My college library has it in their DVD section, and I was thinking of checking it out at some point soon. I've seen the movie-was the director's cut any better?[/i]

Nope, not unless you want more of the same.

Slightly more bloody but thats about it

Ah. Thank you. Glad I went with The Duelists instead.

King Arthur isn't all bad.
At least it has Sarmatians in it, albeit rather un-Sarmatian-like Sarmatians with British accents. :-)
I think it's the only movie I have ever seen that had any kind of ancient Iranian nomads in it, however inaccurately portrayed.


[/i]

I thought it was better. Still not a phenomenal movie by any measure, but a good Saturday afternoon kind of thing. Take it with a grain of salt and you'll have fun with an action movie for a couple hours.

It was still rubbish I'm afraid. No real story at all, just one battle scene after another, with an absolute minimum of plot in between.

It also gets me that despite all the books available on the Romans, and we are talking about books for the general reader not just scholarly works, and the valiant efforts of various reenactment societies, Hollywood just sticks two fingers up and says "stuff you, we've got our preconceptions and we're sticking to them". :mad:

It is the only time that I have bought a director's cut and wished I hadn't bothered. In fact I wished that I hadn't bought the film at all!

Paul

i got it for Christmas last year. i havent seen past where the clergy guy shows up and they ride to some fort in the middle of celt land. ug this movie was horrible at best. as an authorian historian i find it insulting to say the least. armour, actors, scenery, plot if any, costumes EVERYTHING was wrong for the "true life" perspective of the real king author if there was one.

I think everyone's being too hard on this movie. Afterall, they had to do something with all of those props, costumes,and extras when Xena Warrior Princess was cancelled. I think they've all moved on to Capitol One commercials. :D

Well, since King Arthur was the only "large battles with swords-movie" that I started to fast forward even during the battle scenes, I'm not going to even get near the directors cut.

I'll probably give "Kingdom of Heaven"'s DC a chance, though.

And I absolutely understand when someone prefers "the duelists". That's a great movie. :D

John.

if you wait long enough Alexander may end up in a bargain bin: Might be worth it at $9.95, might buy it myself eventually just for the battle scenes that I hope might be worth it.

I've occasionally liked a film that everybody hated: Weird tastes sometimes or something that would only appeal to a " Sci. Fi.
Geek. "

Have you ever seen the " Old " Alexander movie with Richard Burton made in 1955

Honestly, I don't see what you guys have against the movie King Arthur, I own the director's cut and if you take it for what it is (a hack and slash action movie with a plot sewn around stab wounds and axe maimings) than it delivers in every way. It was meant to be an entertaining piece of film, something to make money and delight the audience.

They say that the movie is historically accurate to initially capture the audience, and for the most part people believe it. Only the geeks on this forum (myself included) would actually take the extra time to research the historical accuracy of Lancelot's sword tang or magnifying the screen to double check if the pommel of Cerdic's sword really was of Saxon design. :p

If you want accuracy, watch a documentary :lol:

Historical accuracy aside I simply don't think it's a well made movie. The plot has too many holes, the dialog is sophomoric at best, and the production values aren't that great.

I don't have anything "against" it, I just don't think it's very good.