In 1933 New York, an overly ambitious movie producer coerces his cast and hired ship crew to travel to mysterious Skull Island, where they encounter Kong, a giant ape who is immediately smitten with leading lady Ann Darrow.
Enzo and Jacques have known each other for a long time. Their friendship started in their childhood days in the Mediterranean. They were not real friends in these days, but there was ... See full summary »
A young man (Cruise) leaves Ireland with his landlord's daughter (Kidman) after some trouble with her father, and they dream of owning land at the big giveaway in Oklahoma ca. 1893. When ... See full summary »
Twenty-something Richard travels to Thailand and finds himself in possession of a strange map. Rumours state that it leads to a solitary beach paradise, a tropical bliss - excited and intrigued, he sets out to find it.
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>
Former James Bond director Terence Young was supposed to direct, but he died during early pre-production. It would have reunited him and James Bond actor Sean Connery after 30 years. Their last movie together was Thunderball. See more »
When the horse is caught, a 17th or 18th century stone bridge is in the background. 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.
9 of 11 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?