Movies about King Arthur

[Proximus]

Does anybody know if somebody has ever done a good movie about King Arthur? All I've seen lacks in something, like bad plot or bad acting. So here's my list of Arthur movies.
Merlin 1998 With Sam Neil.
Excalibur 1981
King Arthur 2004
Mists of Avalon

Note this are the ones I've seen so far, and I have surely forgotten some movie.
First Knight Gere as Lancelot! A disgrace. Forgot this one.
The Sword in the stone A nice Disney movie with a funny Merlin. Forgot that one to.
Monthy Pyton As beliveble as King Arthur but a lot funnier.
Camelot With R Harris

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Well there is the disney movie and "the first knight" with Richard Gere.
Personally I like Excalibur and King arthur the best.

[Gadger]

You forgot Monty Python's Holy Grail :

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Oh yeah, I totally forgot that one *hangs my head in shame*

[Rapax]

Well, I love Excalibur. It's not on the historical side, but who gives a damn, it's a great fantasy film and adaptation of the arthur story. "King Arthur" wasn't really an Arthur movie for me, seriously, apart from some names that film has nothing to do with the legend of King Arthur.
"The First Knight" is a damn shame, pure hollywood with disney gloss.

[Proximus]

Edited my first post with the new movies.
Anyway anyone else has some suggesstion?

[Anoikis]

The musical 'camelot' with richard Harris.

Excalibur is the best.

[Alaric the Visigoth]

I was massively disappointed by KING ARTHUR. I'm interested in all things Late Roman Empire / Dark Ages, and since it was (to my knowledge) the first movie to ever refer to the Sarmatians, I was all for it. Unfortunately, it turned out to be little more than "Hollywood Dreck Goes Medieval," for the following reasons:
1) When 7 guys fire arrows at 200 guys, the seven will remain unscratched, while the 200 will drop to the left and right.
2) The Saxon king has quasi-Nazi attitudes towards intermarriage with Britons and whispers like Steven Seagal.
3) Medieval trebuchets appear several hundred years before their invention.
4) Lancelot doesn't actually nail Guinevere, just gives her a few lookings-over and then dies before Arthur. HUH?
5) The "woman warrior", despite interviews claiming she had to gain weight for the role, is still the least-intimidating figure in recent memory, with Vanilla Ice's "Surreal Life 2" temper tantrums coming a close second.
6) Roman Britain is portrayed as little more than Roman forts, a hell of a lot of trees with blue-painted people hiding in them, a farm, and that's about it. What about Londinium? Was the budget too stretched for a couple crappy CGI skylines of cities?

Oh, and remember when one of Arthur's knights fired an arrow into the air, which sailed over a wall and killed the traitor hiding in the tree-- when he could have had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of his presence? Hell, he'd never even met the guy!

[Alaric the Visigoth]

Oh, and EXCALIBUR was also a hoot. I loved the over-the-top Merlin rambling about "the dragon," Arthur's weird Welsh accent (which, in retrospect, sounds like Brad Pitt's Pikie accent from SNATCH), the scene where Uther begets Arthur on Ygrain (sic) while wearing his armour-- actually, all of the unnecessary sex scenes were pretty rockin'. Oh, and the '80s production values... so much glitter...

[Proximus]

Originally posted by Anoikis@Oct 11 2004, 03:04 PM
Excalibur is the best.

It's a good movie but!
I hate the "helmet" that Merlin wears, the ugliest thing ever?

[Helliax]

I think that's the usual magician skull-cap that you see in all those RPG games. I personally think Merlin in Excalibur woud've looked better with a yamalca or the Spartan skullcap in RTW.

[redjameskidd]

Yeah, Excaliber was probably the best, but I really enjoyed the mini-series that he mentioned, Merlin, with Sam Neil. Sure, it was cheesy, but it had an excellent soundtrack and an interesting story, obviously from Merlin's point of view this time. Of course, I do love Sam Neil movies in general, because he's just so strange. Got an interesting voice too. (Event Horizon anyone? ) The Arthur portion was rather standard, but eh, I liked it anyway. A good modern Arthur story. And the chick from fight club is Morgan La Fey!

[Kaiser]

i like the mist of avalon, it was very interesting, did anyone read the book tho? i began to read it but its too long...

excalibur was good, but then it really sucked in the end.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

excalibur is the lesser of many evils in this list.

king arthur had potential, as there are some who believe that arthur really was a roman who fought the saxons.
so i expected a lot from this movie. unfourtiantly this movie felt like a rushed job to quickly hitch a ride on the success of troy. another movie that didn't quite deliver. the guy who played arthur acted terrible and something about the way he spoke made me want to grab 1 of my samurai swords, jump into the screen and cut out his tongue. the sarmatins in their role of suporting actors did a far better job then he and the guy who played lancelot did. and they are the only reason i wouldn't mind seeing this movie again.

the saxons were portrayed poorly and the fact that 7 guys can take on 200 is just impossible (as someone else allready pointed out) unless their names would have been: goku, gohan, tienshinhan, vejita, piccolo, trunks and cell.

also wath confused me is that at 1 moment arthur and the gang stand on a hill, overlooking the saxon army from a flank side, and the next moment they are somewhere behind the walls of that settlement.

another thing i would really like to know is: how the hell did they cloose those gates behind thaat first regiment of saxons?

maybe i'm just nitpicking but these things annoyed me.

[matthew the black prince]

the door was closed on the saxons after the first wave because a town watch of sorts was there,(i read the book and saw the directors cut),i pesonallly liked the movie and i beleive clive owen played a good arthur,he had the low voice of a mercenary and native captain,and he had a close bond with knights,which seemed accurate,and come on,if lancelot too had nailed quenivere she would've been too stiff to fight the saxons the next day

also i think the trebuchets were suppost to be onagers but someone at the place forgot what they looked like

[Turnus]

Originally posted by Alaric the Visigoth@Oct 14 2004, 04:10 PM
1) When 7 guys fire arrows at 200 guys, the seven will remain unscratched, while the 200 will drop to the left and right.

That was the most ridiculous battle in the history of cinema.

[Zed]

Originally posted by Alaric the Visigoth@Oct 14 2004, 04:10 PM
4) Lancelot doesn't actually nail Guinevere, just gives her a few lookings-over and then dies before Arthur. HUH?

To be fair that would depend on what story you hear, there are generally a lot of King Arthur stories and the love triangle one is just the most popular one.

Anyway I thought that it had been well proven that there was no such thing as King Arthur and the myth had in fact been born from a french myth? That is one of the reasons JRR Tolkien wrote LOTRs.

[Turnus]

Originally posted by Zed@Dec 20 2004, 09:50 PM
Anyway I thought that it had been well proven that there was no such thing as King Arthur and the myth had in fact been born from a french myth? That is one of the reasons JRR Tolkien wrote LOTRs.

Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ba...for_King_Arthur

The Arthur in the 2004 movie, while it claims to be the real historical story, doesn't actually fit any of these completely. He almost fits Lucius Artorius Castus (most likely who he is supposed to be), but alas, wrong time period (stay tuned for more butcherings of history by David Franzoni, the writer of movies such as King Arthur (2004) and Gladiator (2000), in 2005's blockbuster "Hannibal", starring Vin Diesel as the title role).

The legend of Arthur is synonymous with many western European cultures, and so Tolkien was looking to create a purely English mythology (as it was lacking one).

[WyX]

Excalibur is THE arthur film.
There is about 12 different theories on the Real Arthur, I say there was no real Arthur just take the original story for what it is, a fairy tale.

[Rustynail]

King Arthur originally was made to be a dark and gritty movie rated R from the beginning, mid production the producers told the director to make it pg-13 so they could release it for a younger audience and earlier. The directer himself said that the story line suffered along with his passion for making the film. They told him he could release an R version directors cut, but by then the damage was done. I wonder what would have been different if he would have been left alone.

Thomas