http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1809355123
This movie looks terrible, Im surprised it made it in the theaters, it looks good enough to be a scifi original picture on the scifi channel.

Well, at least you have to give it credit for historical accuracy.

Why do they have to tie it to King Arthur?

I like the inclusion of what sounds like Byzantine Ninjas.

Romans, barbarians, bizoninjas....if they add in some pirates how can it be anything but great?! ;)

Its to entertain, not to educate. Still I am surprised it got funded as a feature release since the previews sound so much like Gladiator that it gives the impression of being a cheap ripoff.

Heheheh another funny movie :D I like mainly everlasting,universal and essential 'warrior princess' theme... :D :D

Despite its grave historical inaccuracy, the modern archetype of the "warrior princess" fighting in ancient times serves a vital social purpose in the modern era, captured in this dynamic conversational transcript between a guy, hypothetically named "Dan", and the woman "W" he is involved with:

W: I don't want to see a movie that has swords and fighting in it. Lets go see "Bridget Jones Diary".
Dan: But THIS movie has a STRONG WOMAN in it doing the fighting. You can support WOMAN'S RIGHTS by seeing it.
W: Oh Ok.

Thus the warrior princess saves the day again, keeping me out of bad movies and watching exciting ones even if I am with a person of the opposite gender.

Well, the idea of the woman warrior has been around a long, long time. Amazons and all that.

In fiction, at least, it has a distinguished history.

Of course there were some women who fought bravely in past... I just believe not like those seen in movies...By the way-that sword is another piece made of holywoodium -put in the stone for years and no sign of rust ;)

:lol: Excellently put, Dan! :D

I like the fact that Hollywood has turned its' eyes on sword movies again... But(!) I think it's a shambles that everything has to be so politically correct. Using "historical" films to change attitudes and meanings is very misleading. I wish someone could try to show things from a different angle, trying to show things in the light in which the people who really were there would. And of course add a little bit of historical accuracy. :) Ah well! One can only dream!

Cheers,
Henrik

Thanks, but I think I'll hold out for the new Elizabeth movie....

There's a 4-page discussion on RAT, which I haven't read. And no, I have no intention of seeing this or any ancient or medieval "historical" movie ever again, fiction or not. I'll stick with Planet of the Apes--that's where these costume all came from, anyway!

http://www.romanarmy.nl/rat/viewtopic.php?t=9...07a94e0c52

Matthew

With the number of people in Hollywood jumping on the pseudo-historical Arthurian bandwagon, I can't figure out why someone hasn't tried to do Bernard Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles. It would make a much better film (or films) than these others, as well as being slightly more historically accurate, if they stuck close to the books.

I actually went to see this film yesterday. I would like to point out that the film is actually quite historically accurate in some points. For example, there really was a Roman Empire. There is also a large island, which still exists to this day, that was once called Britannia by the Romans.

Beyond that …, well, there are a few names that someone picked out of the history books, some event places and dates distorted by someone’s poor memory, some very, um, imaginative armory work, and the film makes the quick trip down the slippery slope from historical to hysterical.

If I try to ignore the history problems for a moment, I still think that the film was mediocre, at best. Some, IMO, fine actors (e.g., Colin Firth, Sir Ben Kingsley) working with material that is beneath them.

Matthew,

I don't want to start some kind of a flme war, but... :lol:

Please note that I didn't start this thread which showed a sweeping statement about a movie the Original poster has not even seen.

I would not presume to tell anyone what to like or don't like, however, I do take issue with people who tell me in a pompous, condescending, elitist tone that the movie I am considering seeing is "historically inaccurate" thus implying that I must be a cretin or a buffoon. I am not specifically pointing at you, since your post did not contain such attitude. My rant was pointed toward those "historical accuracy Nazis" whose tiresome mantra of "it's not historically accurate, therefore garbage" gets thrown in my face.

I do disagree with you about historically accurate costs less. I read magazine articles about extraordinary costs involved in getting every detail as closely historical as possible for the movie "Last of the Mohicans" which involved minute recreation of uniform buttons and such. It is far less costly to make up something and cut a template.

And lastly (for now :) ) the above rant is not reserved exclusively for "sword geeks." I am equally impatient with someone who says something like, "Saving Private Ryan was okay until they messed up the Waffen SS soldiers' haircuts. It ruined the whole movie for me." Why oh why do these people allow a minute "mistakes" ruin their life's experiences? Of course we all know these mistakes don't ruin anything, but these people feel the need to say something which in their minds make them superior to we lowly peasants who don't know about the haircut patterns of the Waffen SS. :p

Calm down, people. Jeez..

I was actually kind of looking forward to this movie until I found out that Aishwarya Rai (aka that one girl who is in all those Bollywood movies my sisters watch) was playing a "warrior princess" in it. Call me prejudiced, but after learning that I didn't even need to see the trailer to know that the movie would no longer be on my "must see list." :p

Tis a pity, because that deliciously intense fellow who plays Lucius Vorenus in Rome is in it too. Ah well......