"King Arthur" Unrated...what rousing fare!
 

I cannot believe all the hate for this movie when it was in theaters. I just saw the unrated version on DVD and it was epic. I would not rank it up there with the likes of "Braveheart" by any means, but you could definitely sense similarities.

Clive Owen gave such a good performance. Maybe he rehashed his sincerity and freedom reins once too much, but overall a good job! The cast of knights did their jobs well and were definite shades of Wallace's posse in the aforementioned.

The battles were staged really well and really graphic, which I like. I simply cannot fathom how this was trimmed for a PG-13. I think for those who saw it in theaters and saw what I am sure is a very watered down version would be doing a disservice not to rent the Unrated.

This has to be a 2nd chance movie on DVD to find redemption from the shellacking it took in theaters.
<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNxdm835' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_2_105.gif' alt='Fencing' border=0></a>

I agree.I watched it last night and don't understand whjy people hate on this movie so much.

I agree as well! I too watched this last night and enjoyed it immensly!!!

I do agree it is not the same caliber as Braveheart or Gladiator but very entertaining none the less!!

The last battle at Hadran's wall was awesome!!!

Kiera Knightly was awesome too!!!:D

Take care all!!

I didn't hate it, I just didn't like it all that much either. I haven't seen the Unrated version though, so I might rent it.

Has anyone actually seen both versions to compare? I've heard the Unrated version is better and that may be why its getting good reviews on DVD it was definitely crap though in the theatre.

I liked it. Didn't love it. Didn't hate it. But thought it was a solid ride.

I watched the theatrical version on DVD. Not impressed.

Glad to hear the (mostly) positive words about this. I haven't seen it and was hesitant about renting it, but I think I will now.

Watched it in theaters, watched it on dvd and I still didn't like it.

I'm sorry.....but I've taken dumps more entertaining than this movie.

:lol:

Don't agree....by a longshot...but still funny.

Just dropped in to post on this movie and it looks like you guys beat me to the punch. I'll add another :thumbsup: to the list for "King Arthur". I should probably let it settle a bit but my initial reaction is to rank it ahead of some of the other Arthurian films such as "Knights of the Round Table", "Excalibur" (not as big a fan as others seem to be), and "First Knight".

Though I've cut back on my trips to the cinema, I wish I would have made the trip for this.............um well, maybe not, since the DVD version is different and likely better. Sidenote: the marketing decision to focus on Keira Knightely didn't leave me too enthusiastic about going to see the film in theaters (and to those who haven't seen the movie yet don't hold your breath waiting for her to show up....trust me).

I thought that the film was well cast (yes, Knightley too), and wouldn't mind seeing other films of this type eschew the casting of big name/A-list stars and instead go with actors who are more suited for the roles (since I haven't seen it yet I probably shouldn't judge, but surely someone out there would have been more appropriate than Colin Farrell as Alexander).

With that out of the way, back to "King Arthur", the battle scenes were definitely better than the norm coming out of Hollywood and I was glad to see more use of real people instead of simply the crashing waves of CGI armies. I thought the battle scenes in "King Arthur" were pretty thrilling - not the best ever in cinema or anything like that - but as someone starved for some good battle scenes in film I was happy. Solid cinematography and an on-target musical score rounded off an entertaining movie. The different spin on the Arthurian tale was also appreciated by me as a viewer.

Anyway, "King Arthur" is not in the same league as "Braveheart" or "Rob Roy" but it is certainly a fine example of faux serious cinema. Jerry Bruckheimer comes through once again.

Saw it in the theaters, actually at the New York premier with the full cast there & watched the Director's cut over the weekend, & my conlusions is that people's standards have really detiorated if they think the fight scenes are well done & that this is an entertaining movie.

I hated this after I saw it in theaters & I saw it b/c one of my favorite actors is in it & the love of my life Keira Knightly & I still hate the movie.

There is not an original idea, direction or scene in the entire movie. It is a watered down epic that brings nothing new to the genre or mythos. Clive Owen who is usually brilliant on screen I though slept through this role.

The only thing I liked, & it was what most people hated was Stellan Skarsgaard's over the top lumbering villain, whom I wanted to see more of.

I really enjoyed it . . . good storyline and action sequences = FUN. :thumbsup:

I didn't see the theatrical cut, but I thought the director's cut was entertaining and fairly good. It wasn't anything great by any stretch of the imagination, but it certainly wasn't as horrible as so many have made it out to be.

I thought King Arthur is a great movie, but flawed.

The recurring lectures about freedom and free will became too much. They really laboured that point at every opportunity.

What also bothered me were the lapses in logic. Icy winter winds, and Keira Knightly wafts around with her bow and arrow in a flimsy gown ?? But that said, I really liked the grittiness of the settings and art direction. It wasn't glossy, and for the most part looked 'real'.

But, despite the flaws, King Arthur stands proudly on my DVD rack next to other epics wartime dramas like The Last Samurai, Braveheart, and The Last Of The Mohicans.

My recommendation is that anyone who liked those movies, should check out King Arthur. :thumbsup:

btw .. Stellan Skarsgaard was superb in his role as the Saxon leader. I didn't recognise him at all until I watched the 'making of' material.

Churned out hollywood garbage...for more info on your free king arthur coaster click on this thread here it is

I didn't think it was that bad.

I love all three of those films. King Arthur does not belong among them.

I'd love to hear from someone who's seen both the theatrical and the unrated and explain how different it is

Ditto. I saw this in theaters, and the editing made the film near unwatchable. The last battle scene barely made temporal and spatial sense. I thought it was quite a mess.

i don't think an unrated cut could save this film.

I've only seen it in the theaters. My main problem with it, is it's too similiar to Braveheart, and Gladiator.

My other problem was, they changed the story of King Arthur so much, why not just make it an unrelated movie?

I'll grab this when it hits $4.99 in a couple of months.

Wait...it's not as good as Braveheart, Gladiator, and The Last Samurai?

So it's really, REALLY bad then? ;)

I have to agree with Sessa.. i am not really sure what you guys are seeing in this movie.... unless you're really hurting for some large scale battle scenes. The acting wasnt bad... but nothing special. The plot followed every other Braveheart/Robynhood type movie to the dot with the overly predictable ending.
I never got the whole Merlyn singnificance... maybe i am just not familliar with the story, but they made him look like some crazy hippie. He should have played a larger role.
It was semi-entertaining but nothing to write home about. C-