King Arthur

[wtg2000]

I saw this today at the first showing. I'm not sure the cinema has a lot of faith in it. It's playing on one screen - and it's the smallest theatre. Usually films open on 2 or 3 (Spiderman 4) screens. The theatre was fairly full with people jostling around looking for seats together. Bad planning on the cinema's part I think (Silver City, London, ON).

I really enjoyed the movie. It's serious and gritty and plays well. Arthur is definitely not Keith Richards!

 

[Bob O]

I saw the movie on 7/7/04 in a newer theater that isnt usually that busy and the show palyued on one screen in a very big theater and was less than half full, which isnt a good sign for disney.
But i really enjoyed the movie and thought it was very well done and well worht seeing again and buying when it comes out on dvd!!!!!

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... what's Disney doing wrong ? Even people who have seen 80 Days admit its a good movie, but it's a box office flop. Is Disney making good movies that nobody wants to see ? Does the public want edgier movies that Disney - trying to remain Disney - refuse to make ? Or is it that they are just poor timing,being up against Shrek2,HP,Spidy,etc.. ?

 

[Bob O]

Other than on this board i havent heard anything good about 80 days, and from what i have seen in papers or on the net is very bad, ao i think it comes down to making bad movies or making movies that may have a limited appeal, which is movies like the Alamo.
While i really liked King Arthur i dont think it is going to appeal to teenagers who will see a favorite movie numerous times which make films blockbusters. While i think it will do better than recent disney films its hard to make money on a movie like this unless it does great overseas like Troy has done.
I think if you make a movie like this you have to have someone with star power as the main person in the movie like Brad Pitt(and while i think he is over-rated he is a star with the tv types and rag magizenes) with Troy and this hurt Alamo as no one in the movie had the star power to bring in people(of course if they had Russell Crowe things may have been different) .
It isnt poor timeing, it is making movies people dont want to see, now lets hope for Disney's sake that The Village is as good as it seems to be.

 

[MPLsDad]

I liked King Arthur. I found it to be an interesting counter story to the usual legend. Keira Knightley is uber-hot! There were only two awkard scenes IMO (possible spoiler follows, although I've not been too descriptive)












...the totally unnecessary genital reference and when the arrow hits the guy in the tree (so unbelievable).

Otherwise I liked it fine. IMO, POTC was far better though. As far as The Village - I can't stand M. Knight Shamalamadingdong's movies - I see dead people - Puh-lease!

 

[Bob O]

I couldnt disagree more about Shmalayan!!!!!!!!!!
His movies are great and so is the box office they have created!!! And i like the fact that he writes/directs and acts in his moives, a true talent that hopefully disney wont p*ss off like they have others recently.

 

[dcentity2000]

I can't wait to see The Village!



Rich::

 

[jarestel]

There's a reason that stories become classics... If someone is going to go to the expense and trouble of making a movie based on a classic, they should at least be true to the story or they are asking for box office floppiness. If Peter Jackson had decided that he could tell a better story than Tolkien, LOTR would have flopped as well. Fortunately, PJ was a bit more savvy than the King Arthur team.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
..... what's Disney doing wrong ? Even people who have seen 80 Days admit its a good movie, but it's a box office flop. Is Disney making good movies that nobody wants to see ? Does the public want edgier movies that Disney - trying to remain Disney - refuse to make ? Or is it that they are just poor timing,being up against Shrek2,HP,Spidy,etc.. ?

I think it's poor timing combined with the fact that people seem to prefer things like White Chicks and Dodgeball

 

[dcentity2000]

Poor timing, no question. That and a general lack of any publicity, at least on this side of the pond.



Rich::

 

[mickey4ver]

I personally liked King Arthur, the whole different direction the film took from our old KA movies,( the love triangle between Lance/Arthur/Guinevere) was great. It certainly was a change from all the previous movies I've seen about Arthur, but that is what intrigued me about it.

I also liked the fact that the majority of the actors are unknown to many of us, they seemed to be from the "other side of pond" as someone has said, and I liked each and every one of them and would love to see them in other flix.

Yep, I liked this interpretation of how in might all have been.

 

[dcentity2000]

Just saw an advert for it - actually looks quite good



Rich::

 

[wtg2000]

Le Mort d'Arthur. King Arthur is dying! Only $13 million after Friday according to Box Office Mojo (I think those were estimates), including only $5 million on Friday - it got scooped by Anchorman. As I mentioned earlier, they must have known given the lousy theatre my cinema put it in.

I think Disney is being reactive, and are paying the price. This movie got made because of Gladiator and Lord of the Rings. But they need to be the first ones making these movies. Look at Pirates. There hasn't been a decent pirate movie in years. Disney was first in line and was rewarded at the box office.

Copycating doesn't work much any more. Disney tried to recreate Titanic with Pearl Harbor and the results were mixed. It tried to recreate Jurassic Park with Dinosaur and the results were mixed. The rest of the movie-making/going world moves on while Disney lately tries to catch up.

(please forgive my French!)

 

[crusader]

King Arthur is dying!

I disagree. Having seen it on Friday I too was surprised by the small theatre being used and it backfired as the number of people kept pouring in to see it. Standing room only!

This is a really good movie. Word is getting out and it should stick around for some time.

 

[wtg2000]

Well, the numbers don't lie. Arthur did 23 million Wed/Sat which is pittance considering the scope of the film and the advertising budget. TV ads have been going non-stop for a month.

I don't think it will stick around for long. And I'm not sure about the word getting out. Reviews are mixed.

I think this version of King Arthur will quickly become a distant memory - like the truth about the real Arthur.

 

[crusader]

you may want to go see this one.

The draw is not historical - it's pure content. Great strategic battle; strength, courage, integrity and humor driven through the acting; and the character development of Arthur alone make this a worthwhile film.

enjoy!

 

[wtg2000]

I have seen it - as per the first post in this thread. It was the one movie I was looking forward to this summer - that and Sky Captain, which has been bumped.

I found the 'Arthur as a Roman' angle a nice touch, as this is one of the theories about him.

Did anyone catch Disney's synergy with the ABC movie Saturday night? It was PRINCESS OF THIEVES starring Keira Knightley as Robin Hood's daughter who follows in his footsteps. It's from 2001. They probably thought they'd cash in on Arthur's success. I wonder how the ratings were? I enjoyed it. It was an amusing, TV-quality movie and she was plucky as usual.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

Used to be all I needed to see was that a movie was made by Disney and I could not wait to see it. Now it seems that once I find out that a movie is made by Disney I try to avoid it. Remember Dinosaur?? Atlantis? Brother Bear?Haunted Mansion?

I just wonder why Disney was not given the opportunity to make the Harry Potter movies or if they were, why did they turn it down. To me that is like the ultimate slap in the face. People I knew automatically assumed it was a Disney movie! Same with LOTR... to me it would also be the type of movie that I would assume the old Disney might have made.

Given their current track record and the fact that they seem to be enamoured with making movies that are tied to rides PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT let them make the Tiki Room movie, country bears was enough for me.

 

[ErikdaRed]

Disney, and any other studio for that matter, has always made bad movies along with the good. Its just that over time all people remember are the great films, so it skews the view of the past.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by jarestel
There's a reason that stories become classics... If someone is going to go to the expense and trouble of making a movie based on a classic, they should at least be true to the story or they are asking for box office floppiness. If Peter Jackson had decided that he could tell a better story than Tolkien, LOTR would have flopped as well. Fortunately, PJ was a bit more savvy than the King Arthur team.

I couldn't agree more.

This movie is SO bad that it's hard to know where to start, so I won't bother trying.

Do yourself a favour, spend your money on something else.