a5c7b9f00b Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled – when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries –opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.
In 400 AD, the Roman Empire extends to Britain and the Romans become impressed with the fight skills of the warrior Sarmatian people, which are spared, but have to send their sons to serve Rome in the cavalry for fifteen years. Only after these services, these knights are free to return home. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table have their last mission before achieving their freedom.
I'm not very satisfied with the users comments. Though I respect them, most of them are giving this movie a bad name. I suggest you all go see it for yourself. I found the movie to be incredible! The action was fantastic. There were even small scenes of comedy…yet what I liked about it is that the funny parts didn't take away from the story. It was really well done, the battles well planned.All the actors fit the roles perfectly and I believe they all did a wonderful job.I give the movie a 10 out of 10 and i'm not one who does that very often.You should all go check it out. I am obsessed with anything fantasy and/or historical…and I hope that all users who are like me will go and check it out. It's really worth while and I believe you'll all come out satisfied!
The story of King Arthur is one of the most popular mythologies, and there are hundreds of re-tellings of the noble tale, and it's courageous, beautiful and sometimes magical protagonists. 'King Arthur' is probably not one of the best…<br/><br/>The story is supposedly a 'demystified take' on the tale of King Arthur, and even so, it still doesn't really take off. 'King Arthur' follows a band of knights who were recruited, by Rome, against their will, on one of their final missions which would end with their freedom. The motley crew is lead by Arthur (Clive Owen) who they've pledged their allegiance to. However, during the celebrations to mark the end of their reluctant labours, they are informed that Rome has betrayed them and that they must fulfil one last mission. Angered, Arthur persuades his men to acquiesce, and they set out to find the son of a Roman official, who may be endangered. On their journeys they are waylaid by woads (savaged wood folk), battle with barbaric Saxons, and meet a beautiful archer, Guinevere (Keira Knightley). After all their trials and tribulations, the Knights of Arthur end the film with an epic (as un-epicyou can get) battle.<br/><br/>'King Arthur' does have a few good scenes and some good characters, but it looses any of its positive points in a mixture of bland scenes, dull speeches and uninteresting action sequences.<br/><br/>The film springs a battle between Arthur's knights and a group of woads upon the audience quite early in the film, and I was ready to be thrilled by a brilliant little battle sequence, one which never came. I don't really mind when films like 'King Arthur' don't have a brilliant script or characters,it isn't primarily focused on drama, but it has to at least have good action scenes! The fighting was dull, and slow…it probably actually isn't that bad, but whenever contrasted with films like Lord of the Rings and Troy, its action scenes just don't compare. For me this was the most major disappointment in the film. The final battle wasn't that big, it wasn't thrilling or exciting and by this stage I just wanted it to end. I don't like saying it, but Hollywood has conditioned us to see big, breathtaking battle scenes and 'King Arthur' didn't deliver them. In saying this, there was a battle sequence in 'King Arthur' which occurred on a frozen lake which was actually pretty exhilarating. The direction was good, and the whole flow of the action was well done; if only the final battle had been more like this one! <br/><br/>The script was horrible, and the writing was so insipid and trite. It seemed so much easier to tune out rather than listen in, it seemed like I was back in school listening to a lecture in Physics. The acting was mediocre; the best the actors could do with what they were given to act with. Clive Owen was vapid and dullArthur, albeit he looked pretty sexy; however I think he may have been told to deliver his lines in this manner (because after seeing him in Closer…he IS a good actor). Keira Knightley pulled off Guinevere pretty well, and Ioan Gruffudd was dark and broodingLancelot. All the characters were tiring, except for Bors (Ray Winstone), who is crude and delectably funny, but also a gentle father, and the stoic Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen). Stellan Skarsgaard played the villain (Cerdic) well but in my opinion was underused, but notdrasticallyMerlin (Stephan Dillane), who only had a couple of scenes, albeit he seemed interesting. There is little character development overall anyway.<br/><br/>One thing that annoyed me about this film was that the writer just threw in ideas that just came out of NOWHERE, and had no relevance or impact. For instance, one of Arthur's Knights finds a young boy who develops some kind of confidence in the man. When this knight dies, the young boy is heartbroken, and then he disappears. Who was he? Where did he go? What was the whole point of his characters existence…? I don't know. There is also a traitor in the film. Why is he a traitor? It is never explained. The romance between Guinevere and Arthur…if you are going to do something, do it right or not at all! There was no chemistry between Owen and Knightley and the whole romance side story was awful. A lot of this film is clumsy and boring. The musical score was just alright.<br/><br/>Overall, King Arthur is just NOT a good film. It has no real likable characters (aside from Bors/Tristan), and any characters that showed promise weren't explored enough, its lead characters aren't interesting and it is weighed down with lengthy, boring dialogue and less than satisfactory performances. The film could've been redeemed with exciting battle scenes, but they were anything but exciting. I blame this mostly on poor direction. The source material offered so much, but sadly, it was processed into so little…<br/><br/>My Grade: D+
Overall, King Arthur sinks into a grim, gray torpor - though it's an odd, not unentertaining movie. The approach is different, if not edifying or convincing.
here</a>]<br/><br/>Screenwriter David Franzoni has confirmed this interpretation, stating,<br/><br/>I understand Rome's posturing when it became the ultimate military state. It comes from fear. And America is perhaps going through a lot of that right now, so it's not unfair to read into it that it could be about Iraq. But I began writing the movie before we went into Iraq. The GI connection is what is important for me. Like the Sarmatian knights, if you're a GI you're surrounded by people who hate you; you hate what you're doing, but you have to do it; and you're living for the day you get out. I see Arthurbeing like someone drafted to Vietnam, who goes there full of ideas and gung ho, then gets it all shot away and comes down to himself. And that used to be an American hero, but we've become so cowboyed and numbed, we've lost track of who we once were.
Rodeo malayalam movie downloadLights of Old Santa Fe full movie download in hindiThe Tonto Kid full movie in hindi 720p downloadThe Radio Detective full movie download in hindi hdDesignated Survivor tamil dubbed movie downloadFatal Rhapsody full movie downloadBatman: Arkham City full movie in hindi free download mp4Vici movie in hindi dubbed downloadtamil movie dubbed in hindi free download Transporter 3AkaKILL! Theater: 23rd Elimination - Departure full movie in hindi free download mp4