Main > The Library

King Arthur (with clive owen)

(1/3) > >>

Sir Nate:
I cant stand this movie.
Every time I watch or attempt to watch it I just go
Ugh.
change the channel.
I just find it so, shameful to the Arthurian legend.
I know it's supposed that what would have been Arthur in history would have been sortave roman and fought Saxons.
But Rome is Still Around. Ive heard that knights may have started around then, but they weren't called knights- they were similar.
If you guys like this move That's fine.
I can't Stand it.

P.s. Started reading The children of Hurin by Tolkien. On chapter 6, really enjoying it so far.

Sir William:
Shameful to which Arthurian legend?  I thought the story more plausible than the one told in Excalibur, for instance.  By the 6th century, Rome was but a shadow of its former might (some have posited this being due to the spread of Christianity, stealing the martial spirit of the people of Rome) and had been pulling back from the more far-flung provinces for some time at the point referenced in the movie.  Granted, they took some liberty with the timing of some of the events but 5th century was about right for when that drill down occurred.  If Arthur was in fact a real person, chances are better that he lived during the Dark Ages- and that movie as well as written works by those who believe it so, as there's some indication that there was a brief period of light and prosperity during said Dark Ages and perhaps that is how the myth of the hero Arthur was born.

If you want to read a particularly well-written rendition of the Arthurian legend, check out Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles.

The Winter King ISBN 0-14-023186-2
 Enemy of God ISBN 0-14-023247-8
 Excalibur: A Novel of Arthur ISBN 0-312-18575-8

Unlike a lot of Arthurian stories, these are set in 6th or 7th century Britain, when the Romans are but a memory, and the native Britons and Saxons are at war.  Probably the best stories of Arthur I've read thus far, and I've read a lot of them.

Sir James A:
What year is the movie from? Doesn't ring a bell. I'll check it out.

Don Jorge:
I love Bernard Cornwell, especially his holy grail trilogy. I personally like that Arthur movie but I can see why it isn't well received by everyone. It is realistic and less fantastical. Merlin is a druid and not a wizard. Arthur and his round table don't really exist, except now there is a historical figure from which they might have sprouted from and inspired Malory.

Sir William:

--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2013-12-10, 16:57:41 ---What year is the movie from? Doesn't ring a bell. I'll check it out.

--- End quote ---

2004; Clive Owen and Keira Knightley lead a pretty impressive cast; as Belemrys said, being set at the last days of the Roman Empire, Arthur and his fellow warriors are soldiers of Rome looking to retire after their proscribed 15 years of service.  Arthur's a half Roman, half Briton leading Sarmatian cavalry soldiers (his Knights as he refers to them; I suspect so that the audience would understand who they were).  A lot of armor enthusiasts such as ourselves poked fun at the mish-mash of weapons and armaments.  Considering it was supposed to be late 5th C Britannia, you'll see the ubiquitous Roman war gear, such as Arthur wears, but you'll also see Asian-themed armor (Tristan), Bors dresses like a Mongol, Gawaine looks like a Viking but overall, it's an action packed movie with some good battle sequences.

Expectations of reality should of course be left at the door, though.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page