Most Helpful Customer Reviews
83 of 86 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
My Kind of King Arthur.... At Last!, April 27, 2006
I have read the negative and positive reviews of this film, especially noting the numerous complaints about historical accuracy. But considering the era from which this story is created, and the various possibilities regarding exact time and place of events, (if they ever occurred at all), I think the film is a truly magnificent, thought-provoking piece about King Arthur.
Bringing in the aspect of the Sarmatians was long overdue in the Arthurian arena. Although various historians may argue the point, much evidence does point to the use of stirrups by about 8000 Sarmatian cavalry in the Roman army as early as 175 AD. With the commonly held belief that the stirrup was not introduced until many centuries later, I thought it a bold move for the movie makers to incorporate this into the film as well. It seemed to be one of the most commonly noted 'discrepancies' by reviewers, but I disagree - it is very accurate.
If you have watched only the PG13 version of this film, by all means, please watch not only the Director's Cut version, but take the time to also watch/listen to Antoine Fuqua's narrative over the film. His narration explains a lot, especially about how they had to change things drastically to make the mandated PG 13 rating. His explanation regarding his version of Lancelot and Guinevere is quite a statement as well.
The alternate ending was quite dark, or perhaps even depressing, in a way. I don't know which ending is more suitable, and actually would have liked to have seen perhaps a different ending altogether, just don't know what that would have been.
I thought the actors were incredible; the battle scenes (director cut) some of the only such scenes I've ever watched that let you identify the main characters' roles during the fighting; the photography was the best I have ever seen; the music illustrated and enhanced; and this movie left you wanting to see more when it was over.
There was no dwelling on use of special effects for blood and gore, or rediculous feats of super-power athletics, or campy remarks that would bring you immediately back to your own century. The horses were not constantly being tripped during battle scenes, either. All these were a welcome change from so many movies of today.
Above all, it passed the real test of a great movie - it left you with 'a feeling' after it was over.
In short, I loved it. Antoine Fuqua, you are a genius.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
82 of 85 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Truth About Arthur, November 17, 2004
Hi - John Matthews here - I was the Historical Advisor on the film. I just want to weigh in with my own take on some the nonsense which has been written about the historical innacuracies in the film. There were some inevitably - but not many, and mostly so small as to pass unnoticed. After all, we were telling a story, not writing a documentary. That said, I can promise you that the story of Arthur as told in the movie, is about as close as you'll ever get to the truth about Arthur. There really was an historical Lucius Artorius Castus and he really did lead a band of Sarmatian warriors from a land roughly between the Black and Red seas today (and no,that's not Russia -which didn't even exist at the time). These men were posted to Britain - about 5500 of them - and they left an indelible stamp on the memory of the British people. Their stories, and the myths they knew and lived by, were the seeds from which later, Celtic stories of Arthur grew. So we are not saying Arthur wasn't a Celt any more than we are saying he was a Sarmatian for that matter - just that as a Roman officer, stationed on Hadrian's Wall, here in the UK - his deeds and valor paved the way for all the later Arthurs. The problem has been that the Arthurian industry, which began in the 11th century, established itself so firmly in our hearts and minds that we can now only think of that Arthur. The reality, as you will see in the film, is very different. So,if you want to know how the story of Arthr really got under way - before the magic and the fantasy got in there - see this film - the best Dark Age movie ever to come out of Hollywood! And if you still want to know more read C Scott-Littleton and Linda Malcor's book 'From Scythia to Camelot' (Linda was my collegue in backing up the history for the movie)or watch out for books by each of us in the pipeline,
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
45 of 48 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Aenglaland, April 7, 2006
The movie is pretty good BUT watch the directors cut only, however, historically and geographically it's a bit awry.
YES there was a Romano-British warlord called Artorius Castus, YES 4000 Sarmatian heavy cavalry were sent to northern Britannia around 180 AD from southern Russia, it was part of a peace deal between Marcus Aurelius and the Sarmatians. YES the sword religon was a Scythio-Sarmatian ritual of the sacred sword, blood, plunging it into the earth etc
However most of their desendents by the 450's AD (when the movie is set) when the romans left britain would have been native british, and half were thought to have left to fight with Constantine in Europe.
NO they wouldn't have worn armour as in the film. The Picts were ORIGINAL peoples of northern britain (Scotti were immigrants from Dal Ria in North Ireland). They may have worn blue (Woad) body paint as modern research has suggested it had antiseptic properties to protect against wounds, they did use composite bows and crossbows. The romans invited in the Saxons as mercenaries against the Irish, Scots, Welsh (no such term as Celt then! thats an 18th century invention) and other Saxon raiders. They rebelled when they weren't paid and took over southern britain, brought they're families over and the rest is history (evenually to become Aenglaland...England). One of the biggest mistakes in the film though is that all the romano-british v saxon fighting took place in southern britain, not around Hadrian's Wall, and the final battle of Baden Hill is thought to be in south-western england.
But if you're not too bothered by that it's not bad, particulary the less sanitised Directors Cut version with the blood restored!
If you're interested check out the book "Arthur the Dragon King by Howard Reid" for a good comprehensive historical account.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
