'King Arthur' - High-Def Digest Review

[jed]

Kenneth's review of 'King Arthur' is up. He found the film itself a disappointment -- same goes for the video transfer on this Blu-ray, which is definitely a step up from the previous standard-def release, but unfortunately introduces a host of other issues. The only thing saving this one from total disgrace is a solid uncompressed audio mix.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/kingarthurdc.html

[bear89103]

Originally Posted by jed

Kenneth's review of 'King Arthur' is up. He found the film itself a disappointment -- same goes for the video transfer on this Blu-ray, which is definitely a step up from the previous standard-def release, but unfortunately introduces a host of other issues. The only thing saving this one from total disgrace is a solid uncompressed audio mix.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/kingarthurdc.html

Ouch. I bought this film from Amazon, and it already shipped so I can't cancel it. But I'm starting to wonder if it was a mistake buying this movie.

[Kenshiro]

Originally Posted by bear89103

Ouch. I bought this film from Amazon, and it already shipped so I can't cancel it. But I'm starting to wonder if it was a mistake buying this movie.

The movie is not that bad, I enjoyed the action and the History, while not 100% accurate is interesting. It even inspired me to do my own research about early England... Saxons, Celts, and the Roman influence. There are zero movies that are historically correct, this movie at least attempts to be, you might like it.

[Iggytx]

I loved the movie, and when you love a movie, any upgrade is a good upgrade. I wish it could have been 5 stars, but we'll see when I ever get the pre-order I ordered of it.

[redbawlz]

Originally Posted by Kenshiro

The movie is not that bad, I enjoyed the action and the History, while not 100% accurate is interesting. It even inspired me to do my own research about early England... Saxons, Celts, and the Roman influence. There are zero movies that are historically correct, this movie at least attempts to be, you might like it.

LOL...not a 100% correct.....this movie wishes it was 20% correct. If you watch this movie for history...then I feel sorry you.

[krammer]

Kinda surprised.. though have not seen this yet.

Disney is usually quite consistent in the PQ department with their AVC titles.

[Kenshiro]

Originally Posted by redbawlz

LOL...not a 100% correct.....this movie wishes it was 20% correct. If you watch this movie for history...then I feel sorry you.

I feel sorry for you regardless.

I guess we didn't read the part where I said the movie inspired me to do my own research, did we?

[redbawlz]

Originally Posted by Kenshiro

I feel sorry for you regardless.

I guess we didn't read the part where I said the movie inspired me to do my own research, did we?

Yes I read it, I also read the part where you talk about england, and Celts in the same post...lol..ummm you might wanna look that up there

"Today, "Celtic" is often used to describe the languages and respective cultures of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, Brittany and North-western Spain (see the Modern Celts article) but, in some opinions, corresponds more accurately to the Celtic language family - of which four are spoken today as mother tongues: Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and Breton plus two recent revivals, Cornish (Brythonic languages) and Manx (Goidelic languages). There is also evidence of Celtic culture in North-eastern Portugal."

"The use of the word "Celtic" as an umbrella term for the pre-Roman peoples of Britain gained considerable popularity in the nineteenth century, and remains in common usage. However its historical basis is now seen as dubious by many historians and archaeologists, and the utility of this usage has been questioned.

Simon James, formerly of the British Museum, in his book The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? makes the point that the Romans never used the term "Celtic" (or, rather, a cognate in Latin) in reference to the peoples of Britain and Ireland, and points out that the modern term "Celt" was coined as a useful umbrella term in the early 18th century to distinguish the non-English inhabitants of the archipelago when England united with Scotland in 1707 to create the Kingdom of Great Britain "

Yeah thanks for coming out....

[Kenshiro]

Originally Posted by redbawlz

Yes I read it, I also read the part where you talk about england, and Celts in the same post...lol..ummm you might wanna look that up there

"Today, "Celtic" is often used to describe the languages and respective cultures of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, Brittany and North-western Spain (see the Modern Celts article) but, in some opinions, corresponds more accurately to the Celtic language family - of which four are spoken today as mother tongues: Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and Breton plus two recent revivals, Cornish (Brythonic languages) and Manx (Goidelic languages). There is also evidence of Celtic culture in North-eastern Portugal."

"The use of the word "Celtic" as an umbrella term for the pre-Roman peoples of Britain gained considerable popularity in the nineteenth century, and remains in common usage. However its historical basis is now seen as dubious by many historians and archaeologists, and the utility of this usage has been questioned.

Simon James, formerly of the British Museum, in his book The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? makes the point that the Romans never used the term "Celtic" (or, rather, a cognate in Latin) in reference to the peoples of Britain and Ireland, and points out that the modern term "Celt" was coined as a useful umbrella term in the early 18th century to distinguish the non-English inhabitants of the archipelago when England united with Scotland in 1707 to create the Kingdom of Great Britain "

Yeah thanks for coming out....

You are quite the scholar Mr. Wikipedia research... are you serious? The funny part is that you didn't give a link to the Wikipedia page you quoted because its not a real source of info.

Its a good start though.
Here I'll link it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt

Books pwns blu-bawlz...

[redbawlz]

Originally Posted by Kenshiro

You are quite the scholar Mr. Wikipedia research... are you serious? The funny part is that you didn't give a link to the Wikipedia page you quoted because its not a real source of info.

Its a good start though.
Here I'll link it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt

Books pwns blu-bawlz...

So what is your point?....prove what I said is incorrect, instead of trying to insult my research skills.......also if you check your copy of my post...you will see I named a professor and famous book......not Wikipedia.......as my -source...if Wikipedia, posted it too is irrelevant...so I am waiting to be proven wrong.......

Oh and by the way I happen to be a expert in this area of history
you might wanna check out these books history buff!

-Celtic Scotland (Historic Scotland S.)
-The Celtic Placenames of Scotland
-Scotland (Oxford Archaeological Guides)
-Iona: The Earliest Poetry of a Celtic...
-Celtic Folklore Cooking
-Celtic Saints in Their Landscape
-The People of the Sea: Celtic Tales of...
-Pilgrim in Celtic Scotland
-Ancient Shetland (Historic Scotland S.)
etc......There are many more....

Check this out:
http://www.netmedia.co.uk/history/week-4/
Or how about this one:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/e/...aqbadcelt.html

[Kenshiro]

Originally Posted by redbawlz

So what is your point?......

That you talk about something like you are an expert from doing a wikipedia internet search.

Originally Posted by redbawlz

prove what I said is incorrect, instead of trying to insult my research skills..

I didn't insult them cause you didn't use any.

Originally Posted by redbawlz

also if you check your copy of my post...you will see I named a professor and famous book......not Wikipedia.......as my source...if Wikipedia, posted it too is irrelevant...so I am waiting to be proven wrong.......

You copied and pasted directly from wikipedia without even giving a link. You didn't name the professor, he was in your wikipasted "research."

What do you want me to prove? That 5th Century Romans used the word "Celt" to refer to a particular group of people in England? That's linguinstics... Do you speak latin? Do you know the word Romans used to refer to the indo-european group that we now call "Celts?"

Let's go back to your wiki page.

However, speakers of Celtic languages enter history from around 600 BC, when they were already split into several language groups, and spread over much of Central Europe, the Iberian peninsula, Ireland and Britain.

So speakers of Celtic languages were in Britain from 600 BC. Who cares what the Romans called them hundreds of years later? They could've called them the Lakers for all I care, we call them Celts now-a-days.

Your whole point is beyond moot because you are arguing linguistics and the movie is spoken in modern english. So by your reasoning every word spoken in the movie is an historical inaccuracy.

[Kenshiro]

[quote=Meli--007;100932]

Originally Posted by redbawlz

So what is your point?....prove what I said is incorrect, instead of trying to insult my research skills.......also if you check your copy of my post...you will see I named a professor and famous book......not Wikipedia.......as my -source...if Wikipedia, posted it too is irrelevant...so I am waiting to be proven wrong.......

Oh and by the way I happen to be a expert in this area of history
you might wanna check out these books history buff!

-Celtic Scotland (Historic Scotland S.)
-The Celtic Placenames of Scotland
-Scotland (Oxford Archaeological Guides)
-Iona: The Earliest Poetry of a Celtic...
-Celtic Folklore Cooking
-Celtic Saints in Their Landscape
-The People of the Sea: Celtic Tales of...
-Pilgrim in Celtic Scotland
-Ancient Shetland (Historic Scotland S.)
etc......There are many more....


This post right here Kenshiro...is when you lost this argument man.......anyways lets get back on topic about the film's bad review

You are arguing linguistics, not History. I'm done with your game, it was fun playing though.

[BostonMA]

i've never seen this movie but i really wanted to blind buy it and add it to my collection. so since the review still wasnt out, i bought it yesterday and got home around 1130. i watched it then and it was over around 2 am. i enjoyed it alot, and it had a lot more battle and action sequences in it, unlike the not enough battle movie kingdom of heaven. i thought that the PQ was very good (this was my first time seeing it) and i'm very surprised that it got the rating of 3/5 stars. i thought the PQ was very good and deserved 4/5 stars, for some grain issues in dark areas. but the other site i visit, dvdtown, gave the PQ rating 9/10. but after watching this i thought it was a pretty good movie, not great, and had good PQ. i'm glad i bought it before this review came out because if i reviewed this first i might have not have boughten it. now i'm wondering if i should buy the good shepherd, cuz i've always wanted to see that movie but because of that below average review it got here, i didnt pick it up. idk, i think i'm gonna buy it. also, i was very happy to see the high def trailers for deja vu and apocalypto on there. i was hoping for sin city but that will come later.

[topoulos]

I loved the movie, it's a great action movie, and has a wonderful score. I hate to break it to everyone, but King Arthur isn't freaking real. There was a guy who the brits want to believe is Arthur ( a legend they concocted to satisfy their need for a missing history ), and the battle at the end is close to a real battle that actually might have happened. Oh well, I don't care, the movie has heart, charm, and excellent set pieces for battle. Remember the battle with the saxons on the ice? loved it. If we really knew more about this supposed Arthur, then maybe I would be angry, but it's not like they pulled a Disney's Pocahontas here. It's just another retelling of a legend, and it's a good one.

[nelll]

This is very sad. I support (for now) HD DVD but I do like the movie.