Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
|King Arthur - The Director's Cut |
Actors: Clive Owen, Stephen Dillane, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd, Mads Mikkelsen
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Genres: Action & Adventure, Drama, Military & War
King Arthur the Extended Unrated Director's Cut contains fourteen minutes of never-before-seen footage, including more intense battle sequences and the scenes "Rain and Snow" and "Saxons Surrounded." Bonus Features ? Alt... more »
Similarly Requested DVDs
Member Movie Reviews
Jerry S. from OCEANSIDE, CA
Reviewed on 3/6/2012...
0 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
Reviewed on 7/5/2011...
Clive Owen at his at his best. Gusto, emotion, religion and honor. The battle scenes are realistic, so be prepared...this is a love story based on historical content. Great costumes, very scenic..I love this movie and this is a must see for all who are inspired by the Knights of the roundtable.
1 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
Julia W. from HONOLULU, HI
Reviewed on 3/18/2011...
Why are so many King Arthur movies subpar? I think the attempt to place the story in a plausible historical concepts is fine (although, _The Last Legion_ has a more interesting approach to the Roman-empire-outpost idea if if it, too, is disappointing), but there's very little in this film that makes it enjoyable to watch. Which is a shame, as there are some truly first rate actors in it. Perhaps it's the overwhelming emphasis on the military aspect of the story that makes the film one-dimensional: the Arthur story cycle is full of so much more than just battles, including quite a big of humor.
And if Guinevere is going to turn into a warrior maiden, then she could at least wear something sensible to fight in. I understand that the motivation for fighting bikinis is selling tickets, but that kind of opportunism really cheapens an already flailing film.
4 of 6 member(s) found this review helpful.
Sara C. (SarithaAnn)
Reviewed on 9/2/2010...
This director's cut version of King Arthur is a huge improvement over the original theatrical cut. I was not a fan of the theatrical cut but decided to give this version a try and really enjoyed it.
0 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.
My Kind of King Arthur.... At Last!
Gormlaithe | Colorado, USA | 04/28/2006
(5 out of 5 stars)
"I have read the negative and positive reviews of this film, especially noting the numerous complaints about historical accuracy. But considering the era from which this story is created, and the various possibilities regarding exact time and place of events, (if they ever occurred at all), I think the film is a truly magnificent, thought-provoking piece about King Arthur.
Bringing in the aspect of the Sarmatians was long overdue in the Arthurian arena. Although various historians may argue the point, much evidence does point to the use of stirrups by about 8000 Sarmatian cavalry in the Roman army as early as 175 AD. With the commonly held belief that the stirrup was not introduced until many centuries later, I thought it a bold move for the movie makers to incorporate this into the film as well. It seemed to be one of the most commonly noted 'discrepancies' by reviewers, but I disagree - it is very accurate.
If you have watched only the PG13 version of this film, by all means, please watch not only the Director's Cut version, but take the time to also watch/listen to Antoine Fuqua's narrative over the film. His narration explains a lot, especially about how they had to change things drastically to make the mandated PG 13 rating. His explanation regarding his version of Lancelot and Guinevere is quite a statement as well.
The alternate ending was quite dark, or perhaps even depressing, in a way. I don't know which ending is more suitable, and actually would have liked to have seen perhaps a different ending altogether, just don't know what that would have been.
I thought the actors were incredible; the battle scenes (director cut) some of the only such scenes I've ever watched that let you identify the main characters' roles during the fighting; the photography was the best I have ever seen; the music illustrated and enhanced; and this movie left you wanting to see more when it was over.
There was no dwelling on use of special effects for blood and gore, or rediculous feats of super-power athletics, or campy remarks that would bring you immediately back to your own century. The horses were not constantly being tripped during battle scenes, either. All these were a welcome change from so many movies of today.
Above all, it passed the real test of a great movie - it left you with 'a feeling' after it was over.
In short, I loved it. Antoine Fuqua, you are a genius.
FitzFG | Upstate New York | 12/08/2004
(4 out of 5 stars)
"If you are looking for a strict retelling of the stereotypical King Arthur legend then this movie is not for you. If, however, you are open to seeing new interpretations of the tale then I would recommend watching this movie. This movie does a good job of combining the legend with history and a little bit of fantasy/epic-heroism. In doing this it becomes a movie that tells the story of the "real" Arthur and yet has enough elements of the legend to imply how the real story could have developed into the legend after years of retelling and exageration. One thing that I personally liked(others may disagree) is that they sidelined the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere. There were interactions that can be seen as the origins of the legend, but the love/betrayal plotline did not overwhelm the more engaging central plot.
This film only rates four stars because it is just a good film, not a great one. I would recommend renting it first to see if you like it before buying it."
Eoin | UK | 04/07/2006
(4 out of 5 stars)
"The movie is pretty good BUT watch the directors cut only, however, historically and geographically it's a bit awry.
YES there was a Romano-British warlord called Artorius Castus, YES 4000 Sarmatian heavy cavalry were sent to northern Britannia around 180 AD from southern Russia, it was part of a peace deal between Marcus Aurelius and the Sarmatians. YES the sword religon was a Scythio-Sarmatian ritual of the sacred sword, blood, plunging it into the earth etc
However most of their desendents by the 450's AD (when the movie is set) when the romans left britain would have been native british, and half were thought to have left to fight with Constantine in Europe.
NO they wouldn't have worn armour as in the film. The Picts were ORIGINAL peoples of northern britain (Scotti were immigrants from Dal Ria in North Ireland). They may have worn blue (Woad) body paint as modern research has suggested it had antiseptic properties to protect against wounds, they did use composite bows and crossbows. The romans invited in the Saxons as mercenaries against the Irish, Scots, Welsh (no such term as Celt then! thats an 18th century invention) and other Saxon raiders. They rebelled when they weren't paid and took over southern britain, brought they're families over and the rest is history (evenually to become Aenglaland...England). One of the biggest mistakes in the film though is that all the romano-british v saxon fighting took place in southern britain, not around Hadrian's Wall, and the final battle of Baden Hill is thought to be in south-western england.
But if you're not too bothered by that it's not bad, particulary the less sanitised Directors Cut version with the blood restored!
If you're interested check out the book "Arthur the Dragon King by Howard Reid" for a good comprehensive historical account."