 | |
List Price: $14.99 | | Label: Touchstone / Disney
Salesrank: 3359
Released: December 21, 2004 |
| Our Price: $3.98 |
| Used Price: $1.79 |
|
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:
Interesting but leaves a lot to be desired 
2009-12-10 - King Arthur displayed wonderful special effects and an overall interesting plot but ultimately fell short. Had it been labeled as fantasy and names and places changed, it would have been much better. It didn't really follow an Arthurian story. Core elements such as Guinevere's betrayal, Arthur's sister Morgan le Fay and their son Mordred and other characters are absent. If you're looking for a "true" Arthurian story, watch Excalibur or Mists of Avalon instead.
Christians were actually a minority in the 5th century and even "Christianized" Britons would have held onto many pagan customs. Christians NEVER would have tortured pagans simply because they were outnumbered. Saxons didn't have a concept of racial supremacy and their intermingling with the Celtic/Roman natives is what made the "English" people and language. Ultimately, the Saxons DO invade Britain, otherwise we'd still be speaking Brythonic with some Roman mixed in, not an "Anglo-Saxon" language
King Arthur 
2009-11-27 - The movie is a great one. You have to make sure to get the Director's Cut rather than the theatrical version, as the director originally shot the movie as an R movie and 2 weeks or so before release, the studio got cold feet and wanted him to edit it down to a PG-13 movie, possibly hoping to cash in on young boys wanting to see Keira Knightly, who, by the way, is really, REALLY HOT! As the director pointed out, if he had known the studio was only going to do PG-13, he would have shot the movie completely different than he had as an R. The result was that there was an awful lot of film that was cut and unable to be edited in some fashion for the newer PG-13. The Director's Cut is not only the original director's movie, but it is also far superior to what was finally released in the theater.
The blu-ray is absolutely incredible. I owned the regular DVD and could not believe the difference in quality. It is amazing.
I highly recommend this movie and in the blu-ray.
King Arthur... How did you become king I didn't vote for you?
2009-11-19 - King Arthur: 6 out of 10: 2004's grimy and supposedly historical King Arthur benefits form two great assets; Kiera Knightly in a leather bikini... and some of the funniest scenes ever put on film.
I pretty sure the former was intentional. I am positive the latter was not. One would be harder pressed to find a more ahistorical, awkward, forced and unintentionally funny historical romp anywhere. And the fact the film takes itself so seriously simply adds to the already bountiful mirth.
As any kid who has answered a test question based on watching Mel Gibsons The Patriot has certainly learned, movies and historical accuracy are not friends. Not friends at all. Yet King Arthur wears its we are being historical here that is why everything is so muddy heart on its sleeve.
As if to multiply the historical missteps, the Arthurian legend is often awkwardly forced into the story line at strange places. As a result you have Osama bin Merlin head of what I'm guessing is the Picts. (They are called the Woats but of course there is no such thing. They do wear blue battle paint, which is historically accurate if you are doing a film about Scottish warriors. Scottish warriors attending a football match in the 1970's mind you.) Guinevere is now a leather bikini-wearing archer, and Arthur is a Roman commander fighting the Blue Meanies (after-mentioned Woats) of the north.
The Saxons show up out of nowhere and try to kill everybody. So now in that timeworn movie cliché the two former enemies (Arthur of the Romans and Merlin of the Blue Meanies) have to combine forces to defeat the new evil Saxons.
A lot of clichés are evident in King Arthur. The worst is the screeching about freedom in what seems to be every fourth sentence of the screenplay. It's irritatingly repetitive, ridiculous (Arthur doesn't become President Arthur after all or as Monty Python put it "How did you become king anyway I didn't vote for you") and it leads to one of the unintentionally funniest scenes ever in a major motion picture release. (As King Arthur gives an almost word for word homage to Mel Gibson's stirring Braveheart battle speech the camera pans back and instead of revealing an army of thousands it has five lone guys. They might as well have been holding coconuts.)
Yet despite all this and an ending that reminds one of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood, I actually enjoyed myself. The battle scenes were pretty well done despite the PG-13, the acting is okay and Kiera Knightly did prance around in a leather bikini for most of the film.
Like the movie Troy, the flaws of this film add a humorous dimension to the proceedings.
And don't forget we fight for FREEDOM from the unrepresentative Republic of which I am a commanding officer so we can create an absolute monarchy with a round table.
I am telling you if this movie was called Bob the Roman guy it would have been a lot better.
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.-
