A man, having fallen in love with the wrong woman, is sent by the sultan himself on a diplomatic mission to a distant land as an ambassador. Stopping at a Viking village port to restock on supplies, he finds himself unwittingly embroiled on a quest to banish a mysterious threat in a distant Viking land.
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 -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.Written by
Most of the major battle scenes were filmed using 18 cameras simultaneously. Apart from the mounted cameras, camera operators also dressed as extras and shot from within the action. Cameras were also mounted on shields, swords and horses. See more »
At one point, when Arthur is talking to Tristan, his hair changes from being in front of his face to brushed to the side and then back to in front of his face again between shots. See more »
By 300 AD, the Roman Empire extended from Arabia to Britain. But they wanted more. More land. More peoples loyal and subservient to Rome. But no people so important as the powerful Sarmatians to the east. Thousands died on that field. And when the smoke cleared on the fourth day, the only Sarmatian soldiers left alive were members of the decimated but legendary cavalry. The Romans, impressed by their bravery and horsemanship, spared their lives. In exchange, these ...
[...] See more »
There are no opening credits, not even the production company and studio bumpers, only the title. See more »
I am a fan of Autherian Legends and old world england and was very disappointed (AND ANGERED!) by the end of it for making it into a weak Braveheart without the passion. I know they wanted to make it more realistic but i feel they ruined what could have been a good film!
Good Points (lets me think hard there's got to be some...) 1. Good Battle scenes but not much blood. 2. Keira Knightly Stars (im a fan) 3. Mostly European actors (bless um they tried).
Bad Points (Probably more than i can write)
1. I have always seen the legend as very British but they make Arthur half British-italian with a desire to go to Rome - no national pride, at least Gwinavere has some. 2. The knights - only 6 of them, not British but Sarmatian (eastern European origin) with NO SHINING ARMOUR and not looking too much like knights apart from token Roman Armoury. They also talk of 'getting off this wretched island' (Infuriating) 3. Merlin (yes you know the wizard adviser of Merlin) is....Yes a rogue rebal leader of a handful of Britons, who has no mysticism or even apocathary or healing skills to his name. To add MORE INSULT Merlin previous killed Arthurs Mother!!!!! 4. Love story between Gwinevere and Arthur appears out of seemily nowhere, although you know its going to happen. There's no chemistry, no development or effort...its just shoved into the storyline. 5. Keira Knighty goes into battle with the skimpist armour - a couple of leather belts tied round her. Realistic? Not likely...just for the lads. 6. Common poems, tales and historians pin point Arthur to be in 6 AD this is in 13AD ... but i'll let that go...sort of. 7. The Saxons invade Scotland quickly with no resistance it seems from the scots - there nowhere to be seen...hmmm 8. No lady in the lake and a brief scence of how he got excalibur (because of cause hes got it in the beginning with no explanation) so they seem to quickly slot it in...though it should have started with that. 9. A whiff of cheese and a poor resemblance to braveheart which makes you wince rather than empathise with the main characters. 10. Poorly developed characters. They try but you just don't love them. One of the knights has various children but after the 1st couldn't be bothered to call them names...just numbers (is this there attempt of humour? or just making the knight thick - incidentally this knight is played by a guy who looks like he'd fit more as an east-end gangster or a lost Mitchell brother rather than a knight). 11. No affair with Lancelot-Gwinevere but fair enough Arthur has not cemented anything. Instead Lancelot seals his fate by early in the film telling how he wants his funeral - a dead cert he's gonna die then. 12. Costumes...hair...Poor. Saxon leader looks like a viking not a saxon. Only time Gwinevere looks like a "Lady" is at the wedding at the end which is so emotionless and unromantic you would have been forgiven if you thought it was an arranged married (well the director did).
I could go on but i won't...I think you got the jist. I guess i was asking to much...i anticipated the uniqueness of excalibur, merlin and the friendship of the knights to battle evil to be akin to Lord of the Rings and the battles to be as emotive and bloody as Gladiator...But it falls short...it could have been so good...if i become a millionaire i'll remake it so its worthy of the Legend.
10 of 12 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this