It is currently May 1st 2025 12:40 pm




 
Post Posted: June 26th 2004 5:57 pm
 
Site Admin
User avatar

Join: May 25th 1977 7:00 am
Posts: 1669
because she has breasts and a vagina and is better looking than King Arthur?


Post Posted: June 26th 2004 8:04 pm
 

Join: November 10th 2003 5:55 am
Posts: 955
movie looks like shit. since when is the queen a skinny pagan with a bow and arrow?


Post Posted: June 27th 2004 1:49 am
 

Join: October 31st 2003 7:00 am
Posts: 532
Since when does Bruckheimer make quality films?


Post Posted: June 27th 2004 4:46 am
 
User avatar

Join: April 1st 2004 3:56 pm
Posts: 248
Location: London, UK
I dunno, the trailers look ok, and Clive Owen is a very good actor. (possible next James Bond).
They seem to be cashing in on Kiera's popularity, which is bullshit as she isn't the main character.

I'm sure everyone realises that the King Arthur "story" is nonsense, and only is part of "history" due to some of the characters have the same names as people do did actually exist.

The problem I have with the trailer/movie is that they are trying to make out that this movie is the true story, and previous movies were just glamourising King Arthur and his knights of the round table. This is gritty, this is realism, this is what actually happened.

I hope its ok, but something tells me its trying to cash in on the success of LotRs, Gladiator and Braveheart.

We'll have to wait and see.


Post Posted: June 27th 2004 8:44 pm
 

Join: December 25th 2003 4:12 am
Posts: 95
And then there's the ficional Galahad who in this story is the same age as his dad Lancelot.

There actually might have been a real Arthur around 600AD who united a bunch of Celtic states together in England, but that's about as far as it goes. There's little evidence. Personally I would have loved to see a movie based on The Once and Future King or the writings of Malory made instead of this.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 



Jump to:  




millenniumfalcon.com©
phpBB©