King Arthur – The Director’s Cut (Widescreen Edition)
By admin /
August 28, 2010 /
/
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 DemoIt’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
Rating:  (out of 523 reviews)
List Price: $ 14.99
Price: $ 5.34
Find More Dvd Products[/random]
|
Review by Gormlaithe for King Arthur – The Director’s Cut (Widescreen Edition)
Rating:
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.
Review by Eoin for King Arthur – The Director’s Cut (Widescreen Edition)
Rating:
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.
Review by FitzFG for King Arthur – The Director’s Cut (Widescreen Edition)
Rating:
If you are looking for a strict retelling of the stereotypical King Arthur legend then this movie is not for you. If, however, you are open to seeing new interpretations of the tale then I would recommend watching this movie. This movie does a good job of combining the legend with history and a little bit of fantasy/epic-heroism. In doing this it becomes a movie that tells the story of the “real” Arthur and yet has enough elements of the legend to imply how the real story could have developed into the legend after years of retelling and exageration. One thing that I personally liked(others may disagree) is that they sidelined the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere. There were interactions that can be seen as the origins of the legend, but the love/betrayal plotline did not overwhelm the more engaging central plot.
This film only rates four stars because it is just a good film, not a great one. I would recommend renting it first to see if you like it before buying it.
Review by Mary Chrapliwy for King Arthur – The Director’s Cut (Widescreen Edition)
Rating:
Here is yet another retelling of the King Arthur legend. It’s not a romanticized version laced with magic. If that is what you seek then you would do best to watch the Mists of Avalon (also a thoroughly satisfying book then movie). This story is laced with gritty realism of what life may have been like back in the period of Roman occupation of Great Britain.
I have read countless retellings of the King Arthur legend. This movie probably creates a more historically accurate portrayal of the story of King Arthur and the people who surrounded him … if he actually existed.
This story is told during the ancient history of the British Isles and their occupation by Roman forces. Arthur is the son of a Roman soldier and a British mother. He is torn by his duty to Rome as well as his duty to the occupants of Britain. He and his band of weary soldiers look forward to their release from their service to Rome after fifteen years of duty (forced upon them from childhood by Roman occupiers) but, instead of receiving their release papers, they are given one last quest. To do the final bidding of the Roman Empire is a nearly suicidal mission into the lands north of Hadrian’s Wall. Those lands are primary occupied by Celtic tribes who value their freedom and fight fiercely against the Roman occupiers south of Hadrian’s Wall. Told they will be “hunted down like dogs” if they don’t go on this mission, Arthur has no choice but to go forward on the very dangerous quest.
Meanwhile, from the north, the isle is being invaded by Saxons – fierce, murderous people who plan to kill everyone they find and burn every village. Squeezed between the Romans to the south and the invading Saxons to the north, the native Celts have no choice but to attempt to forge a bond between themselves and the powerful warrior Arthur and his band of warriors (not called knights in this story). Thus begins the classic battle between good and evil, right and wrong.
Of a historical note, the women (including Guinevere) were portrayed as fierce warriors themselves – running into battle nearly naked and screaming – running into battle along with their Celtic warrior males. This was a fairly accurate portrayal of how things may have been according to historical texts. Women in ancient Celtic history were leaders and warriors along with the men of their tribes. And, yes, historically the Celts did run screaming into battle nearly naked – often their ferocity frightened away their opponents.
Finally, this is a gritty, realistic retelling of the King Arthur tale. It is a also a satisfying story of the battle between good and evil. This would likely be a great addition to your DVD library.
Review by Darren Harrison for King Arthur – The Director’s Cut (Widescreen Edition)
Rating:
I had wanted to see this movie in the movie theater last summer, but never quite made it. Having watched the extended directors cut last night I am kicking myself for not making it to the local multiplex to catch this grand scale epic on the big screen.
I really cannot understand all the negative press this movie has received. Historical evidence (as presented in a quite excellent History channel documentary recently) proves that King Arthur was most likely a Roman general who did band together with the native Britons in fighting off the invading Saxons.
The traditional story that Hollywood has brainwashed the movie-going public into believing is total drivel. Arthur was not a figure of the middle ages, he was not an Anglo-Saxon and there was no magical sword in the stone. For years I have felt disdain for the manner in which the English have claimed King Arthur as their own – here at last is a movie that goes some way to setting the record straight. One really should not forget that the warriors from Brittany who sailed with Norman the Conqueror sang and celebrated King Arthur as their hero, someone who had fought to protect the Britons from the invading Saxon hordes.
Another criticism leveled at this movie is the presentation of Guinevere as a warrior woman. However this is also historically accurate as explained by actress Keira Knightley in both the “Making of…” documentary and the roundtable discussion (included as part of this impressive DVD set). Women often were quite capable warriors and it was not until about five centuries later that they faded into historical obscurity. Was it not after all a Briton warrior queen who caused Rome so much concern in the earlier centuries of the first millennium?
What we have here is a thoroughly entertaining, informative and dramatic recounting of the inspiration for the Arthur legend. Arthur himself is a half Briton, half Roman who takes command of a group of Samatian (sp?) cavalrymen guarding Hadrians Wall (historical evidence also points to this being an accurate account). With news of an invasion to the north by the Saxons Arthur and his men are sent to retrieve a Roman family and transport them back to safety. What follows is an epic struggle to survive and a growing awareness by Arthur as to his Briton heritage.
I really enjoyed this movie and I also think the DVD is exceptionally well done. The highlight of the special features in my opinion is the roundtable discussion which includes the major actors as well as the writer, director and producer. They discuss the historical accuracy of the movie as well as the challenges in bringing it to the screen. There is also a (rather fluffy) making of documentary, an audio commentary and a (rather lame) trivia track. Overall though this movie is an impressive achievement.
NOTE TO MR. GEORGE: Most of the evidence quoted comes from the aforementioned History Channel documentary on King Arthur as well as material covered in the DVD for which this is a review. I am also at a loss to understand where your assertion that I have a disdain for the English comes from – since I am part English myself.