King Arthur Vs Alexander

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



trav6612
I really enjoyed this movie it was good. Action packed war but not to gory. Plus Keira Knightley is hot, but what does anyone else think about it? How do you think it will compare to say Alexander?

MildPossession
Well since they are totally different stories overall, and in film making style, who knows.

But Alexander has the added bonus of Angelina Jolie smile

I really actually enjoyed King Arthur, fun movie with a beautiful score by Hans Zimmer.

SlipknoT
King Arthur takes the cake as worst movie of the year.

MildPossession
Why do you think it as worst of the year? yeah the acting is mediocre in places, but apart from that...?

forumcrew
catwomen is far worse.. i imagine alexander will be better.. howeve after studying a lot of greek history i might not like it much if its not too accurate

RaventheOnly
If people want to see spectacle and drama they should make a movie about Thermopoli 700 Greeks against 200,000 Persians.

forumcrew
and more importantly when it came down to 300 spartans fighting to thier death giving the rest time to retreat and prepare

Major Knight
wow you and the other are the only 2 plp i have ever seen say good things about king arthur.

MildPossession
I see good in most movies, I rarely say a movie is extremely horrible.

If there are a few things in a film I like, it's very hard for me to dislike it.

King Arthur I thought was fun, not brilliant, fun.

My friend loved it, interested in the stories of King Arthur, and he was very happy with how they made the movie.

dAgEnIuS
King Arthur is faaar more better
rock

Cinemaddiction
Did you see the same "King Awful" as me? I saw 3 cliched, slow motion, boring "battle" scenes.

"Hey everybody! Lets break some ice so we don't have to fight!" http://www.psychopathictraders.com/forum2/images/smiles/jerkit.gif



Given her latest string of "hits" in "Taking Lives", "Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life", "Beyond Borders", and "Original Sin", this is far from a bonus. It's more like a demerit.



The whole movie was less than mediocre, IMO. It was like "Lord of the Rings Lite". It was very cliched. A bunch of brutish warriors, an opening, middle, and end battle with a bunch of boring filler dialogue in the middle.

Glad someone enjoyed it. Atleast there won't be a sequel.

MildPossession
Any film Angelina Jolie is in she is good, if it's a bad movie like the ones you mentioned, it's always made less painful to watch because she is in it.

Again, it's a bonus that she is in Alexander. smile

ragesRemorse
If these two movies were playing at the same time, and i had to pick one to see,knowing nothing about the king arthur or alexander history/mythology i would choose Alexander. there are simple reasons that alexander will be a far better movie, This is an experienced renowned director. The filmakers are not trying to be groundbreaking, or artistic through a modern feel.This aspect is'nt always a bad thing, i am all for being creative and innovative, but this formula usually always mixes well with period peices. Alexander is an actual character and not an accepted myth.

I am not saying that alexander will be a good movie, i have my doubts amd am not very enthralled to see it. I believe the cast in this movie is staggeringly overated,but it has a superb director, and with great directing the worst acting can be passed off as good. I bel;ieveKing Arthur had good acting, but unfortunately with a poor script and direction, the movie fell apart disaterously .

trav6612
yes a film with angelina jolie will definetly spice things up, but i can't believe that many people didn't like King Arthur, I thought it was great. They did a great job with it.

BloomBabyGirl
it was slow and terrible and wasnt even what really happened. ill be dissapointed in Alexander if it ends up being as inacurate as troy adn King athur

trav6612
I thought troy and King Arthur were great, I don't see how it was that bad for you.
Troy- was just awesome and I have to give it up for Brad Pitt, he looked buff.
King Arthur- all i have to say is two words Kiera Knightley. Hottie, she is the angelina jolie for this movie

BloomBabyGirl
i liked troy adn brad pitt eric bana and rlando bloom were all lookin good but it was so off from the iliad it was kinda disaapointing. king arthur was just plain terrible. even keira knightly couldnt save it

trav6612
i guess we didn't see the same king arthur, but they had to make troy shorter so they could keep our attention so changing the film was a must

BloomBabyGirl
no we saw the same...diference is..is didnt go to see keira knightly.

trav6612
actually i didn't go to see her either, I went to see the movie and I take that as an offense that you would assume that I go to movies for the eye candy. Yes she is very pleasent to the eye but that is not the reason i went to see King Arthur. It was a good movie, yes it was drawn out at times but overall it was a good movie.

MildPossession
King Arthur was quite historically correct from the facts and what historians think happened in that time, So how you can say that wasn't really what happened, is rather odd to me when it's a film based around all that.

There are of course some inaccurate aspects, but you find them in most films like this, eg the weapons. People told me they used certain weapons that certain tribes didn't use in those times. Think it was the bow and arrows.


As for the battle scenes, a lot of the 'gory' scenes were cut out just to get the rating they wanted sad and I didn't like a lot of the editing in the battle scenes.

One reason I also liked this movie was because of Guinevere, and the movie going the warrior route with her.

trav6612
Amen to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ragesRemorse
No one has been able to prove the existence of King Arthur. Many people believe they now what happend and who king arthur's myth originated from. The closest link is that arthur was a roman soldier. These beliefs extend from shady writings and accounts all from the same writer. their is no proof Arthur and camelot actually existed, only speculation. The rest of the history in the film, from weapons and dialogue, and characters is just for enterainment and not historically correct. I dont care about this, but i care that it wasnt presented entertainigly.

Cinemaddiction
Well, "King Arthur" had to have existed to be accurate.

(EDIT: I see I am not alone in my opinion. ) stick out tongue

SlipknoT
Thats probably one of the main reasons I hate this movie. I found it completely stupid that little 5'0 100lbs Guinevere was taking down these huge warriors with ease.

ragesRemorse
Yeah that was a pretty amazing fiet for her.

trav6612
hey when you got to do what you got to do, anything is possible. She wasn't really taken guys down with ease, except for the fact that she was using a bow most of the time. That will take anyone down with ease if you are half way decent because you are sitting about 30 yards at least away.

ragesRemorse
yeah or historically speaking, the only woman in medievil times to go up against a raiding army Is of course Ms Saint joan of arc, and this was through the will of God. woman were not percieved in the way they were portrayed in this film, or maybe my history lessons have just been all make believe. i dont know, what do you think

MildPossession
She was helped by some other woman warriors to take down one man at a time in some scenes.

trav6612
I think your history lessons have been skewed by the view of the person presenting them. Little is known about who actually fought in wars, but many a times women as well as men when put in situations like the one that they were in would fight in order to give them a chance.

ragesRemorse
no, not as reviered as her character was.Woman were looked upon as trash, or damsel's in medievil times. yeah everyone would fight when there castle's outer wall had been breached to the towns. They would never ride with nights in war though. Knights wwas a very honerable titles which consists of the kights code. No other can ride with these, unless they have bested a felleow knight and then whereby deeemed worthy by the lead rider to be knighted, but first having to finish his kill. then they would go off to knight school. that was long and grooling. No sir my history is not skewed, just acknowledged.

trav6612
Right, well first off to quote you, you stated that they weren't able to ride with the knights, I didn't guinevere riding with the knights and secondly you said that once the castle's outer walls were breached everyone would fight, well if I recall in the movie the saxons came through the gate and that is when they began fighting??? is it not? So why shouldn't see have fought????

trav6612
So I take it you have no response to that?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.