as those in Braveheart.

I enjoyed it alot. I got the unrated Director's cut

I actually used a feature on the DVD that I seldom enjoy but did on this DVD: Knight Vision (Trivia Track).

I bought it and its pretty good, not as bad as some people make it out to be. plus it got 2 thumbs up from Ebert and Roper (says on box) so i dont know if that means anything to you