07-14-2004, 12:46 PM
Greetings!<br>
<br>
I just went to the movie last night having previously read through the posts on this thread and read a number of reviews. There is some valid commentary in everything that has been said regarding this movie, both good (not much in evidence) and bad. The movie, how shall I say, "sucks" as far as weapons and equipment. How much simpler would it have been to give the "knights" some form of spatha and armor them in something closer to Roman influenced armor? I mean, there were only seven main guys. How hard would it have been to equip them correctly?<br>
<br>
Additionally, as someone else mentioned, the little speech that Arturius gives just before the final battle was dry and uninspiring. It was also unneccessary since his comrades came back on their own and didn't need to be pumped up.<br>
<br>
Still, I enjoyed the movie. Like Troy, we are dealing with historic legend here, not pure history. I think the film makers did a credible job of splicing the history to the myth, giving plausible possibilities as to how the myths were started in the first place. Also, in recent years and with this picture, the battle scenes get better and better--a far cry from the usual melee scenes of older movies. Even the Saxons at least attempted to keep some sort of formations in this film. Arthur's knights smashing through the arrow-thinned ranks of the initial Saxon attack was impressive.<br>
<br>
Yes there were inconsistancies in the story line (how did that Roman official manage to get so far up north, build an elaborate manor and enslave the people without the "Woads" getting him? Not to mention the gate to the wall hadn't been opened in years), and the story line was weak at times, but overall I thought it was a good movie. Beats the pants off of "First Knight"!<br>
<br>
Vis Superavi Ignarum <p></p><i></i>
<br>
I just went to the movie last night having previously read through the posts on this thread and read a number of reviews. There is some valid commentary in everything that has been said regarding this movie, both good (not much in evidence) and bad. The movie, how shall I say, "sucks" as far as weapons and equipment. How much simpler would it have been to give the "knights" some form of spatha and armor them in something closer to Roman influenced armor? I mean, there were only seven main guys. How hard would it have been to equip them correctly?<br>
<br>
Additionally, as someone else mentioned, the little speech that Arturius gives just before the final battle was dry and uninspiring. It was also unneccessary since his comrades came back on their own and didn't need to be pumped up.<br>
<br>
Still, I enjoyed the movie. Like Troy, we are dealing with historic legend here, not pure history. I think the film makers did a credible job of splicing the history to the myth, giving plausible possibilities as to how the myths were started in the first place. Also, in recent years and with this picture, the battle scenes get better and better--a far cry from the usual melee scenes of older movies. Even the Saxons at least attempted to keep some sort of formations in this film. Arthur's knights smashing through the arrow-thinned ranks of the initial Saxon attack was impressive.<br>
<br>
Yes there were inconsistancies in the story line (how did that Roman official manage to get so far up north, build an elaborate manor and enslave the people without the "Woads" getting him? Not to mention the gate to the wall hadn't been opened in years), and the story line was weak at times, but overall I thought it was a good movie. Beats the pants off of "First Knight"!<br>
<br>
Vis Superavi Ignarum <p></p><i></i>
