King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition)
by Antoine Fuqua
List Price:
Our Price: $3.64
You Save: $6.31 (63%)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Buy Used: from $1.27 (click here)
Category: DVD
See more DVD details
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
DVD details
Actor: Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley, Mads Mikkelsen, Stephen DillaneDirector: Antoine Fuqua
Brand: Buena Vista Home Video
Producer: Bruce Moriarty
Producer: Chad Oman
Producer: James Flynn
Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer
Producer: Mike Stenson
Producer: Morgan O'Sullivan
Writer: David Franzoni
DVD: Region Code 1
Audio: English (Unknown), Dolby Digital 5.1; Spanish (Subtitled); French (Subtitled); English (Original Language), Dolby Digital 5.1; Latin (Original Language)
Format: AC-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Director's Cut, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD, NTSC, Subtitled, THX, Widescreen
Picture Format: 2.35:1
Running Time: 142 minutes
DVD Release Date: 2004-12-21
Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Studio: Touchstone / Disney
Product features:
- Now, from the producer of PEARL HARBOR and the director of TRAINING DAY . . . experience the extended unrated director's cut of this hard-hitting action epic! Prepare for more thrills, more adventure, and more intensity as the heroic true story behind one of history's greatest legends explodes onto the screen! It is the valiant tale of Arthur (Clive Owen) and his bond of brotherhood with L
DVD Reviews of King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition)
DVD Review: Woad to Wuin
Summary: 1 Stars
This is a pitiful attempt to bring the historical King Arthur to the screen; I confess to not having seen the original version of the movie, but the "extended unrated version" doesn't inspire me with any confidence that it has anything of any value to offer to those seeking a new version of the Arthurian story, historical fact, or even entertainment. The script is inane, Keira Knightley, though very beautiful, is absurdly miscast as Guinevere, and Clive Owen is positively wooden as Arthur. The supporting cast is occasionally very good, particularly Ray Winstone's Bors, but Cerdic and Cynric as the father-son villainous team are too obviously inspired by Vito and Santino Corleone to inspire anything other than guffaws of laughter. Their villainous behaviour-stopping a rape only to have the woman murdered, casually knifing a henchman in the gut in frustration-are clumsy. I don't mind over-the-top performances; I'm very fond of "Conan the Barbarian;" this isn't just over-the-top-it's incompetent directing, poor writing, and indifferent actor commitment.
The fight sequences would have been exhilarating, if only the characters had been compelling. But they're not. They're neither convincing as human beings, nor in the least bit interesting. In particular, the ice fight is visually stunning. But it doesn't make sense. Why would you walk down the centre of a frozen lake, where the ice is thinner and you're further away from safety? And why is Keira Knightley wearing next to nothing when there's snow falling? Well, apart from the obvious reasons.
So much for the movie. The packaging proclaims that this is "The Untold True Story That Inspired the Legend." That's a logical fallacy, of course-if it was untold in the fifth century, how can it have come to light now? But is it a plausible piece of historical fiction? The answer, unfortunately, is No.
I don't want to be accused of being an encyclopedia freak or anything like that; but equally, I don't think that knowing something about history and legend should disqualify a person from holding and defending an opinion about a work of art that purports to be historically accurate.
The screenwriter and director of this movie have attempted a snow-job on the movie-going public. They profess to tell the "true story" of King Arthur, and that is simply not what they do. And it doesn't matter how many times Keira Knightley says in interviews "This is historically accurate." It isn't. I don't mind movies that are historically inaccurate. But movies that are marketed on one assumption and then deliver something else is simply a lie. And that's what this film is--a lie.
The rest of my comments address the more serious historical blunders of David Franzoni and Atoine Fuqua. If you're not interested in the historical background, son't read any further.
The film's prologue states that "Historians agree that the classical 15th century tale of King Arthur and his knights rose from a real hero who lived a thousand years earlier in a period called the Dark Ages. Recently discovered archaeological evidence sheds light on his true identity." Of course, anyone baldly stating that "historians agree" on anything from the results of Agincourt to the colour of an orange obviously doesn't know historians. They disagree wildly about whether there ever was any original of King Arthur. David Dumville, for example, claims there was not; Leslie Alcock (an archaeologist, not historian) is an agnostic; Geoffrey Ashe has argued in favour of an historical Arthur, but changed his identification in the 1980s; many historians don't care. And the legend of King Arthur is not 15th century. The earliest legendary accounts (as opposed to historical accounts) of Arthur date to perhaps the ninth century, perhaps the tenth. Sir Thomas Malory wrote his highly influential book Le Morte d'Arthur in the fifteenth century, of course-but that's not what the moviemakers say.
The movie seems to be based on a book by Linda Malcor and Scott Littleton called From Scythia to Camelot, in which it is argued that the legends were inspired by Lucius Artorius Castus, a commander of Sarmatian auxiliary cavalry stationed on Hadrian's Wall in the third century. This is possible-some Sarmatian legends do show a similarity to, for example, the story of the Grail. But the legend of these cavalry auxiliaries bears very little resemblance to the story of Arthur, so screenwriter David Franzoni took the Sarmatian Cavalry idea and transported it anachronistically into the fifth century. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit there.
The film is set in the year 452, and in one scene Bishop Germanus talks about the imminent withdrawal of Roman troops from Britain. The Romans withdrew from Britain in 410. It is possible, perhaps, as a number of historians have suggested, that native British soldiers stayed behind and organized a defence against the incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from Germany, the Picts from Scotland and the Scotti from Ireland. But after 410, neither of the emperors nor the Pope had any right or ability to recall these legions, if there were any. The highly-organized Roman system we see in the film is therefore hugely anachronistic, especially the garrison on the Wall itself, which, as the northernmost extreme of the Empire, was the first part to be abandoned.
The barbarian raids, incidentally, were hardly the full-scale and well-organized (and financed, according to one line in the movie) invasion imagined in the movie. They began (according to tradition) in 449, were brought to a full but temporary halt in about 500 (perhaps by Arthur at the battle of Badon Hill), then resumed throughout the latter part of the sixth century until the Britons had been driven back into Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, and Brittany. The idea that the Saxons were thoroughly and decisively trounced once is absurd, especially since the movie's time scheme suggests that all the events depicted occurred within a few weeks. That's the kind of telescoping of historical events that Shakespeare indulged in, to great artistic achievement, but that's not what the moviemakers promised with this film. They promised the "true story."
Some of the characters are historical-Pelagius and Germanus, for example. Lancelot could never have been a real person-he was invented by a Swiss poet called Ulrich von Zatzikhoven in the late twelfth century. Gawain's name, of course, is anachronistic-his name in the earliest Arthurian stories is Gwalchmei. Similarly for Guinevere, whose earliest recorded name is Gwenhwyfar. That Galahad should be a historical character is ridiculous-he was invented by an anonymous author in the early thirteenth century specifically as a knight on a quest for the Holy Grail. Merlin may have been a real historical character, a bard of the sixth century (not fifth, and not contemporary with Arthur) whose name, in reality, would have been Myrddin. it was changed to Merlin by Geoffrey of Monmouth in about 1138 to avoid the unpleasant associations with the French word merde. So half the characters don't belong in the particular historical milieu that the moviemakers tried to portray.
Then there are things that are just uncomfortable. All the harping on freedom, for example-a concept that was meaningless in most pre-American Revolution societies. They had, instead, an idea of the rightness of one's role in life-to them, freedom didn't mean living without the dominion of overlord, or voting rights, or whatever the screenwriter meant. Freedom in the Dark and Middle Ages meant living one's proper and assigned role in life. When the characters speak of freedom in this movie, they just look like their costumes don't fit properly.
All of this would be forgivable if the film was self-proclaimed as a fantasy, or if it were not incompetently directed, written and, in many cases, acted. Unfortunately, it is garbage from the opening moment to the closing. The movie absorbed two hours of my life, that I'd really very much like to get back and do something useful with.
Incidentally, the narration at the beginning and the end of the movie is by Lancelot. How? He dies at the end. Or is it perhaps just a wannabe Lancelot, like the wannabe-director Antoine Fuqua and the wannabe-scriptwriter? This is absolutely the worst Arthurian film I've ever seen; and I've seen "Sword of the Valiant."
Description of King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition)
King Arthur the Extended Unrated Director's Cut contains fourteen minutes of never-before-seen footage, including more intense battle sequences and the scenes "Rain and Snow" and "Saxons Surrounded." Bonus Features? Alternate Ending "Badon Hill" With Optional Director Commentary
? Blood On The Land: Forging King Arthur
? Cast And Filmmaker Round Table
? Director Commentary
? "Knight Vision" Trivia Track
? Producer's Photo Gallery
? Konami's King Arthur Playable Xbox Demo
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyed Rob Roy, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Troy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgård in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind! Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed! --Jeff Shannon
Bestsellers in DVD
![The Story of Jeremiah [VHS] Image](/images/noimg.gif)
The Story of Jeremiah [VHS]Vision Video; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Wresting With God [VHS]by Vision Video
Vision Video; Published: 1990-10-01; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Price in other shops:
Study Bible Video with Workbook [VHS]Spring Arbor Distributors; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Best price: $7.95
Price in other shops:
Tempo:Childrens TV Favourites Video [VHS]HarperCollins Audio; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Best price: $9.17
Price in other shops:
Tempo.Herbs:Parseley'Sb/ Party Video [VHS]HarperCollins Audio; VHS Tape; VHS Video
![Strike the Original Match [VHS] Image](/images/Strike-the-Original-Match-VHS-0001374079-X.jpg)
Strike the Original Match [VHS]New Liberty Films; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Price in other shops:
![Medjugorje The Miracles and the Message [VHS] Image](/images/Medjugorje-The-Miracles-and-the-Message-VHS-0001373293-X.jpg)
Medjugorje The Miracles and the Message [VHS]JPN Film Production; Release date: 1995-12-15; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Best price: $29.99
Mayo Clinic Echocardiography Review Course for Boards and Recertification DVD 2008by Mayo
DVD
Price in other shops:
Pediatric Diagnostic Imaging DVD: Single Userby Oakstone
DVD
Price in other shops:
Cost Accounting [VHS]by Charles T. Horngren, George Foster, Srikant M. Datar, Howard Teall
Pearson Canada, Toronto; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Similar DVDs, VHS Video, Audio CDs
The Last Samurai (Two-Disc Special Edition)Warner Brothers; Release date: 2012-01-03; DVD
Best price: $2.97
Price in other shops:
Reign of FireBuena Vista Home Video; Release date: 2002-11-19; DVD
Best price: $3.18
Price in other shops:
Tristan and Isolde (Widescreen Edition)Fox; Release date: 2006-04-25; DVD
Best price: $3.56
Price in other shops:
ExcaliburExcalibur; Release date: 2010-09-07; DVD
Best price: $2.51
Price in other shops:
The Last LegionUNIVERSAL MUSIC VIDEO DIST.; Release date: 2007-12-18; DVD
Best price: $5.37
Price in other shops:
Robin Hood (Single-Disc Unrated Director's Cut)Universal Pictures; Release date: 2010-09-21; DVD
Best price: $10.24
Price in other shops:
Braveheart (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)Paramount; Release date: 2007-12-18; Published: 2007-12-01; DVD
Best price: $5.49
Price in other shops:
Troy (Two-Disc Widescreen Edition)Warner Brothers; Release date: 2005-01-04; DVD
Best price: $3.24
Price in other shops:
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (Widescreen Edition)TCFHE; Release date: 2004-04-20; DVD
Best price: $4.00
Price in other shops:
Kingdom of Heaven (2-Disc Widescreen Edition)Fox; Release date: 2005-10-11; DVD
Best price: $5.85
Price in other shops: