King Arthur

[James]

I must say, i did go thinking it was going to be "less than good". All the reviews i read were extremely critical. They all had a negative conclusion. I think they ranged from 2/5 to 3/5. Many were critical of Owen as Arthur.

When i saw it i was thinking with this mindset, so emediately afterward i felt it was a less than average film; with the occasional good scene, line, actor.

Coming up to a week has past now, and i have actually changed my mind. I'd give this film only 3/5 because it is an average film - it is "Good". The reviews were in my mind overly critical: occasionally making points up (such as the Daily Mail claiming that the film depicted England as having one tribe of Celts - The Woads: which the film did not actually suggest in the slightest), usually though they revolved around the "point" that the film didn't stick to the established legend. The film didn't set out to stick to the legend though: to be fair most of the legend was added afterward by that french guy (the name escapes me), and latter T. H. White, in "The once and future King" (a very amusing, and at times deep, novel). This film aims to be more historical.

Owen was a very good actor for Arthur: it establishes King Arthur as being a real hero, not a hollywood rambo "Hero". This hero you can actually relate to.
There are some amazing seens which are worth going to the see for - such as the ice battle. The soundtrack is commendable.

The story line is also credible: set in and around hadrian's wall, a number of russian knights having to do one last mission for rome before being granted their freedom. Their mission: rescue a roman citizen, and his son (a favoured pupil of the pope) north of the border, before a saxon war party gets them.

My major criticisms are as follow:
- the knights lacked character: developing each knight further would have enhanced the film greatly
- the saxons seemed very "un-saxon". There was hardly any shield walls, and the head saxon had the accent of someone from the deep south of america.
- lack of subplot
- personally, i would have prefered more of a role for Merlin (who in the film is simply a leader of a tribe)

[Roses in the Hospital]

I thought it was an entertaining enough film, and an original take on an established story, which meant you didn't know how it was going to end from other films/books.
I agree that Arthur himself was a bit bland and that some of the knights lacked personalirty. But both Bors and Lancelot did well in their parts, Grufford in particular managing to avoid a cliched portrayl of a cliched character. For me Kiera Knightly stole the show, again doing something different with a rather predictable character and looking georgeous as ever. She also had the best line of the film.
Overall a decent enough movie but 'Excalibur' is still the best film on an Arthurian theme...

[Djehuti]

That movie is full of anachronisms...well, well thats not really uncommon these days.

[Floyd.]

One word: Sexy.

[James]

She did have the best line;
"don't worry, i won't let them rape you"