Hi Everyone ... just got back from seeing "King Arthur" on it's opening night. I had been reading some of the reviews on it and was a little worried about what to expect because I saw some less than desirable remarks about it, but once the movie started I thoroughly enjoyed it. To me, it was a very new and different twist on the Arthurian Legend ... a very interesting interpretation of the story and I will definitely be going to see it again. I thought it was well done and well acted and thoroughly entertaining.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Ray Winstone as a costar ... I remember him well from his role as Will Scarlet in the Robin Of Sherwood series.

While I enjoyed all the props and various weapons, I really enjoyed the movie's interpretation of Arthur's sword, Excalibur. I was a little worried about what to expect with it because I'd read a remark or two somewhere degrading it as "a cheesy fantasy sword". However, when I saw it in the film I thought it was quite a beautiful piece and not cheesy at all. I was very taken with it and I thought the film maker's interpretation of the sword was very nicely done. I know that if it ever gets made as a reproduction it's a piece I'd like to add to my collection.

While I know there will be some who don't care for the movie or its props for one reason or another, I found it personally appealing. I'm eager to see it again and I'm hoping that many others enjoy it and are as entertained by it as I was. :)

Thanks for the feedback Jim. Being an admitted movie fanatic, as well as a King Arthur buff, I'm planning on catching this one as soon as work permits.

While there were some things in the previews that made me role my eyes, such as Arthurs pseudo-praetorian armour and that whole Guinevere warrior princess get-up (very hot honey though!).

On the other hand, I really can't understand why people turn into period Nazis when it comes to the Arthurian legends. Most of the elements that make them what they are are just plain fantasy anyway. It's impossible to pin down the exact historical figure on which they're based, if there is one. IMHO place Arthur and his homeboys in whatever period you choose. Just show us lots of nice swords and armor, and do a rousing good job of it!

This one looks like it will entertain, which is what the medium is for anyway.

About Excalibur; did it look anything like Jody's Senatorial Spatha? See the news page of his site somewhere near the middle for a pic. This is just a hunch, I haven't seen the movie but given the time period...

Hmm. I don't think the Jody spatha is Excalibur itself... the Excal I saw from the movie looked like a hand-and-a-half, bronze or gold-plated guard. His spatha may be in that movie, though! Since there's a lot of Roman stuff going on throughout it... hmm...

Hi all,

Excalibur was made by Paul Binns on this side of the water. He had originally wanted to do a late Romano-British type spatha to fit i with the era but the people in high places wanted something a bit more "flash"-- I suppose spathas don't have the Hollywood appeal. The sword Arthur ended up with was a bit less than what was called for historically, but hey!

I look forward to seeing it myself (although I'm not one for the Sarmatian idea). All in all it's been a pretty good season (or few years) for history (or Tolkien) buffs.

David

One of the striking features that I liked about the Excalibur in this new film is the blade's long length, yet it isn't "too" long or "too" short. There is a deeply engraved pencil-thin line that follows the outer perimeter of the fuller along the blade's full length that really adds a nice touch to the look of it. Another aspect that I liked was that at times it seems to be hollow ground (although it might have just been a trick of light). I have a real soft spot in my sword loving heart for hollow ground blades. I could never really tell in this first viewing of the movie if it was definitely hollow ground or not ... but whether it is or isn't I found the blade to be very beautiful.

I've seen many cinematic versions (and non cinematic versions) of Excalibur and, though many of them look very nice, I have yet to see one that really makes me think "now that must be how a real Excalibur would have been" ... that is, until now. Up to this point, my favorite cinematic Excalibur was the one from the movie by the same name (however, I think I have a little bias in favor of that one for a few personal reasons *grin* but because the design is so nearly identical to that of Discerner, I never could get into the mindset of thinking of it as being King Arthur's Excalibur whenever I'd watch the movie).

When the film "Merlin" came out, I found that sword (as well as the MRL Historical Excalibur) to be more in-keeping with what I would picture or expect King Arthur's legendary sword to look like, but those still fell short of my own imaginative expectations. There is also a version of Excalibur offered by Wilkinson Sword that seems to draw inspiration from period design, but again, it still lacks that "something" that I always imagined Excalibur should be like.

Now comes along this new King Arthur movie and I think I like this Excalibur the best of all the "period" type representations of it. I definitely agree that the sword the actor ended up with probably falls far short of being historically accurate in any true representation of the word, but I really like it. I'd have to say that for the sake of imaginative legendry, the sword in this new movie strikes me as how I like to picture Excalibur might have been were it real. I sure hope somebody somewhere decides to reproduce it! :D

I caught it yesterday and I was supprised I actually liked it. Now it is WILDLY inaccurate (even to my admittedly limited knowledge of the post-Roman era/Migration period). The actor who kept me trying to figure out where I had seen him before was the guy who played lancelot. It finally clicked that it was the actor who played Horatio Hornblower. There is even the actor who played Styles in this movie. (I kept expecting him to knuckle his forehead and say "aye suh")

But as this is a fantasy movie I just put realism on hold and had a good time. Makes a good matinee.

Cheers
Dave Lannon

Well, I just got back from seeing this one. I have to say that it's just about what I expected, pretty mediocre.
Not horrible but far from noteworthy. It won't be gracing my DVD collection.

The movie could have been more accurately titled "Mad Art, Woad Warrior".

Arthur/Artorius runs around throughout the entire movie screaming abour freedom and equality. Yet the whole time he's leading a band of not so merry men who've been conscripted against their will, and who are a bit pissed at being assigned a duty station at the arse-end of the empire. And apparently these are the only guys in the whole of Woadland who know how to ride a horsey.

I didn't really care too much for Excalibur. It looked like something out of the Noble Collection. All of the other weapons were pretty shoddy. And of course, as usual, all of the Romans were wearing leather armor. They must have had a sale at the Xena Warrior Princess store.

I didn't hate the movie and I was mildly entertained, but I won't be seeing it again.

The one saving grace was Keira Knightley, who has to be one of the hottest women on the face of the planet :D

Hi everyone,

I would go with Patrick Kelly on this one. It was mediocre, if not worse. On the brighter side some of the swords looked rather historical, mostly different types of viking swords. Other than that........mostly disappointing. I liked the idea of moving the myth further back in time but the delivery was.......CHEESY. As was mentioned in a previous post, the writers/producers/directors did not stick with the period.

Well this is just my opinion. This movie will cater to some and not to others.

Alexi

Two observations.

1. Better than I expected, but I went with very low expectations.

2. Its either winter or summer. Not both.

ALL MUST BOW to the greatest of all King Arthur films, and fantasy films in general, "Excalibur" of 1981. The current piece of dreck will only induce me to pop the DVD in for another viewing of a beautifully photographed piece of art. Even if the armor was non-period. And the genius to use Wagner and Orff for the music... Man, that was a great movie.

Brian M

for once, I have to absolutly aggree with Patrick whole heartedly!

I couldnt have been more DISpleased with this movie.

I knew it was gonna be cheesy, But I have seen Clive Owen in other films, Like the BMW online series of movies, and he is a good actor and can pull off the suave thing well, sorta bondish, but he is just NOT Arthor.

The movie was so bad it just put me in a fowl mood all night.....

The thing this movie lacked was MOJO!
There was no chemistry,personally by the end of the movie, i was hoping all the bad actors of the round table would meet the axe........ and dont get me started on Mr Monotone Saxon leader guy and his sissy son. geeezzz....

I am usually NOT critical of movies, no matter how low budget or cheesy, I try to find SOME redeeming quality about them, but I am fairly fed up with the now stereotypical MASS battle scenes, they are all the same: Engage enemy, Each leader rides back and forth on horse, while uplifting music swells. Leader says moving "pre-game" speech, slaps all the guys on the butts........, Then archers pull out box of matches (*g*) light flamable arrow heads , shoot at bad guys, bad guys hold up frisbee sized shields to try to block the 5 million flaming arrows, but dont succeed, then the ground catches on fire because the good guys put gasoline all over the ground before the fight (doesnt anybody scout the location first?), THEN! they must run out of arrows because the main good guy screams and holds up his wallhanger sword and they all run at each other and smash into each other, some people do double backflips.


Ill spare you the rest, I think you can guess it, but doesnt that sound like EVERY major epic since braveheart?

As one critic so very eloquently put it ... the men in the movie all seemed to confuse having facial hair with acting ability. :D

Mario

Just so everyone knows, the movie they just saw was not the intended movie.

According to an article that I just read in Entertainment Weekly, Disney cut the heck out of the movie in order to make it PG-13. The original version was to dark and gory for their tastes. Heads flying etc. They also removed the entire scene/part with the Guinevere/Lancelot twist which explains why she was so upset by his death. Also, the "happy ending" wedding was added and not originally intended. It was added later in a re-shoot.

Apparently Antoine Fuqua was not too happy with Disney's cuts and edits so Bruckheimer brokered a deal though to make sure that the DVD release was the originally planned film.

And Disney wonders why their movies do not fare well anymore. Hmm.

Thanks Jay!

I think all of us forumites could get together and film a big battle scene! God knows we have the weaponry.

Someones gotta bring the flaming arrows and black gunky flamable stuff.....