# King Arthur (2004)



## Brian G Turner (Jan 31, 2004)

Guess what? Yup - another film about King Arthur.

Excepting that they're trying to make a proper pseudo-historical story out of it - think in terms of the interpretation that sees "Arthur" as someone trying to lead the remainnig Romans against the Saxon invaders, after Rome officially abandons Britain.

This is actually a very real interpretation - that of there having been more than one "Arthur" figure, combined into the single persona of legend, The Roman in the historical interpretation is called Ambrosius, I believe, but there's little else to go on.

I don't think we'll see "historical authenticity" here - but it could be a film worth watching regardless. 

Take a look at the trailer - it actually looks pretty interesting. 


http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/king_arthur.html


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 31, 2004)

Eee...Romans.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 31, 2004)

This could be worth a watch if done right. Fingers crossed for a decent film.


----------



## fallenstar (May 28, 2004)

*King Arthur, the movie*

I cannot believe they put King Arthur as a Roman.....what's a Roman doing at Britain?? Defending the Saxons?? Isn't he supposed to be the king of the Celtics??? I am confused at the story..............


----------



## polymorphikos (May 28, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur, the movie*

History at this point in time indicates that King Arthur was of Roman descent, one of the families that was left behind after the Roman withdrawal that heralded the Dark Ages. King Arthur was therefor a Roman Briton, and would defend the country to protect it and his way of life. I haven't scene anything on the movie myself, but that's a factual tidbit I picked up somewhere.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 28, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur, the movie*

There's a general argument that King Arthur is effectively a mosaic figure of various significant figures in British history over the span of 400-800 AD (at least). 

 One of the possibilities for this mosaic is a noble-born Roman by the name of Ambrosius, who apparently tried to bring all the Roman families together into a organised self-defence against the Saxon invasion, around the late fifth/early sixth century (Rome officially withdraw the troops from Britain in 411 AD).

 However, it has to be said, the whole Arthur concept is very much made in the imagination of Norman writers, while constructing their self-justifying lineage of British rulers. The whole thing has gone silly, really.

 Btw - the Celts as a race were effectively absorbed by the Roman Empire, when Rome ruled Europe.


----------



## The Master™ (May 28, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur, the movie*

No doubt the American film-makers will get an American actor who does a lousy cockney accent, have King Arthur saved by an 11 year old American boy transported back in time by a freak lightening strike...

He will return to the past with semi-automatic sub-machine guns, weapons of mass-destruction and a McDonalds Hamburger (which helps him set up the first McD's franchise)...

Mordred will HAVE to be played by a suitable "villainous" English actor (Alan Rickman, Bruce Payne, Jason Issacs, Jeremy Irons, etc)... And is killed in a one-on-one with the hero - who dispatches the villain forthwith... Maybe from the top of a high-rise office block!!!

Okay, this might sound a little cynical...


----------



## Sage Orion (Jun 2, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur, the movie*

From what I saw in the trailer.......
it looks like a good movie to me!!  

I wonder what the adventure will hold...... ?


----------



## Devillishgirl (Jul 12, 2004)

*King Arthur*

Has anyone seen this yet??

My husband and I went to watch it yesterday and I'm still not sure what I think of it.  It put a different spin on the Arthur legend than most movies.  It was a bit slow moving but pretty interesting.  Minus Kiera Knightley there weren't too many big name actors in it...a few I've recognized from bit parts in other movies.


----------



## Hypes (Jul 12, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur*

It hasn't really piqued my interest more the fact that Keira Knightley wears not much else but a Woad, otherwise, the common consensus seems that it is, as you said, slow moving.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 13, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur*

I've seen the trailer for it...

What is it currently in movies, where a principal character rides up and down a line of mounted warriors trying to get them all worked up???

For examples see: Lord of the Rings (King Theodan does it, so does Aragorn), Mummy 2 (thingy does it in front of the Majai), I think Mel Gibsons character did it is that movie where he's the Scotsman!!! I'm sure there are some more...


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 13, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur*

It is possibly what war leaders did in times of old.

I have just seen the trailer, the actor (I can not be bothered to find out what he is called) who plays Arthur looks out of place somewhat.  Knightley in the buff could redeem this film for me.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 13, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur*

The lead actor (Clive Owen), as far as I am aware hasn't been the lead in a major motion picture before.. Usually a cameo (Gosford Park), or appearing in British TV series dramas...


----------



## mac1 (Jul 13, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur*

I am quite looking forward to seeing this one, and I dont really mind if its slow moving (many of my favorite films are) I just hope the acting and lot are up to scratch.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 5, 2004)

*King Arthur: directors cut??*

So "King Arthur" is released. Not expecting it to be a great film, but the battles should be worth watching. 

Trouble is, just when I was tempted to buy the DVD, I see the standard version - and the "Director's Cut".

Erm...what's the difference??


----------



## Silk (Dec 5, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

The director cut is crammed to the rafters with more blood, guts and full on gratuitous death!! Haven’t watched it yet but should be fun


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 5, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

They're definitely using the gore factor to shift this one. The TV adverts are kind of implying that the big bad BBFC didn't want you to see the 'real' film at the cinema. Makes me kind of suspicious about the quality of this one


----------



## LadyFel (Dec 6, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Get the Director's Cut...We watched the 'normal' version at the cimane and although it's impressive, it's almost Disney...


----------



## Lament Du Lamia (Dec 14, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

i went to see this movie in theatres. i wouldnt even bother spending the money on the dvd. I'd rent it first to make sure you like it, i think it stunk.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Dec 14, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

I feel strongly both ways on this one; I enjoyed the movie. I think the villains were great, well cast. Arthur was flat as hell, but his home boys had some spark. The battles were good, not great, but I think I liked that it made it less fantastical and more 'down to earth' Arthurian. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Excalibur. Let's just say it was interesting seeing it from a new perspective.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Dec 14, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

I own it.  According to the box it has an alternative ending.  I thought the film was refreshing.


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 14, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

I bought the directors cut before i realised there were two versions... and i ain't sure about buying the other...

i'll watch the one i've got and get a review done... i'm using the dvd to see if the dvd-rom on my work computer works!!!


----------



## Rane Longfox (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

I don't see what most people's problem was with this film. I thought it was quite good... shows what I know


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Okay, watched this film last night... all in all a poor movie... no real climax to the movie... seemed to have a lot of pace... some good fight scenes... but never really seemed to get off the ground - and Clive Owens hair, what was all that about???

Not having seen the original theatrical version, I wasn't aware of any differences (obviously)...

And what was all that about with Arturios riding up and down in front of his "massed" knights??? Trying to do a King Theoden/Aragorn pep talk???

There should have been more knights for some really effective and convincing battling... Where was Percival, Kit, etc??? Where was the other parts of the legend??? No betrayal by Lancelot??? will there be a King Arthur 2, where he is joined by a descendant of Joseph of Aramathea??? Or goes in search of the Grail??? No betrayal by Lancelot??? Kiera Knightley didn't seem right for Guinevere, too young and too skinny!!!

On the plus side - LOVED BORS!!! What a guy!!! And Dagonet, hard as nails with a soft centre!!! Lancelot was bit of a pagan snob, but nice armour and swords!!! And the battle scene on the ice was good, so was the battle in the smoke - "The knights are demons, and that is the gate to hell!!!"


----------



## Leto (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*



			
				The Master™ said:
			
		

> Okay, watched this film last night... all in all a poor movie... no real climax to the movie... seemed to have a lot of pace... some good fight scenes... but never really seemed to get off the ground - and Clive Owens hair, what was all that about???
> 
> Not having seen the original theatrical version, I wasn't aware of any differences (obviously)...
> 
> ...



Lancelot is a French addition to the actual legend, what the hell did he do in this so-called historically-based movie ? Except being one more cutie to look at.


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

had a bit of a soft spot for him, eh??? 

i know lancelot du lac was supposed to have been brought up in france, but this version didn't seem to be of gaul stock... something seemed wrong...

Thomas Malory would be spinning in his grave at this...

Is the directors cut better, worse or same as the theatrical version??? Or would I have to get the other version to truely know??? Hey, I got Blade Runner and the driectors cut and Aliens and the Special Edition and about 4 versions of the Holy Trilogy (Star Wars) and all the versions (so far) of LotR, so why not get that as well


----------



## AmonRa (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

i really enjoyed the movie, even though some parts were completely out of date, and alot was factually wrong ^_^  but i think most people are put off by thi movie because they expected tall castles, in 'ye olde' times, where the hero would set off on a grand adventure fighting ogres and dragons.  ok there was a hint of that in what he wore (erm i think io've forgoten how to spell wore, as in wear, is that right? >.<) in the battle at the end of the movie.  but all in all it was more realistic in the sence that the worldwas  larger place than it is to day, with rome being a super power.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

This was the most factual Arthurian movie ever made.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Very true, Bors was brilliant


----------



## LadyFel (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*



			
				AmonRa said:
			
		

> alot was *factually* wrong


Wrong in the sense that there are a lot of anachronisms for the time it was set in, or wrong in the sense that they 'messed up the story'?

Cos you can't really mess up Arthur's tale, historically, factually looking, there's still very little evidence that he existed...He's been a pagan who converted to Christianity, a Roman who did the same, a 'middle Ages' sort of chivalrous knight and a confused half-prince who never even got the crown although he was te de-facto ruler of Britain. He's also been the enemy of God, as is mentioned in quite a few early Christian legends os saints in Britain...He seems to have dealt at least three of them staggering blows, politically and phisically that made them revered and him apparently despised...And add to that truly fictional tales such as Gawain and the Green Knight, Move Tristan and Iseult a few hundred years here or there...I mean, the man and his historic allies and counterparts appear to have lived for about 500 years at least if everything was to fit in the same time frame...not to mention that Merlin had to have been feeding them some wicked youth elixir all that time...

That's part of what I love so much about the whole tale - that it's never cleanly cut, there are always shadows and room for more conjecture and more theories...


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

how can the film be considered to be factually wrong???

the characters of arthurian legend are made up... and there is nothing in various histories to say that an individual, such as arturios and his knights, even existed... or if he did, no one thought it appropriate to note it...


----------



## LadyFel (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Master, that's exactly my point - there's no evidence, only some vague archeological 'idea' that Avalon was here, Camelot was there.

The cover of the book I just finished, 'The Winter King' features the famous helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial site, the remains of it, and a probably faithful copy are in the British museum, it was my favourite exhibit - and as far as I remember from secondary school history, that was a Saxon grave, whereas the book's Arthur is busy fighting the Saxons...but the implication is that it's HIS helmet...


----------



## Circus Cranium (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

"Who's that then?" 

"I dunno, must be a king."

"Why?"

"He hasn't got **** all over him."


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 18, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Heh, that would be a great cross-over. 

Back to the differences, though - has the directors cut simply got a little more gore, but no added scenes??


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 20, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

I loved this movie. Especially because I now study Arthurian Lit. Though i seem to be the only one in class who likes the movie... :S

Anyway, I like it's new view on Arthur. It actually makes him, well, human  Acting was great. Clive Owen is a perfect Arthur and Bors and Lancelot were great. 

It's funny. In an interview I read that Bruckheimer (or what;s his name) based the movie on Mallory... definitley couldn't see that in the movie, cause Mallory cried God in ever single line. I mean there's this all out battle where almost all knights are killed except for three, and Arthur kills Mordred and he himself is mortally wounded. 

First thing the do is "Oh God why be it so..." But hey, if you're missing a piece of your scull yo get easily on a horse, go to a nearby chapel, pray all day then kill your butler by hugging him to death before going of to Avalon. 

Yup, very likely. Good thing it's only a romance. 

It's more likely that they based the movie (according to another dodgy interview) on Lucius Artorius Castus. A brilliant Roman war leader who live in the 2nd century BC and who supposedly also went to Britain and have Arthur be a descendent of this man. 

The only thing I don't get it why place it so far North?

It's also funny. By the end of the movie every character who was in the Romances is killed and your left with the bunch who surrounds Arthur in the Arthur we know from Monmouth, Bede and Nennius...

I'm ranting


----------



## LadyFel (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

And still my favourite Arthur is from Cornwell's books...


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

as a film based on arthurian legends, then no it is wrong - so wrong... it grates...

as a film about a man called arthur and the knights under his command in roman britain, then yes it is a good movie... i enjoy the underhandedness of the holy roman representatives... i enjoy the rough and ready state of the knights... i enjoy the saxon ferosity...

it is a good movie, but not from an arthurian stand point... In My Not So Humble Opinion...


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*



			
				LadyFel said:
			
		

> And still my favourite Arthur is from Cornwell's books...


You mean the Winter King? I have that book, still need to read it. I just finished the first novel of the Guineverre, Queen of the Summer Country trilogy. Bah, I hated Guineverre there. Arthur is even worse. 

Hmmm, it's a good thing my paper is going to be about the movie


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Still not sure what the Directors Cut contains over the original version? Anybody??


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 23, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

There's 15 minutes of extra footage. I believe the problem lies with Troy. Troy was rated 16 years and older because of many rather bloody scenes. If you have a movie with a naked Brad Pitt, A very handsome Orlando Bloom and a cute Eric Bana, plus others in one movies...that's not good, cause all these 13 year old girls want to see it  

Soooo the director of King Arthur cut some bloody scenes from the movie and in turn had to cut some other scenes... etc, so it wouldn't be rated 16 years. So hence the director's cut.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 23, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Thanks for that, Cailleach.


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 23, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Yer very welcome! personally i like the director's cut better.


----------



## LadyFel (Dec 23, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*



			
				Cailleach said:
			
		

> You mean the Winter King? I have that book, still need to read it. I just finished the first novel of the Guineverre, Queen of the Summer Country trilogy. Bah, I hated Guineverre there. Arthur is even worse.
> 
> Hmmm, it's a good thing my paper is going to be about the movie


The Winter King, Enemy of God and Excalibur...Haven't got my hands on Excalibur yet as I've had to order it from abroad, so I'll wait a bit...I havent' really read many other versions, just the 'classic' tales and this, there was a bit in a book which deals more with the history of the Jews where he's mentioned as a Roman...


----------



## erickad71 (Dec 23, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*



			
				Cailleach said:
			
		

> If you have a movie with a naked Brad Pitt,


Naked?! Why haven't I seen this movie yet?!?!!? 

...hehehe...


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 23, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

you'd never get past that scene of him laying in his bed naked with those two women... and you wishing you were one of them...


----------



## erickad71 (Dec 23, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Hey, dreaming never hurt anyone!


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

I may have to read the Winter King for my Arthurian Lit class. I have it, unfortuantely I packed it too 

LoL Master, that was not the scene I meant. I mean on the DVD, the scene with Briseis  The one they didn't show on the big screen


----------



## Alysheba (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Hi. I'm new here and found you guys looking for info on the director's cut of this film. 


That said, I have watched this new version 3 times so far and kept feeling something wasn't right. Well, since I did see it in the movies, I figured it was just my imagination and blew it off. Until today. Can someone please explain why they left out scenes that were in the theatrical version for this version of the film? I've never run accross a directors cut that has done that. There was a scene before they got to Marius' where they were the knights are sitting around a fire in the rain talking about the weather and something else (my mind is poor as you can tell). It was a small insignifigant scene, but alas left off. I think that it's great they added scenes to the film, but to take ones away is not fair to those who did like the theatrical version. I'm wondering now if it is on the other version and if so, I may end up buying that one just to see what else I have forgot. It's a blatant waste of money IMHO to do that and I wonder if they will eventually come out with a special edition DVD that will combine the two. I guess they gotta make that money back somehow.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Hi Alysheba, and welcome to the chronicles network. 

 And, unfortunately, it's not the first film to include deleted scenes in the theatrical trailers - the Lord of the Rings films were pretty infamous for that. In the very first teaser trailer, it included a panoramic scene of an orc army leaving Mordor, and also of King Theoden knighting one of the Hobbits - both scenes of which were only present in the extended DVD's - Fellowship and Return of the King respectively.


----------



## Alysheba (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

Right, but the extended version of the KA DVD leaves out scenes that were in the theatrical version but adds scenes that weren't in the theatrical version. I can see adding scenes that were not in the theatrical version, but taking ones away that were there to begin with boggles me. It drove me a bit insane. I kept watching, thinking... what is missing... until I finally figured it out. I guess I will have to buy the theatrical version as well, just to have the scenes. Which seems redundant to me because I think I enjoyed the extended one better. Ah, what else do us girls have better to do than to spend money on things we already have anyway? 

The one thing I wish they had done. Antoine Fuqua did mention that he originally wanted more blood in the ice battle (in the water) to show the brutality etc. Of course they did add some more of the killing etc., but I wish they could've used the CGI to add that into the extended version. It would've been great to see how that concept would've gone onscreen. 

IMHO it was a mistake to leave the brutal battle scenes out of this film in the first place. The studio wanted a PG-13 rating in the USA and got it, but it royaly screwed up the whole flow of the film. For one, teenagers are not going to the theater to see men in their 30's who, are virtually unknown to American audiences. So if they wanted to appeal to the likes of "Troy" viewers they would've had to recast almost everyone but maybe Knightley and Dancy. Which I'm SO glad they didn't. So now you have knights who kill but you see little of the blood that normally would've been there and audiences that were mature enough to see it feeling kind of robbed. There were teenagers at the theater when I did go, and for the most part didn't pay attention anyway. I guess they were hoping to see someone like Bloom onscreen, but unless they were into older men or Knightley, they didn't get much "action". Again, the studio messed up a film that should've been more brutal and real but made it too cute and IMO forced it's failure here at the box office. Trying to compare to "Spider-Man" and "Troy" is not what this film should've tried to do. It should've been what it was meant to be and Fuqua's vision was cut short by men in suits with more cash than they deserve and less brain cells than they require.


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

It's pretty much like I said before. The director's cut is the movie that Bruckheimer and that other guy really wanted to make, but couldn't because it would be rated to high and they would loose profit. So hence the director's cut has more blood and gore. 

The added scenes in the theatrical version were for compensation.


----------



## PattyThePad (Dec 31, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

OK, so just watched KA with the kids.  Female 12 and Male 13-1/2.  They loved it, although they asked tons of ? throughout the movie.  I enjoyed it also.  Totally different than anything I've seen before.  Always talking about history and backgrounds. Went online to find out more about research for movie and ended up here.   Anyplace I can go for more info?


----------



## rune (Dec 31, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

I got to see this over the weekend.  Not a bad movie, good fight scenes.  But Arthur was so stiff


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 31, 2004)

*Re: King Arthur: directors cut??*

LOL Clive Owen is a perfect Arthur. I've always been more of a Lancelot person, not liking Arthur much in literature or other movies. But this was actually the first movie in which I liked Arthur better! 

Patty, what do you want? If you want more info on the movie, there's a Clive Owen website that gives tons of info, but I need to look the link up, it;s on my laptop. 

However, if it's info on the hisorical Arthur you want, I suggest you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur It's a great encyclopedia that give a "brief" account of the many theories and life of King Arthur. They also have references to other sites and books. I hope this helps!


----------

