Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Did anyone else see King Arthur and think that it absolutely sucked? First, as a movie, it was not good, but as a movie that flaunted itself as "the history behind the legend" it was horrible! There were so many inaccuracies that it's an insult for history to be associated with it.
*grumble*

By Neo (Neo) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit

i'm glad it didn't make 1 or 2. i had bad vibes about that movie from the moment i started hearing about it.

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit

Meh, just from the commercials I can tell it's going to be a stinker. It's a Braveheart wannabe that NO ONE is in the mood for.

By Voodoochile (Voodoochile) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:08 am: Edit

They should have called it just 'Arthur' instead of King Arthur.
Anyway, I'm going to see it because it has Keira Knightly. Grrrrr...

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit

Yeah, Keira Knightly was pretty good it. Probably the best thing about the movie. I've yet to see her be bad.

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:32 am: Edit

I only liked it because King Arthur's hot.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:42 am: Edit

I don't know whether to be annoyed by the movie, or enjoy mercilessly heckling it. Where is Mystery Science Theater when you need them?! Keira was lovely as always-- fantastic hair, kinda like mine... Anyway, it would have been nice if the writers had actually read a couple Arthurian legends and done some research BEFORE making the movie. Also, the kind of bows they used came to Britian a few hundred years after the end of Roman occupation--my personal pet peeve. Would anyone else like to point out anachronisms? btw, the horses were breathtaking--worth the $5 ticket.

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

1. the saxons had crossbows. That just didn't happen.
2. The saxons came from the north over the land, whereas realistically, they landed in the southern end of britain and stuck to coastal raiding for a while after Rome left.

By Demonllama (Demonllama) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

it was a bad story and some stuff was really unbelievable (like how the hell keira knightly can battle big saxons wearing nothing but blue paint with just one leather strap going across her chest to cover her nipples, just barely, i might add), but the guy who played king arthur was pretty damn hot even with facial hair (i don't go for guys with facial hair).

By Zero (Zero) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

did we really need another movie with tons of those massive armies just crashing into each other? braveheart, 3 LOTRs, troy, etc, etc...

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 05:25 pm: Edit

And there are 2, count 'em-TWO, movies coming out about Alexander the Great next year. Although one has some really hot...can't remember who, but I'm tempted to say Colin Farrell?

By Zero (Zero) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit

in a semi-related note, i heard colin farrel was going to have a nude scene in some movie, but when they were screening it, everybody was 'visually disturbed' by the sight of his enormous.....

By Demonllama (Demonllama) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

maybe they were distracted because it wasn't enormous and actually the opposite (i don't like colin farrell)

By Zero (Zero) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 06:24 pm: Edit

i'm bored so i went and found that article again http://imdb.com/news/wenn/2004-06-23#celeb2

colin farrell can't act. and he's an annoying person.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Zero, that is the funniest article I've read in a long time! He has such a small nose, I guess that solves that myth... Thank you for making me laugh! LOL!!!

Asianalto, thanks for the facts! Too bad you weren't on the film crew

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Nude scenes in movies are ridiculous and serve no purpose, unless it's someone named Keira Knightley doing them.

By Coqui (Coqui) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 02:25 am: Edit

it sucked horribly

By Coqui (Coqui) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 02:34 am: Edit

....Zero...

how can you say colin's annoying? he's hot as hell and the article proves that he's definitely more than just a cute face...A LOT MORE. i think your just insecure.

By Zero (Zero) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 02:58 am: Edit

reasons why colin farrell is annoying:

1) terrible actor
2) his desperate attempt to live up to his 'bad boy' image...
3) see reason #2.

By Coqui (Coqui) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

*sniff* *sniff*

you smell that....

smells like insecure bulls**t

By Ericlu87 (Ericlu87) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 04:41 pm: Edit

king arthur sucks..

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I hate movies that try to match history exactly. So what if they didn't use the right kind of bows? 99% of people don't know, or know and don't care. Something big, then there's a legit gripe, but if you let some insignificent detail ruin your movie going experience, then maybe you should stick to history books.

Remember Gods and Generals? It tried to be as authentic as possible, but it bored people out of their skulls (even the battle scenes were considered awful).

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit

I only have problem with inaccuracies when the movie says that it's supposed to be historically accurate, because then they're just LYING!

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 07:22 pm: Edit

YAY Asianalto! I don't let minor details "ruin" my experience, but I appreciate attention to minor details (and I'm a bit of an archery snob ). If you want a BIG innacuracy, then there's the entire ending. That said, it was a pretty good movie, and I enjoyed it. I just enjoy poking a bit of fun at it too