Seen any good films lately? [3]

I guess it would sort of be like LotR for me; once I get around to accepting it for what it is, I can enjoy it more. Not the same caliber of course, but same principle.

Not the same ex - caliber, you mean?

I know !

I gave it a go. Meh. Arthur never once convinced me he was a king worth so much as a sack of potatoes. Too close to Monty Python without intending to be.- Halfy

Well its close to Pythons Holy Grail because this was one of the major films Python were parodying, so that's to be expected.

As to Arthur I loved how he was portrayed, I loved how his accent when from country yokel to modulated yokel (like politicians still do today) as he grew as King and how his body language utterly altered over the piece from when we first meet him as a lowly squire.
As to proving his worth as King, this one scene alone does it for me, when he is fighting those who reject his claim, I get goosebumps watching it, especially as it follows on from the excellent little scene where Arthur the squire returns from his conversation with Merlin as Arthur who would be King to find his loyal followers waiting, jumps on his horse and declares- "Any man who would be a Knight and follow a King, follow me!"-



Also far and away the best, most interesting Merlin ever put on screen, hands down-







And its supposed to be operatic. Its a deliberate huge scale retelling of Le Mort de Arthur, its legend on film. It should be operatic and theatrical, the tales themselves are.

I can understand someone not liking it, even hating it as much as I can someone like me who loves it, but a 'meh' reaction to it. That I cant fathom at all.

I never see why anyone would follow Arthur. First he's a buffoon, so anyone who follows him simply because he pulls out the sword would be doing so with some massive trepidation. I agree the transformation to king is striking, but doesn't go far enough. I don't see enough depth in the character to inspire devotion. I think Figgs nailed it: he's rather hippyish, but not enough gravitas to be the yogi that the other hippies would follow.

Launcelot filled out his character adequately, but it's a character that has a lot of virtuous naivety. Merlin was interesting but almost comical, which when put against the lightweight Arthur help point out his lack of depth.

Percival's main virtue seemed to be luck and doggedness, not virtue.

All in all, the characters had no weight to them. It was a hippy yarn. Jesus Christ Superstar did it better.

What's up with the youtube?

Seems fine to me.

Not showing up on mine. I wonder why?

switched browsers. Now it's fine.

Flash player issue with you other browser maybe?

yep, but hadn't been a problem in this context before.

I saw a awful film the other day-Die Hard 5, utter rubbish, Bruce Willis didn't even care enough to look bored.

I have to admit to some morbid curiosity here, what did they subtitle this one? Because after Die Harder where do you seriously go?

There was officially no "Die Harder": it was Die Hard 2. Popular usage made it Die Harder.

Damn does that mean no 'Die Even Harder' then?

There's to be a Die Hard 6, after which Willis refused to do more. So there's still hope.

Or perhaps "Die Hardest"?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have to admit to some morbid curiosity here, what did they subtitle this one? Because after Die Harder where do you seriously go?

Wait for it...'A Good Day To Die Hard' (kinda ironic since most of the action scenes took place at night, and Willis is basically a very slow, wrinkly terminator by the 5th film), the 4th film was called 'Live Free or Die Hard' (in the UK Die Hard 4.0). I sincerely hope the 6th film doesn't happen, mostly because I know I'll still feel obliged to watch it at some point.

I just cant make up my mind over which of those two subtitles are the worst. Its melting my brain trying to decide so appalling are they in every way from grammar to common sense!

Does the sentence "Die hard." make any semantic sense though?