Despite trying to keep his swashbuckling to a minimum, a threat to California's pending statehood causes the adventure-loving Alejandro de la Vega (Banderas) -- and his wife, Elena (Zeta-Jones) -- to take action.
At the offices of a Japanese corporation, during a party, a woman, who's evidently a professional mistress, is found dead, apparently after some rough sex. A police detective, Web Smith is ... See full summary »
In a future where the polar ice-caps have melted and Earth is almost entirely submerged, a mutated mariner fights starvation and outlaw "smokers," and reluctantly helps a woman and a young girl try to find dry land.
Lancelot lives by the sword. In fact, they're next door neighbours, so teaming up to fight for money comes pretty naturally. Lady Guinevere, on her way to marry King Arthur is ambushed by the evil Sir Malagant. Fortunately Lancelot is lurking nearby and he rescues his future queen. They fall in love, but Guinevere still fancies the idea of wearing a crown, so she honours her promise to Arthur. Can Lady Guinevere remain faithful, or will this Pretty Woman become a lady of the knight? Written by
Tim McSmythurs <Tim.McSmythurs@swindon.ericsson.se>
Sean Connery had previously been sought for John Boorman's Arthurian epic " Excalibur " See more »
Right before Guinevere jumps from her carriage, you can see the guy who is actually driving the carriage behind the seat. You can see his face through the hole or slit behind the seat and you can see the reins disappear into a slit just below the seat. See more »
What I offer you is freedom; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical dream; fredom from Arthur's tyrannical law; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical God.
See more »
A Wonderful, well-acted and produced escapist story
I have watched this movie countless times over the years and it never fails to impress. Unlike lwjoslin, I don't purport myself as a historian. But then, the story of Camelot, King Arthur, Guinevere, and the rest are NOT historical figures in any true sense. They are all fictional characters in a fictional setting.
So why write such a derisive review? To me, it seems clear that the reviewer is incapable of simply viewing this as pure escapist fare. He (or she, but I doubt it) most highly thinks very highly of himself. I hope that people were not put off by his diatribe. He, and those who may be influenced by his critique, need to remember that the entire story is fiction. It is not based, in any way, on historical fact. To make the comments he did, he must have forgotten that simple idea. It is fiction, and the story has simply been embellished in a new way.
For me, this was a wonderful story of a wonderful time. It is a story which has been told many times on film within the past century, and has almost always been presented as a tragic event in an otherwise idyllic time. Why does he insist on tarnishing this telling by citing irrelevant facts? Do not be influenced by his trash. This is simply a wonderful, new twist on an old story, and it's very well done.
15 of 18 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?