Author Topic: King Arthur  (Read 2175 times)

Mad Dr Jeffe

  • Level 74
  • *
  • Posts: 9162
  • Fell Points: 7
  • Devils Advocate General
    • View Profile
Re: King Arthur
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2004, 09:52:56 AM »
but only if theres some sort of lippage.
Its an automated robot. Based on Science!

Nicadymus

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 303
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: King Arthur
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2005, 07:50:17 PM »
Has anyone seen the unrated director's cut yet?  I didn't notice much in the way of additions besides the added blood spray, and a couple of scenes that were not entirely necessary to the plot.  Any other comments?
Boogie woogie woogie!!

Mad Dr Jeffe

  • Level 74
  • *
  • Posts: 9162
  • Fell Points: 7
  • Devils Advocate General
    • View Profile
Re: King Arthur
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2005, 10:51:26 PM »
Actually thats all I've seen,... as I never saw the theater version...
Its an automated robot. Based on Science!

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: King Arthur
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2005, 10:43:55 PM »
so I finally saw this last night. It was ok. Average I guess. Not very Arthurian in any way, taking a lot of liberties even with some less well regarded theories of origin, and nearly offensively trying to justify itself with 'historians agree' (no, not many of them anyway).

What really took me out of it, though (since I went in not expecting it to be faithful) was the sometimes completely incomprehensibly chosen shots. the direction was pretty poor. shots that had nothing to do with anything. it seemed the main reason many shots were included was not that they contributed, but that they "looked pretty."

the little speaches were a bit annoying too. I would have felt it much more inspiring if Arthur had shut his yap before the last battle. And there was almost no voiceover worth including though they did anyway. the cut 30 seconds where Merlin says 'No fate is shared' was pretty cool. I'd have left that in.

finally, what was up with cerdic. He had neither a commanding voice or an intimidating presence. He was always looking at the ground, and he never spoke in anything above a whisper. Ugh.

Entsuropi

  • Level 60
  • *
  • Posts: 5033
  • Fell Points: 0
  • =^_^= Captain of the highschool Daydreaming team
    • View Profile
Re: King Arthur
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2005, 12:06:05 AM »
The thing that amused me was the celts randomly pulling catapults out of their backsides. I'd have preferred cavalry for that battle.

But the main camera problem was the flashy-flashy fight scenes. Its a new trend, where the camera bounces around constantly so you can't get a good idea of whats going on. It just irritates the eyes. One comment is that they do it to hide the fact that the actors (who all want to say 'I did all my own stunts', jackie chan style) can't do a fight scene worth toffee. By far and away the best camera angle for a fight scene is one where you can see the whole of their bodies, not one where it flashes from random limb to eyebrow to sword to foot.
If you're ever in an argument and Entropy winds up looking staid and temperate in comparison, it might be time to cut your losses and start a new thread about something else :)

Fellfrosch