Movies you've seen recently... (38 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,260
++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
Fahrenheit 9/11 ... badly made docu-film though interesting moore once again falls short, not being able to control his emotions and thus giving his usual biased unbalanced view.... shame it could have been very worthwhile.
I agree; it was interesting, but he gets too personal, and it's not even subtle either. He keeps saying things like "What kind of President is he?"
++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
king arthur... thoroughly enjoyed it ... highly reccomended
I'm actually surprised that you liked it, being an apparent historical purist. I liked the movie at face value, but I have a few bones to pick.. I may not be correct about some of this 'history', but I noticed a few things...

Where's morgana le faye and them lot?

The knights aren't very knightly at all

Merlin's a homeless mountain monkey

They constantly fought in extremely annoying, unrealistic-looking fog

What happened to camelot?

What happened to the legend of the sword in the stone?

What happened to the fact that he was an orphan?

Le morte d'arthur did a hundred times more justice to the legend.

Not enough eye candy even :groan: Speaking of which, Keira Knightley wasn't needed in the movie whatsoever. The love theme added nothing to the movie at all IMO, unnecessary Hollywood addition
 

A_LAcki

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2002
3,560
Shrek 2! This movie is so crazy. I bet anyone other has already seen it, but the movies in Austria come out a month or so later than in the U.S.

Can I get any info about Fahrenheit 9/11? I have to see this movie after I have seen Bowling for Columbine (one of the best I have ever seen!), I can't wait for the new Moore docu!
 

Gandalf

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2003
2,038
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

I agree; it was interesting, but he gets too personal, and it's not even subtle either. He keeps saying things like "What kind of President is he?"

I'm actually surprised that you liked it, being an apparent historical purist. I liked the movie at face value, but I have a few bones to pick.. I may not be correct about some of this 'history', but I noticed a few things...

Where's morgana le faye and them lot?

The knights aren't very knightly at all

Merlin's a homeless mountain monkey

They constantly fought in extremely annoying, unrealistic-looking fog

What happened to camelot?

What happened to the legend of the sword in the stone?

What happened to the fact that he was an orphan?

Le morte d'arthur did a hundred times more justice to the legend.

Not enough eye candy even :groan: Speaking of which, Keira Knightley wasn't needed in the movie whatsoever. The love theme added nothing to the movie at all IMO, unnecessary Hollywood addition
I haven't seen it yet.. but :wth: they didn't mention "the sword in the stone"..? what about the lady of the lake..?

things I noticed in the trailer.. guenevere is participating in the battle.. :wth:.. Merlin is a villain.. :undecide:..

please tell me guys.. is it worth watching..?
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
Not enough eye candy even :groan: Speaking of which, Keira Knightley wasn't needed in the movie whatsoever.
you lost me there. Moaning about a lack of eye candy then wanting probably the most stunning actress on the planet right now to not be in the film? :confused:
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,260
++ [ originally posted by Gandalf ] ++
I haven't seen it yet.. but :wth: they didn't mention "the sword in the stone"..? what about the lady of the lake..?
They mentioned the sword, but it wasn't really in the stone, and there's nobody there to see him pull it out. Basically they just show him getting the sword in a 30 second flashback, but he just pulls it out of the ground :lazy:
++ [ originally posted by Gandalf ] ++
please tell me guys.. is it worth watching..?
As I said, if you take it at face value it's a decent movie, but in terms of 'historical' accuracy and faithfulness to the original legend, it's shaky at best.
++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
you lost me there. Moaning about a lack of eye candy then wanting probably the most stunning actress on the planet right now to not be in the film? :confused:
Okay, what I meant was... if they're gonna put her in the movie, at least make good use of it and please the male audience. Don't add her for the blatant sake of eye candy and then not make good use of the resources at hand, especially if said character shouldn't really have played the part she did in the movie in the first place.
 

Trezeguet_FC

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2003
1,888
Gray, I thought this movie wasnt going back to the traditional British King Arthur, instead to the original King Arthur back in the Roman time? Isnt his story different fromt he variation that English people put their own version of King Arthur? It said something like that in the beggining of the film.
 

Gandalf

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2003
2,038
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

They mentioned the sword, but it wasn't really in the stone, and there's nobody there to see him pull it out. Basically they just show him getting the sword in a 30 second flashback, but he just pulls it out of the ground :lazy:

As I said, if you take it at face value it's a decent movie, but in terms of 'historical' accuracy and faithfulness to the original legend, it's shaky at best.
ahh, I see.. then, I think I'll see it.. but, I'll let my friend buy the tickets.. :D

btw, anybody saw the lady killers...? is it good..?
 

Sarah_old

Senior Member
Jul 30, 2002
1,766
I've seen King Arthur....twice in the movies :D I'd recommend it :)

My 2cents on my LJ, be warned of spoilers though.
Actually not much about the movie itself, but just some random thoughts :)
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

I'm actually surprised that you liked it, being an apparent historical purist. I liked the movie at face value, but I have a few bones to pick.. I may not be correct about some of this 'history', but I noticed a few things...

Where's morgana le faye and them lot?

The knights aren't very knightly at all

Merlin's a homeless mountain monkey

They constantly fought in extremely annoying, unrealistic-looking fog

What happened to camelot?

What happened to the legend of the sword in the stone?

What happened to the fact that he was an orphan?

Le morte d'arthur did a hundred times more justice to the legend.

Not enough eye candy even :groan: Speaking of which, Keira Knightley wasn't needed in the movie whatsoever. The love theme added nothing to the movie at all IMO, unnecessary Hollywood addition
I think you are mistaking a legend / myth with historical accuracy...

This is by far the most historically accurate version of king arthur so far.
(outside of certain chosen locations... what was it with having a certain episode at hadrians wall when we know full well, said incident was down south - though i spose it made a nice set)

The whole point of this fim was to take the story from what is actually known in history about arthur and that time, not to jus rehash the legend / myth

AS such i enjoyed it very much and if i want to see the legend i'll jus stick excalibur on
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
"Bourne Supremacy"... Qualty mindless entertainment.

For a second time - "House of Flying Daggers"... Best film ive seen this year, Even surpassing (and by a long way) Yimou's previous work of art 'Hero'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 37)