 | |
List Price: $14.99 | | Label: Touchstone / Disney
Salesrank: 3153
Released: December 21, 2004 |
| Our Price: $4.38 |
| Used Price: $0.68 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
King Arthur the Extended Unrated Director's Cut contains fourteen minutes of never-before-seen footage, including more intense battle sequences and the scenes "Rain and Snow" and "Saxons Surrounded." Bonus Features
• Alternate Ending "Badon Hill" With Optional Director Commentary
• Blood On The Land: Forging King Arthur
• Cast And Filmmaker Round Table
• Director Commentary
• "Knight Vision" Trivia Track
• Producer's Photo Gallery
• Konami's King Arthur Playable Xbox Demo
Description of King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition):
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyed Rob Roy, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Troy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgård in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind! Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed! --Jeff Shannon
King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition) Reviews:
Historically innacurate 
2009-09-18 - I hate the fact that this movie tries to come off as historical.There are historical inaccuracies.
1. Portraying the Roman occupation as lasting into late into the 5th century(historically they withdrew in 410AD).
2.The Saxon Genocide. Modern research seems to indicate that rather than destroying the natives, the invading Angles and Saxons settled amongst and intermarried with the native Britons.Also,the first Anglo-Saxons were invited to Britain as mercanaries by the Britons. The 'Anglo-Saxons' of later centuries were the decendants of both culturally Anglo-Saxonized Britons and the invading Anglo-Saxons.
3.The battle of Badon Hill takes place in southern England not in the north.
4.The Picts were the enemies, not the allies of the Britons and part of the reason why the Britons hired Angle and Saxon mercanaries.
KING ARTHUR 
2009-09-10 - IT WAS A MOVIE THAT WOULD APPEAL TO D DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THAGT IS GRDAT FOR ADULT AND OLDER TEENAGERS, MAYBE NOT SO GREAT FOR THE YOUNGER CHILDREN. I HAD SEEN THE MOVIE SEVERAL TIMES BUT WOULD MISS SOME PART OF IT. I FOUND IT ON SELL AT OUR SAMS CLUB BUT IT WAS A BLUERAY DISC ONLY WHICH I DO NOT HAVE AT THIS TIME.-
Here lies Arthur.. the activist
2009-09-04 - This film claimed to presen 'the true story of Arthur'. So was it unreasonable to expect fair amount of accuracy?
I know few movies stick to the facts all the time, but seeing as
this one was trumpeted as the best Arthur film yet, and the only one set in the correct era, was it unfair to expect a presentation of Arthurian legend that refelected current historical knowledge to some degree?
Artistic licence is one thing, politically correct revisonism is another. There was no end to the Roman and Christian bashing, with the Roman Empire depicted as evil ruthless imperialists, and the church thier instrument of oppression.
Pelagius died a century before Germannus came to Britain, so the former could not have had any part in his death, yet the film claims he did, in an apparent attempt to blacken his name, and demonise the Romans.
The Picts lived outside Roman Britannia, and thier country was never conquered by the Romans, so they were not heroic freedom fighters as this film depicts. They were little more than oppurtunistic raiders who took advantage of Britain's weakness.
Finally, no Hollywood film would be complete without a shot at the English. So in this film the leader of the Saxons is a nazi like racial purist, and his army are an assorted bunch of bloodthirsty barbarian savages.
Perhaps nobody took the trouble to tell the producer historians now think the Saxons are not the ancestors of the English, after all.
This film is only worth watching if you want to ogle Kiera Knightley (for the guys) and gawp at Clive Owen/Ioan Griffith (for the girls.
King Arthur for Pagans! 
2009-08-28 - King Arthur is now a pagan knight who battles the evil Saxons and Christian church.
Arthur is a cavalry auxiliary for the Romans as they abandon Britain. He turns against the wicked Roman church and joins the pagan Woads in an alliance against the savage Saxons. Later, Arthur participates in a Druid pagan ceremony.
If you are a wiccan or just don't like Christians, this is a great King Arthur for you!
Keira Knightley as Guinevere just doesn't work for me. She is built like a 12 year old boy. That just doesn't cut it as a warrior-princess.
Good battle scenes, but I prefer the medieval armor of traditional interpretations.
Interesting New King Arthur Version 
2009-07-10 - I found this to be a good and entertaining movie about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. This had Arthur as leader of the Roman Knights fighting in Great Britain. Alot of action and I felt a movie that was fun to watch and made you think at the same time. I love history so this was my kind of movie!
