I started watching the directors cut last night and it bored the living crap out of me. About half way through I gave up and turned it off. Something about it just seemed kinda flat and dull. There wasnt much fanfare about this flick that I recall. Anyone see it, like it? not like it?
I saw it, and absolutely loathed it. My wife quite enjoyed the flick, but I just couldn't get into it no matter what. Sure Keira Knightly is hot but not even that could carry this flick for me.
Big disappointment considering I really liked Antoine Fuqua's Training Day.
I saw in theaters and I liked it. Glad I saw it but nothing I see again.
_____________________________
"We Greeks created democracy! You also created homos!"-Ghost World
Unwatchable in my opinion. I quit pretty early, but I'm told that all the main characters had either glorious deaths or got the girl. So far from anything resembling historical fact, they just should have made up new names for everything and set it in an imaginary milieu.
I suppose movies like this are necessary to keep food on best boys', lighting technicians' and costume designers' tables so they'll still be available when a good script and gifted director come along.
I guess it wasnt just me then. : )
Watch the climactic scene with the gate. They make such a big production about how hard the gate is to open and close, but a couple guys (or is it one) do it at the end. Also every time they show the gate in the battle scene its in a different position, even though its supposed to be closed. Glaring continuity error using a major plot element.
My non-B-Movie-watching wife saw and she and my sister in law started chanting "Open" and "Closed" every time they showed the gate. I was so proud of her, giving the MST 3K treatment to this self-important and stuffy flick.
Ed
Thank you for the Juicebox information Skaboi. I tried to reply, but my reply got kicked back. Must be my odd e-mail address. (:
I thought it was so-so.
Not bad, but not great either.
I found Clive Owen's performance to be pretty good.
He's one of my favorite up & coming actors.
I first saw him over at BMW Films (http://www.bmwfilms.com/clap.asp?template=international&country=&film=) a couple years ago.
In the films (there are 3 of them) he plays an expert getaway driver. (Guess what kind of car he drives...)
The films are around 8-10 minutes in length and are directed by John Woo...Joe Carnahan and Tony Scott and they're loaded with kick-ass wall-to-wall action.
I highly recommend checking them out...
So, back to King Arthur....
I guess I liked it because several of the lead performances were good.
The production was also fairly well done and I did believe that it was the Middle Ages.
A decent effort.
I give it 3 out of 5 stars.
Post Edited (06-02-05 02:00)
My daughter said KING ARTHUR is bad along with VAN HELSING which someone let me borrow and I just don't want to waste my time with it because I've heard from my daughter and a few others that VAN HELSING is bad film. Both films bad in a boring way that is. I might just return VAN HELSING without viewing it.
Scott,
You might wanna give Van Helsing a go. Although it does have big production values and such, it's actually a pretty decent "action" flick. I've seen it about three times, including once in the theater, and it's quite enjoyable.
I hated every minute of "Van Helsing", but certainly you should watched if you cared enough for rentin it.
On the "King Arthur" subject, It is quite an uneven film. The melancholy in the story is a bold approach, and the schematism of good guys vs., bad guys works for once, but the execution is very bad. No atmosphere, despite the good production design, no drama, wooden acting... At least the action was satisfying enough (the final battle is well shot and coreographied), but certainly it doesn't compensate for the rest of the movie.
I think the one to blame here is writer David Franzoni, who basically reversed his story for "Gladiator", putting the politics at the beginning and the big battle at the end. Fuqua's work was OK, but nothing impressive. He certainly handles the action well, but fails to explode the dramatic potential of the story.
Scott, you may also want to give Van Helsing a go because it's got Kate Beckinsale...ok, so I'm somewhat superficial.
VanHelsing is bad but I wouldnt say it's boring. There's lots of CGI monsters, silly dialog, plot holes and such to keep a bad movie fan cracking jokes throughout it.
Well, with all of your "ok's" on VAN HELSING i will definately be watching it.
Beckinsdale has a seat revserved in the B-movie actress section of hollywood as shes not a very good actress and is in not very good films.
Still Ed Wood would have a blast with her.
odinn7, you just nailed the one and only reason to see Van Helsing. The effects were cartoonish, the crossbow ridiculous, and Poor Man's Russell Crowe looked small and goofy in that hat.
Keira Knightly naturally looked good in King Arthur... but she's in a few much better movies than that if you want to ogle her. I recommend The Johnny Depp pirate flick.
Watch one of her old movies if you can, one called "Uncovered". It is a terrible piece of work, an archeological thriller based on a pathetic spanish best-seller and put into images by the director of "Great balls of fire". Apalling at any level, but she appears naked in a variety of positions, and we are talking of a young Kate Beckinsale, back when she had curves in all the right places.
just been queued on netflick......
_____________________________
"We Greeks created democracy! You also created homos!"-Ghost World