King Arther
- Masteroftheweb
- Vagabond
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:35 pm
- Location: Earth, Sol, Milky
- Contact:
- Masteroftheweb
- Vagabond
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:35 pm
- Location: Earth, Sol, Milky
- Contact:
- Masteroftheweb
- Vagabond
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:35 pm
- Location: Earth, Sol, Milky
- Contact:
- Masteroftheweb
- Vagabond
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:35 pm
- Location: Earth, Sol, Milky
- Contact:
- Mik
- Born under a bad sign
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Beyond your borders
- Contact:
I really enjoyed it...I don't know what the fuck you're on about.
Alright the fighting was about as good as it got, even despite the repeated use of tactics not seen for another few hundred years, like bands of scottish pikemen to ward away cavalary.
This story was set earlier than your average King Arthur story, cause they're usually set in the dark ages about a few years after the Romans left, whne england need a leader. Most of the brittains looked distinctly scottish to me but that's not suprising as the wall they where at is in the Scotland/england border. This is based of recent historical evidence of an dude named Arthur as a roman solider etc and the place he was fighting in was called Castelvan or Camelot but there are serious counter arguements.
The fighting was cool, although I like the Saxon people as a whole, they managed to villify them enough, so that I could really enjoy them falling over. It looked like a more kitted out LARP event and for once the mass armies didn't look like they where painted into the background *cough*troy*cough*.
If you go to this movie expecting 'First Knight' then you'll be serverely disapointed.
What I like about it, is it brought the other Knights to the forefront, rather than the tired old Lancelot, Arthur, Guinevere love triangle bit. By far my favourite Knight was Tristan, he was such lies, but still so damn pr0 at the same time. His fighting style was samurai, for fuck sake he used a sword that was a modified looking katana and he could shoot a shortbow longer than most people can with a long and all with pin point accuracy, that whole tratior tree scene. If his pet had been a wolf instead of a hawk he'd be my new hero.
I really loved the Full battle armour standing on the hill bit with the banner, it was so damn Knightly, the camera work in that scene was great and I loved the way the smoke was set.
The 8 vs 200 scene just reminded me of the story of charlmagne and his 10 or so paladins wining against and army of 1000. It's filled with a more real story telling, real life is rarely as grand as thoose of myth and high fantasy, this a good romp of a film.
My advice flick off your bullshit dector whenever Ray winston is talking with his 300ad 'cockney East End gansta' bit and ignore any elements of super imposed idea about what the story is 'supposed' to be nad just watch the film.
the movie was great.
Alright the fighting was about as good as it got, even despite the repeated use of tactics not seen for another few hundred years, like bands of scottish pikemen to ward away cavalary.
This story was set earlier than your average King Arthur story, cause they're usually set in the dark ages about a few years after the Romans left, whne england need a leader. Most of the brittains looked distinctly scottish to me but that's not suprising as the wall they where at is in the Scotland/england border. This is based of recent historical evidence of an dude named Arthur as a roman solider etc and the place he was fighting in was called Castelvan or Camelot but there are serious counter arguements.
The fighting was cool, although I like the Saxon people as a whole, they managed to villify them enough, so that I could really enjoy them falling over. It looked like a more kitted out LARP event and for once the mass armies didn't look like they where painted into the background *cough*troy*cough*.
If you go to this movie expecting 'First Knight' then you'll be serverely disapointed.
What I like about it, is it brought the other Knights to the forefront, rather than the tired old Lancelot, Arthur, Guinevere love triangle bit. By far my favourite Knight was Tristan, he was such lies, but still so damn pr0 at the same time. His fighting style was samurai, for fuck sake he used a sword that was a modified looking katana and he could shoot a shortbow longer than most people can with a long and all with pin point accuracy, that whole tratior tree scene. If his pet had been a wolf instead of a hawk he'd be my new hero.
I really loved the Full battle armour standing on the hill bit with the banner, it was so damn Knightly, the camera work in that scene was great and I loved the way the smoke was set.
The 8 vs 200 scene just reminded me of the story of charlmagne and his 10 or so paladins wining against and army of 1000. It's filled with a more real story telling, real life is rarely as grand as thoose of myth and high fantasy, this a good romp of a film.
My advice flick off your bullshit dector whenever Ray winston is talking with his 300ad 'cockney East End gansta' bit and ignore any elements of super imposed idea about what the story is 'supposed' to be nad just watch the film.
the movie was great.
Last edited by Mik on Wed Aug 04, 2004 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.