Badmovies.org Forum

In a few words: Gladiator light.

In a few more words: Jerry Bruckheimer can say what he wants about this movie being King Arthur's true story, I've always though he was after "Gladiator Part Two" when he produced this movie. Compared with "Gladiator", it sure falls short, but it's not as bad as people said in its time.

Starting with the good things, the script is not half bad. It comes from "Gladiator"'s auteur David Franzoni. It's not memorable, true, as it is packed with lots of empty talk about "honor", "freedom" and all that mumbo-jumbo modern filmmakers feel it's obligatory to stuff into present-day epics. But on the other hand, its take on the "real" King Arthur is quite refreshing, and Franzoni seems to have noticed the pace problems in "Gladiator" and acts accordingly: what few politics the film has, they are placed at the beginning, and the big battle comes at the end, as it should be.

Then there's the question of Antoine Fuqua. Fuqua is a good director when it comes to action, and that shows here. But he's not Ridley Scott, and his attempts at visual panache fall quite short here, even when he adopts Scott's visual conventions, such as tinted cinematography, snowy landscapes and so on. Yes, of course, the film is spectacular enough, but can't touch Scott's eye for eye candy.

But, more annoyingly, he fails to do much with everything else but the action sequences. The actors are left on their own (Clive Owen has never been so wooden, and only his companions are a bit better) and can't overcome their poorly scripted characters and stilted dialogue. No matter what goes on, everything feels damn flat and passionless, and unless the viewer does a personal effort the film ends up being boring.

So, anything new or surprising here, for those who have seen "Gladiator"? Not much, I'm afraid, although there are worse guy movies around. The only really surprising bit came from an unexpected Christian-bashing subtext, which could be either another trace of modern contamination (a reaction to the revival of Christian fundamentalism?) or may actually have some historical basis: I once met a Roman history teacher who claimed that the adoption of Christianism wounded the Roman civilisation and was one of the causes of its downfall.


(http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/9120/snapshot20070510154936rn1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

When the camera pans down, you can actually see a kneeled Keira Knightley for a split second.


(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9780/snapshot20070510162746gk3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Did anybody just say "mosquito bites"?!!!

Oh this has the magic opening gate... The worst continuity error I have seen in years.  The gate in the wall is constantly open and closed in the climactic scenes.  Just watch the background>  The gate is a ket plot device, but they never make sure its in the "right" state. 


-Ed

Clive Owen looks stoned out of his mind in this pic.


"I have no idea what's going on..."

  

I heard this was poor, but I'm willing to watch it if it comes on TV.

As I said, it is flawed, but I've seen much worse.

While I find your Gladiator comparisson apt I have to ask. . .

Really?  You thought this movie was good?   :buggedout:

What, precisely, about the story did you find worthwhile?


Unfortunately that means it's not half good either.   :wink:

I wanted to like this but, alas, I actually know something about the Arthurian legend and this was so far off base of what I've read about the possible historical Arthur I couldn't stomache watching more than about 15 minutes of it.  I'm just glad I waited to catch it on sat.

Nice costumes though.

i haven't seen it.  But there hasn't been positive feedback.

Nope. I just don't think it is as bad as people said when it came out.

Just wondering if it was the chopped up PG-13 version you saw or the unrated director's cut (which was basically just the R rated cut that Jerry Bruckheimer decided to chop up at the last minute).

the director's cut does work a lot better at times, though it's not by any means what I would call a great movie.

But it is a good time passer IMO.

I saw the "uncut" version, but I didn't see many differences. There's some blood here and there, the final battle seems longer, and they removed the joke about one of the knights calling his children numbers instead of names.

Me, I thought the move was okay, had some cool moments, but i have to say this

THE BLUE SKINNED GIRLS ROCK!!

(Yes, I know their skin is just PAINTED blue, but still...)

They get all sweaty, running around screaming, swinging weapons..

Whoa, gotta go take a shower!  :)

I didn't think it was too bad either. Sure it's horrible, but it's a good way to spend a lazy night just before bed where you don't want to have to think about what you're watching.

In a word though, it's largely forgettable.