• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Troy or King Arthur?

You could be right about it being meant to be a lot darker, seems there's a directors cut DVD edition out which is apparently more violent. Either that or its just the usual marketing ploy (extra few worthless scenes, just to add sales)

Thanks for the tip.
 
I went to see Troy and didn't really know I was in for a bad movie. Then I went to King Arthur and thought it couldn't be any worse than Troy, and I was right: it wasn't worse, but it wasn't much better either.
 
They were both really good. Troy was better then King Arthur. But i'm buying both when they come out.
 
I bought King Arthur: Directors Cut yesterday (I haven't watched it yet though). Apparently they were told to delete several scenes in order to reduce the rating from 15 to 12. The Director's cut is the original 15 (it is only 15 mins longer than the theatrical edition though).

:)
 
Just watched King Arthur and found it terrible. Its completly predictable and I didn't really understand why they had to use King Arthur, Lancelot and all those in this movie.
They don't even care to try to make the Saxons appear a little human and the battles are stupid and simple. And what is the deal with the Braveheart motivation speach Arthur makes in front of his five knights.
 
Didn't bother watching both because of what I heard about them. Troy not having any of the gods involved is like watching LOTR without the hobbits. Doesn't quite work, does it? And Lancelot dying before Arthur even becomes king is anachronistic and dooms the legend right at the start.
Ou Be Low hoo said:
Try 'Life of Brian' for some real historical perspective...
Click to expand...
I agree, and suggest the Holy Grail to go with that.
 
Well, me and Ice watched King Arthur a couple of weaks ago - my verdict is thus:

As a big-battle, lets throw lots of chracters in and kill a few of them off movie it was okay, i'd say a reasonable buddy war movie.

As a film portrayel of any of the legends of King Arthur it was a inexirable disaster, and as such would never bother my DVD player again!

Phil
 
To be honest I though they both sucked big time. I fell asleep during King Arthur. Mind you that could be my age catching up with me......oh hell....incontinence next.....!!!! :(
 
SillyWabbit said:
I say you can't beat Excalibur directed by Ridly Scott! :)
Click to expand...
HEY! That was a FANTASTIC movie! It was sooooo crap that it got automatically pushed into "cult" status. Sort of like Beowulf with Christopher Lambert in it. Or, or, or Army of Darkness (okay, not quite, since nothing is quite like Army of Darkness).
 
I couldn't see king athur, but i thought troy was pretty good!! And i think troy was definitiv better than "Alexander the Great", because this movie sucked!! during this movie i went three times to the restroom!!!
=)
 
SillyWabbit said:
I say you can't beat Excalibur directed by Ridly Scott! :)
Click to expand...
John Boorman directed Excalibur, not Ridley Scott. But that doesn't mean it isn't superior to Troy and Arthur.

My trouble with Arthur was the ads make a very big deal about historical accuracy as if 1) it were a big deal since the legend is what most people prefer and 2) it were true! I don't believe even Picts gave a shit about women's rights, so the Guinevere character is hopelessy not historical. And Arthur's "Braveheart speech" to five choir members really was faintly ridiculous in content as well as need. (I did enjoy the battle on the frozen lake but it's not worth buying a DVD ... )

I liked Troy better, but that's not say it isn't a stick in the cheek below my eye ... It really needed to be larger than life and instead tried to be "realistic" ...

I would echo the recommendation of "Hero" if you want history done with a modicum of style and substance.
 
oh boorman's excalibur, even when bad acted it remains the best arthurian movie ever. (i mean after sword in the stone :D )

they screw troy, when they took off all the gods, it changed all the sense of the story
and arthur, thats was really bad, historical acuracy? yeah, lets make a movie about what may be the life of one of the four guys among which could be the one on who could or could not be based the legend. (which might be or might not be based on an actual person).
 
One thing in favour of both Troy and King Arthur is that Alexander the Great is apparantly even worse :D

May have to see that one just for the pleasure of Val Kilmer and his ridiculous looking beard :)

Phil
 
Haven't seen Troy so can't comment.

King Arthur - the story didn't make any sense. Historically it was completely inaccurate but Clive Owen made up for everything!! :) :p Ps. Am I the only person in the world that fancies him?

The bit on the ice was pretty cool too..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top