King Arthur

[Entsuropi]

So I saw this. Bet nobody else has. My quick assessment : It's quite good. Not a great film, but worth watching. Those with no interest in the peoples of the time period might find it boring though.

My thoughts :

1) Too much fancy camera work in the duel between the saxon and arthur. I just wanted a panned out shot so i could see it properly.
2) Keira Knightly looked cute in the final battle. Made me think 'hellcat' when she almost snarled after killing someone.
3) Celtic tattoo designs rule. I'll admit a slight fondness for them right here. Though I do wonder how they applied it so carefully that it was symmetrical on both sides of Keira's chest.  Guess practice and a reasonably controlled edge (like a knife).
4) Celts had barbed wire? Thats new information.
5) The knights were wierd. Everyone had a different fighting style, their costumes were totally different - Lancelot looked like a roman, one guy looked like a Mongul, another had a helmet that reminded me of a samurai one.
6) The whole 'inspirational message' at the end, essentially that Britain is the home of freedom, was very strange. All I could think was, 'But Arthur lost in the long run. Some freedom'.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

Yeah, I saw this a few weeks ago. It wasn't that bad. The final battle scene was interesting. I like the fight on the lake as well. Poor guy had to go and drown... I liked him. It wasn't spectacular, but it wasn't bad either. Keira Knightly definately needs to visit me sometime though.

[stacer]

I've been intending to see it but haven't had the time. From what I hear, they've done some good research on Celts and Romans of the time period, even if their idea of Arthur being a Roman is a bit off the wall. I enjoy reading nonfiction about that time period, though, so I'll see it eventually.

[Entsuropi]

I find it hard to believe that celts had barbed wire arrows (yes, you read that right), trebuchets and yet had no chariots (a radical departure from the british celt norm), were universally dirty (another departure from what celts were said to do) and completely replaced the picts in scotland. Sorry, but its a bit wierd.

[stacer]

Yeah, sounds like it isn't what the hype said it was. I was under the impression that it was a "historical" look at a certain time period, but adding Arthur. Nobody knows what happened to the Picts, but most theories I've read suggest that they were both reduced by war and absorbed by intermarriage. I haven't read anything on their personal hygiene or whether they had chariots, but it stands to reason that they'd be as clean as anyone else of their day, perhaps cleaner, depending on what they believed about being clean, and that if Romans had chariots, Celts would have had the same technology.

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

oh come on. They were barbarians. There even had to be a wall to keep them out. We don't know much about them, so reason shows they MUST have been dirty

[Fellfrosch]

I read an interview with the screenwriter for Arthur, and he was ridiculously biased in his views about Arthur being a Roman--he referred to anyone who believed otherwise as "the celtic people," and passed off their views with a contempt I've rarely seen before. I find it quite gratifying that his movie and his bug-eyed theories are being almost universally mocked.

[Entsuropi]

SE, it's historical fact that the Celts were hygenic. Or, at least, the romans went to pains to note it down. And Ceaser noted the British chariots. We know very little about the picts though.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Cause the Scots ate them.

[Spriggan]

I've heard the whole frozen lake scene was the best thing about the movie.

[Entsuropi]

Nah, I prefered the end battle, which was really quite good.

[Oldie Black Witch]

I've been intending to see it but haven't had the time. From what I hear, they've done some good research on Celts and Romans of the time period, even if their idea of Arthur being a Roman is a bit off the wall. I enjoy reading nonfiction about that time period, though, so I'll see it eventually.

Linda Malkor is a family friend (her husband is my dad's boss) and was one of the main researchers. She said that the movie was based more on the research than having the research done for the movie. I don't know how much of the "Arthur was a Roman" idea is hers, but IIRC, her research showed that the legend of Arthur was based on the deeds of an actual Roman captain.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

maybe... with bells on
the new fad in Arthurian scholorship is to make Arthur Roman, it comes up every 40 years or so. Oddly most of the "Romans" in Britain werent from Rome, or Italian, many were local barbarians who had been Romanized or Provencial Romans (which means Spanish or Gaul) a large number of them were also Germanic.

Its doubtful that anyone can guess who the historical Arthur was  since he is not mentioned in the Texts of his time namely Gildas (in the 6th century) or later with Bede 8th Century

In fact the first mention of Arthur historically is in the 9th century by the historian Nennius.

There was a mention of a roman at the time of Gildas, one named Ambrosius Aurelianus who in other chronicles ends up being Arthurs Uncle and he's mentioned at the battle of Badon (Arthurs supposed coming out party)

But I'll defer to Saint because he a bigger fanatic than I am.

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

Linda is probably the single-most prolific poster to Arthurnet. And as such, she's also probably the single-most disagreed with poster to Arthur-net. her claims are pretty solid and defensible, but as with anyone's claims in Arthuriana, they're hardly unassailable or incontrovertible. The more I read arguments on Arthurian issues, the more skeptical I become.

There are many sources for Arthurian stories, and few stories actually about Arthur (who would have to have been a 5th or early 6th century figure) exist before centuries after that.

That's like somone today starting to tell stories about a pre-colonial figure. A figure who was world-famous but that not a single word was written about till today.

I'm sorry, I'm a huge fan of the myths and legend, but the man wasn't real.

As for being based on someone, it's fairly hard to swallow that he was based on "one man," esp considering how scarce records were, even among the Romans, but esp there on the fringes.

Incidentally, there are also some very strong theories that Arthur was Scythian or Russian. However, it seems to me that the most logical position is that Arthur was Welsh or Britonic (sub-Roman British) and that he was either based in Roman culture or rebelled against it. The actual history is that the (ethnic) Romans had pulled out of the land -- a land they had never really tamed, but had left behinda  number of institutions and architecture; much of which was either adapted or fell out of use.

[Oldie Black Witch]

She has all those little kids and she's a prolific poster? Holy cow. Now I know how she keeps sane.