new King Arthur movie

[Theodosius the Great]

Ave, Deb.<br>
<br>
I cited Xena above Hercules since it was the more successful of the two . I see little difference between them, except Hercules was at least a real Greek mythical figure. Xena came out from left field somewhere .<br>
<br>
As for the anti-Roman movies : Yes the Romans did kill Christ, but even when the Romans are already Christian they're still not depicted as the good guys. Just watch the TV movie "Attila".<br>
<br>
Even in movies that have nothing to do with Christ, thugs like Spartacus, Attila, Boudicca, and Vercingertorix are made the heroes while the Romans are shown as the villians. In spite of that, I still like 90 to 95% of films on Rome. I just wish they'd try a different formula for a change .<br>
<br>
On "Kingdom of Heaven" : Ridley Scott is a great director (though he's made his share of bad films) but I don't like what I've read about his movie. Apparently he's going to demonize the Crusaders and glorify the Arabs. I'm sure he'll show the Crusaders slaughtering all the civilians during the siege of Jerusalem (which is true) and nobody will mention that that was <strong>standard warfare</strong> for thousands of years and continued to be so for centuries after. I believe England's top historian (Keegan) has already denounced the film as non-historical after reading the script.<br>
But we'll see.<br>
<br>
-Theo<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theodosiusthegreat>Theodosius the Great</A> at: 12/30/04 3:14 am<br></i>

[Chariovalda]

I don't think I've seen this earlier in the thread, so...<br>
<br>
For all of you guys who haven't seen the movie - or, like me, have seen it and are traumatized for life - here www.livejournal.com/commu...tml#cutid1 you can find a "King Arthur in 15 minutes" feature.<br>
<br>
Enjoy! <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Hi guys<br>
saw it last night.<br>
I was struck by the terrible roman equipment! All the while, on the other hand, the saxons didn't look that bad! I couple of nice helmets and gear in their mist. Of course I am not an expert but my impression was not negative. Even the way the saxons were made to move in groups (drums?) looked somewhat plausible and acceptable. But the roman equipment? Trash!!!<br>
<br>
Question what was a rich roman villa doing north of hadrian wall (at least they had the nice idea to make it fortified).<br>
<br>
Question: I saw the DVD in english and was really annoyed by the italian accent actors. It seemed the film makers chose italian actors precisely because of their terrible english, to somewhat emphasize the distance of the "roman" from the true inhabitants of Britain that spoke with english/irish/whatever accents, all the while the saxons spoke with U.S. accents! <p></p><i></i>

[Ebusitanus]

I loved how the that Villa was beyond the Hadrian Wall, beyond a gate that had not been opened in decenia (One wonders how comunication was held with that Villa). A Gate that opened and closed like with a remote control (last battle). I liked some of the Legionary outfits that one could see once in a while in the background.<br>
<br>
In general...a pretty stupid film.<br>
<br>
<br>
PS: Gladiator had also some pretty stupid moments where you have to hold your head. He was a Spaniard eventhough Spain did not exist as such (Wonder if a Gaul would have said he was French...oh wait...they did not screw up with that German saying he was from Germania )<br>
Then he says he is from "Trujillo"... that did not even exist at that time. In the Spanish version they had at least the consideration of dropping that town and changing it for neraby and real Emerita Augusta.<br>
And how on earth can an African Caravan pop up in the middle of Iberia, pick up some random wounded man liing in front of his Villa, cross Iberia, cross the Gibraltar Strait and up to North Africa?....Ugh! <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>how on earth can an African Caravan pop up in the middle of Iberia.....<hr><br>
<br>
Well, from my understanding of the history of "Spain", Iberia was always subjected to North African raiders and continued to be so all the way until about the 16th century.<br>
<br>
Another inaccuracy is calling Juba a "Numidian" ... !<br>
More like "Nubian" . Talk about ethnic-mismatch .<br>
<br>
"Spain". "Hispania". ehh...close enough for me . <p></p><i></i>

[Ebusitanus]

Well...it so happens that Iberia AND North Africa were under Roman rule at that time. Had thriving Cities, comerce, roads etc...How is an African Caravan in Iberia? Its not a raiding party. You can not just pick up wounded people from the street and dragg them along.<br>
<br>
It makes no sense <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

And.. what was that name of that North African provincial nest again? <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>

[Ebusitanus]

Zuchabar, Zanzibar or some weird name like that...which in any case is no Roman Provincial name I can recall. <p></p><i></i>

[Uwe Bahr]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Then he says he is from "Trujillo"...<hr><br>
<br>
That's interesting how the versions in different countries differ from each other: in the German version Maximus says that he came from Torris (or Turris, I am not quite sure) Iulia, what at least sounds like a Roman city's name. May be Trujillo is the Spanish transliteration of a Roman predecessor settlement of this name?<br>
<br>
Greets - Uwe <p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

A quick check learned that Trujillo's Roman name was Turgalium.<br>
<br>
Zucchabar was apparently a real Roman town in North Africa - though not a province or a provincial capital.<br>
<br>
One may wonder why Gladiator's makers chose the name, rather than that of better-known North African Roman cities, like Tingis, Volubilis or even Carthage. Perhaps they liked the "exoticism" of its name...<br>
<br>
Personally, I think it sounds like something likely to cause your teeth to rot... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chariovalda>Chariovalda</A> at: 2/4/05 10:30 pm<br></i>

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Here's a review of this very, very, very silly and ridiculously bad film that I wrote for another board:<br>
<br>
There’s a reason the Arthur legends have been a favourite of western folklore for the last 1500 years – they are cracking good stories. The stuff about Arthur’s birth, his sudden emergence from obscurity, his gallant defence of his homelands by driving back the tides of barbarism, the Arthur/Lancelot/Guinevere triangle, adultery, incest and finally Arthur killing his own son: it’s all classic folkloric stuff.<br>
<br>
Given that, if there was an Arthur, he probably lived in the late Fifth Century and given that there is already a small publishing sub-industry centred on semi-fantasy/historical retellings of the Arthurian legends in novel form, the idea of doing the same in a film has a lot of merit and potential. The problem is, if you are going to set the story in the 400s and also strip it of almost all the stuff that actually makes the legends cracking good yarns, you need to replace the cracking good yarns with … well … some other cracking good yarn.<br>
<br>
This movie blunders ponderously around, spectacularly failing to do anything close to this.<br>
<br>
Basically, for all the booming music, buckling of swash, glowering heroes and hissing villains, there is really no reason to get worked up about anything that’s going on.<br>
<br>
After a muddled introduction that informs us that historians and archaeologists now agree who Arthur really was (they do?!), we’re introduced to the idea that Arthur’s men are actually Sarmatians from the Ukrainian steppes. Far from nobly defending their British homelands from the encroaching Saxons, these ‘knights’ can’t wait to see the back of the dismal place and get back to their tents on the plains a couple of thousand miles to the east.<br>
<br>
One day from finishing their fifteen year enforced tour of duty, they are ordered by a slimy bishop to go on a last mission. They have to ride north of Hadrian’s Wall into enemy (‘Woad’! *laughs lots*) territory to rescue some Romans. Artorius/Arthur responds to this with some glowering silences, which isn’t surprising because he responds to just about everything in the movie with a bit of glowering – fear, surprise, disappointment, battle, hot sex with Keira Knightly, you name it. His hairy Conan-esque biker mates respond by throwing things and getting drunk.<br>
<br>
Anyway, off ride Arthur and his six (only six?) ‘knights’, crossing the Wall and the frontier. At this point one of my non-history obsessive viewing companions asked why this important Roman had built his country house several days ride outside the frontiers of the Empire. A fair and highly logical question, but one the screenplay writer seems to have forgotten to ask himself.<br>
<br>
On getting to this inexplicably misplaced estate, Arthur finds that this Roman isn’t a great guy. He also finds (as if the slimy bishop and his last 15 years of service wasn’t a give-away) that the Empire isn’t so hot either. They killed a mate of his in Rome and are now abandoning Britain to the Saxons.<br>
<br>
On top of this he finds a walled up dungeon and inside finds wicked monks (‘wicked’ = ugly with funny voices) torturing the noble pagan ‘Woads’ (Woads! **laughs and slaps knee vigorously**). There they find ‘Woad’ hottie Guinevere and the ubiquitous Hollywood cute-but-brave kiddie who tell him that they were being tortured to tell the wicked monks things that weren’t true, or something.<br>
<br>
At this point one of my other non-history obsessive companions asked what the point of this torture and interrogation was, since both the evil monks and the ‘Woads’ were permanently walled into the dungeon to die together. Something else the screenplay writer didn’t think through.<br>
<br>
Arthur woos Guinevere by means of some glowering and resetting her dislocated fingers. He clearly does a good job of both because he is rewarded with some bonking and she is able to handle a bow with Legolas-style skill within hours.<br>
<br>
Around this point the writer seems to have remembered that he was supposed to be adapting the Arthur legends. So he has his Sarmatian Lancelot do a bit of half-hearted sleazing onto Woadevere (as close as we get to the love triangle) and there’s a flashback about Arthur’s dead dad and something about kiddie-Arthur being unable to pull his sword out of Dad’s burial mound (‘The Sword in the Loose Dirt’ as opposed to ‘The Sword in the Stone’ – doesn’t have quite the same ring to it though).<br>
<br>
By this stage our muddled and unenthusiastic heroes find the land of the Woadies is being attacked by Saxons from over the sea. These guys, who look like Norwegian heavy metal fans, are bad because they kill civilians and burn things. Arthur decides to stay and fight and - despite the fact he’s not exactly inspiring, the land isn’t theirs and they aren’t bonking Keira Knightly - the Conan-esque ‘knights’ decide to stay too.<br>
<br>
At this point one of my non-history obsessive mates asked why the Saxons were sailing from northern Germany, bypassing the whole of the rest of Britain and attacking Scotland. An odd detour, especially since we’ve just been told the Romans were abandoning the whole province.<br>
<br>
Anyway, Artie, Woadivere and the Ukranian biker-‘knights’ then confront the heavy metal Saxons on a frozen lake. The Saxons prove their stupidity by attacking across an ice sheet which is cracking under their feet and (quelle surprise) all fall in the water and drown. This may also explain how they sailed to attack southern Britain and ended up somewhere near Aberdeen – they were either really drunk, really dumb or both.<br>
<br>
Then lots of fighting happens, complete with ‘jerkycam’ shots, smoke, flaming arrows, exploding Roman napalm, more smoke, grunting heavy metal dudes and Romano-bikers and, of course, glowering.<br>
<br>
At one point in the ‘Making of …’ featurettes on the DVD, Miss Knightly informs us chirpily that it’s ‘a historical fact’ that women (‘Woad’ women?) fought in battle. Now far be it from me to doubt a single word that comes from Kiera’s perfectly formed lips, but I kind of wonder if she has been correctly informed on this point. Even if she’s right, several of my companions wondered if the plaited leather bondage bikinis she and the other Woadazons wear in battle are (a) likely to be terribly protective or (b) appropriate clothing for Scotland. No wonder they were all blue.<br>
<br>
Anyway, the hissing Saxon bad guy dies in a big fight and Arthur, the bikers and the Woad-hippies win. Then Arthur and Woadivere get married in a New Age wedding ceremony presided over by Hippy Merlin amongst some polystyrene standing stones.<br>
<br>
All in all, it is ‘Much Ado About Not Much’, sprinkled with illogic, ponderous dialogue and bombastic music.<br>
<br>
The movie plucks the legends from their usual context and plonks them in the Fifth Century. But it’s not the actual Fifth Century (which would have been interesting and original) it’s a fantasy Fifth Century which is much like the never-never land of the original legends, except wetter and dirtier. So what was the point?<br>
<br>
In doing so the story is stripped of everything which makes the legends enduring and legendary and replaced with a succession by-the-numbers Hollywood ‘epic’ plot clichés. Arthur isn’t very inspiring or even interesting. In fact, most of the time he doesn’t even seem all that interested in proceedings himself. The ‘knights’ spend half their time not knowing who or what they are fighting for and the brief declarations about ‘freedom’ and ‘honour’ never seem to convince anyone much.<br>
<br>
Any good points? Well, Keira Knightly is very, very, very pretty. No honestly, she really is.<br>
<p><p>
<b>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius / Thiudareiks Gunthigg</b>
<p>
<a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/bthedavincicodefactandfiction"><img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/935133/DVCBanner.jpg" width=588 height=135></p><i></i>