|
King Arthur (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray] Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
It would have been good if it hadn't been billed as the true story of King Arthur. If it had been about someone else and they had left the story of King Arthur alone, it would have been at least entertaining. As it was, I would classify this on my list of biggest wastes of time. I'm not normally a movie critic, and I'm pretty easy to please most of the time. This was just ridiculous though. I can buy Gwenivere as a warrior. I can even buy King Arthur as a Roman soldier or the Knights as Samatian warriors. What I can't buy is everything that goes on between them or the flat shallow portrayal of the his knights or the Saxons. Plus the fact that Lancelot dies before Arthur and Gwenivere even marry. Please. I typically like historical remakes of legends and fairy tales, but this was worthless as a King Arthur story.
Rating:  -
I loved this movie. Clive Owen's portrayal of King Arthur gave it an Earthy, realistic feeling you don't get in other movies on the figure like 'Excaliber' (which I also loved but in a different way). Keira Knightley's Gwenevere is animalistic & raw, just like the setting this movie was shot in, & Arthur's knights are true gritty warriors, not the typical chivalrous knight in shining armor they were portrayed as in most other movies about Camelot & the knights of the round table.
In terms of picture quality for Bluray, I'd say you could probably get away with this movie on DVD & still get the same visual experience, but either way this movie is definitely worth having in your collection.
Rating: -
You too can direct a big budget disaster based upon the myths. Of course, Antoine Fuqua, director of Training Day, seems eager to show that the idea that a person can direct only what they know is true- he's a black American homeboy, and his grasp of the legends is not even slender- is true. In truth, the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table are for more entertaining and grand than the déclassé tripe of The Lord Of The Rings saga, but you would not know it in this version. Instead of romance, intrigue, honor, and magic we get `realism'- or so the director spouts over and again in his film commentary, and in the assorted extras on the DVD. But, please note the ` ' that I used around the word realism. That's because there's not a hint of it in this disaster. First off, the blood and guts fighting is laughably unreal. Ever since Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line in 1998, filmmakers have been trying to be `real' in their violence onscreen. This `realistic' movie, however, eschews that. Yet, the Knights curse and spit, especially a Cockney Sir Bors (Ray Winstone). They also are not British, nor even French. Instead, they are from Sarmatia- a region that never produced knights in the early 5th Century, when this film is set, nor were they ever at war with the Roman Empire, as claimed. In the tales, King Arthur and his Knights are devout Christians, and Rome is little seen. In the film, Arthur is a Roman Christian in service to the Pope, Lancelot is a heathen, and Merlin (Stephen Dillane) the head of a band of forest people called Wodes who, in this `realistic' film, never existed. In short, the film centers around Arthur's Knights' rescue of a would-be child church bishop north of Hadrian's Wall before the terrible Saxons sweep in from the North. Unfortunately, the Saxons never occupied northern Britain, they were defenders of the Isle from Scots, Picts, and Celts, and they were not marauding barbarians in the mold of the Vikings a half an eon later- all, again, in this `realistic' movie.
Gwynevere (played by the lovelier than words Keira Knightley -or is it Natalie Portman with an accent?) is a wild warrior woman in the Xena mold- possibly a Wode, although this is never definitively made clear- which she and Fuqua claim is historically accurate, although it's not, but allows the brief notion that the glimpses of her taut, lithe, nacreous bod (and nacreous is a word destined to describe Ms. Knightley's skin) in skimpy leather, in winter- mind you, will soon give way to a great romantic love scene with Arthur (the petrified Clive Owen). But, alas, the one brief romantic scene is lame, Keira stays far too clothed, and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffydd) is a total pussy who seems utterly impotent in the face of Gwyn's charms.... Now, none of these failings would matter in the least were the tale a damned good one, but the only way this script could have been passable on celluloid were someone like a Roger Corman brought in to camp it up. But, humor and camp are totally absent in this hermetically dry waste of time. So, the claims of `realism' and historical accuracy' are the only thing this monstrosity had going for it- along with the anticipated delight of Keira Knightly in and out of leather, yet it fails miserably on both scores. And the editing is atrocious- with at least three major discontinuities in scenes where snow is seen on the ground, them mysteriously replaced by green grass a second later. Avoid this film, burn the DVD, and read Thomas Malory. To sum up- I still look forward to the day when I can ogle Ms. Knightley's taut form in the way it entered this world, but the hopes that this film would be entertaining or even passable, well- to quote Mistah Kurtz- `He dead!'
Rating: -
It really is remarkable how Hollywood, which has scaled the heights of technical brilliance in mimicry, costumery, cinematography and overall visual verisimilitude, still has brain-damaged monkeys writing scripts and dreaming up concepts. This movie, which was blessed with an excellent cast, distorted the King Arthur legend to such an astonishing degree- just for the sake of being "original"- that it was positively painful to watch. Arthur- the Pelagian heretic later turned pagan. Guinevere- the Woad-covered, tattooed Pictish warrior princess. Lancelot and the rest of the knights of the Round Table- Sarmatian (i.e. Iranian) conscripts from the steppes of Russia. Merlin- a Pictish warrior shaman. And Roman troops in Britain decades after they actually left and Saxon barbarians invading Scotland. Not to mention the sniveling, treacherous, sadistic Romans and Catholics making life miserable for everyone. I appreciate the liberty of artists to fill the lacunae of history and myth, but this went_way_too far off the deep end. What dreck. Both factual history and a people's most cherished mythological personification of themselves were perverted by this movie. "Excalibur" retains its title as the best Arthurian movie ever made. "King Arthur" will fall deservedly down the memory hole.
Rating: -
translators that interpert it enough to put it on paper. Every thing "historical" is suspect, from the "history" books our children are taught from to the "History" channel's interpertation of it. "Historical Facts" are highly suspicious and the damage has been so extensive and for so long I, for one, really suspect it's voracity. Movies/entertainment should be taken for what they are "entertainment" not historical fact.
|
