Don't go see "King Arthur"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Racer_X
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Racer_X

Guest
Aside from the fact that it is an awful movie with atrocious dialogue, it is blatantly anti-Catholic and very unhistorical. The bishop is portrayed as ruthlessly political. Monks/priests are engaged in some kind of weird human sacrifice. The sympathetically-portrayed native Britons are all non-Christian (which itself is unhistorical). The only sympathetic Christian is Arthur himself, but he is a Pelagian heretic. No attempt is made to describe Pelagian’s actual beliefs. It is just implied that Pelagius believed in “freedom” over against the “tyranny” of the Church.

It severely disappoints me. The movie looks like they went to a lot of trouble to make it historical. That is the way it is marketed. Instead they just went out of their way to make it unhistorical. And for what? Not to give a good story. It was groaningly predictable and cliche-ridden.

I will grant that some of the acting was quite good, though.
 
Oops. Mods, please feel free to move this to the “Family Life” forum.
 
Thanks for the heads up! DecentFilms.com has a similar analysis. That’s too bad because I would have loved to see a good adaptation of the King Arthur story.
 
Wasn’t there a point in history when the Church, or at least it’s bishops, were very political, since they ruled over europe and and held authority of kings? Just a question becuase i was never sure of this.
 
40.png
raphaela:
Wasn’t there a point in history when the Church, or at least it’s bishops, were very political, since they ruled over europe and and held authority of kings? Just a question becuase i was never sure of this.
Click to expand...
Except maybe in the 1st and 2nd century, there have always been such bishops. Especially after the Roman empire fell and the only thing holding the remnants of civilization together was the Church. The bishops were pretty much the only authority left.

The problem in a film like this is that it gives the impression this bishop is typical, which is far from the case. This was the period when St. Augustine and St. Ambrose were bishops for goodness sake!
 
Racer X:
Aside from the fact that it is an awful movie with atrocious dialogue, it is blatantly anti-Catholic and very unhistorical. The bishop is portrayed as ruthlessly political. Monks/priests are engaged in some kind of weird human sacrifice. The sympathetically-portrayed native Britons are all non-Christian (which itself is unhistorical). The only sympathetic Christian is Arthur himself, but he is a Pelagian heretic. No attempt is made to describe Pelagian’s actual beliefs. It is just implied that Pelagius believed in “freedom” over against the “tyranny” of the Church.

It severely disappoints me. The movie looks like they went to a lot of trouble to make it historical. That is the way it is marketed. Instead they just went out of their way to make it unhistorical. And for what? Not to give a good story. It was groaningly predictable and cliche-ridden.

I will grant that some of the acting was quite good, though.
Click to expand...
Hey, don’t get too excited… you know the King Arthur of the Round Table is purely fiction… and the one in the movie has no basis in fact…
 
Racer X:
Except maybe in the 1st and 2nd century, there have always been such bishops. Especially after the Roman empire fell and the only thing holding the remnants of civilization together was the Church. The bishops were pretty much the only authority left.

The problem in a film like this is that it gives the impression this bishop is typical, which is far from the case. This was the period when St. Augustine and St. Ambrose were bishops for goodness sake!
Click to expand...
But as seen in the light of today and the failings of many bishops who see nothing wrong with giving communion to pro-abortion people (just to name one thing)…

Sometimes I think the Church hurts itself by giving ample ammunition to those who hate it.
 
space ghost:
Hey, don’t get too excited… you know the King Arthur of the Round Table is purely fiction… and the one in the movie has no basis in fact…
Click to expand...
This movie “King Arthur” is about the withdrawal of Roman forces from Britain, its effect on the native Briton population, and the invasion of the Saxons. The individual characters are certainly fiction, but the events portrayed have a basis in history. I’m bothered because of the way the historical stuff is portrayed.

If what was like the film *Exalibur–*which was done as pure fantasy–I wouldn’t have much of a problem.
 
space ghost:
Hey, don’t get too excited… you know the King Arthur of the Round Table is purely fiction… and the one in the movie has no basis in fact…
Click to expand...
The DaVinci Code is also fictional but he takes great liberties with history.
 
The movie looks like they went to a lot of trouble to make it historical.
Click to expand...
As soon as I saw Gwenavier fighting on horseback and shooting a bow I knew it *was not historical , *more like “Merlin” (the miniseries) or “Mists of Avalon”. Just fantasy stores built on the bones of the King Arthur legend. Probably the most accurate potrayal of the actual legend remains “Excalibur”
 
I wasn’t going to see the film anyway but thanks for the heads up. I’ll try to spread the word.
 
I most likely will still see the movie as I do not go to the theater for History but for entertainment.

I get my History from other sources.
 
KJVail–

Do you honestly think that the most accurate version of the King Arthur legend is “EXCALIBUR?” Now, I enjoyed that movie, but come on.

Don’t you remember that the Holy Grail in that movie was no longer the Grail? Instead, the whole POINT was that “You (Arthur) and the land are one”. OUCH! Revisionism at its worst.

Monty PYTHON and the Holy Grail was more accurate. . .and that’s saying something.

Then again, I still favor Mallory’s “Morte d’Arthur” and T.H. White together with a good solid text or two (like the Cambridge History of England) to give me a feel for Arthurian legendry. Movies are entirely too one-dimensional for me.
 
Tantum ergo:
Do you honestly think that the most accurate version of the King Arthur legend is “EXCALIBUR?” Now, I enjoyed that movie, but come on.
Don’t you remember that the Holy Grail in that movie was no longer the Grail? Instead, the whole POINT was that “You (Arthur) and the land are one”. OUCH! Revisionism at its worst.
Monty PYTHON and the Holy Grail was more accurate. . .and that’s saying something.
Then again, I still favor Mallory’s “Morte d’Arthur” and T.H. White together with a good solid text or two (like the Cambridge History of England) to give me a feel for Arthurian legendry. Movies are entirely too one-dimensional for me.
Click to expand...
Accuracy is a pretty bizarre term to be using when we are talking about a legend lol, historians don’t even know if there *was *a King Arthur. What we have are the writing of Geoffrey of Monmouth . Heres a good page on the current research into the King Arthur legend.

britannia.com/history/h12.html
 
I’m glad I saw this post, as I was thinking about seeing this one!

I’ll wait until it comes out on DVD and then NOT rent it…
 
For whatever its worth…some of the evangelical reviewers are panning it as well…

You won’t get historical accuracy out of Hollywood.

dream wanderer
 
My husband and I totally agree–we went to go see it last night and were shocked by the disgusting portrayal of the Church and her priests, not to mention the inaccurate history in and of itself.

There is very little plot, anyway, just one battle after another with some stupid contemporary kidding around between the knights.

So disappointing!
 
Really? I thought that movie looked good, at least in the previews. I am really disappointed, it is so disgusting how anti-Cathoilc hollywoord is…
 
Even the movie reviewer on NPR (National Public Radio) panned this film. In fact the review itself was hilarious. I wish I had it on tape.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top