King Arthur Full Movie Hindi Download >>> http://urllio.com/r0efb

Original Title: King Arthur

Genge: Action,Adventure,Drama,History,War

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This original portrayal of "Arthur", as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale in past Arthur films, uses names and other elements from the traditional, medieval, Catholic Arthurian cycle in a very different, yet historically less implausible, almost realistic plot. Around 400 AD, the Roman empire, stretched across many nations, from Arabia to Britain, collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries. The conquering Romans become impressed with the weaponry and fighting skills of the warrior Sarmatian people, which have to send their sons to serve Rome fifteen years in the cavalry before these knights may return home. Arthur is Artorius Castus, whose future Knights of the Round Table, eager to achieve their freedom, are charged by bishop Germanius with one final task before their discharge: a Roman estate tyrant and his family, especially adolescent son Alecto, who is selected for a great future in Rome, must be rescued thereto from the invading Saxons, whose ruthless warrior-king orders his conquering tribal army to pillage and burn entire villages down. But there is another danger lurking on the road to freedom - the Woads, Celtic Britton rebels who hate the Romans, lead by the 'magician' Merlin, who however realizes Rome is no longer the main threat and offers Artorius a novel alliance after sparing his life in an ambush.
Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.
I found this film believable and the events could have actually happened but it was also lifeless.

Its a far cry from Magic wizards and knights in highly polished armour living in the princess castle. There were moments in the film that i found Good like the scene on the Iced up Lake and the Final Battle. I'm not big action fan but these were quite atmospheric. This is something that Bruckheimer does quite well, what Bruckheimer also usually does well is character building and in this film he and Fuqua kind of fail. I felt no emotional attachment to any of the knights although I wanted too.

Arthur was a bit lifeless although his motives were good and you felt an emotional attachment to them but not him. I liked Bors ( Ray Winstone ) and found his character the most interesting but we found out more about him ( he had a wife and kids e.t.c ) He also had character. There was the knight who was good with the knives who i found interesting near the end but knew little about him and he hardly said much. Guinavere was a cool character but should have been played by someone else, I like Kiera Knightly but she is far too skinny and wimpy to play the role of this version of Guinevere she would have been more suited to the other version of Guinevere. Having said that she did the best job that i think she could have done. On to Lancelot was he actually in the film, well not that you would have noticed much. Again his character was not really introduced or explored, as far as i'm concerned he was just another of the knights.

The other thing i found confusing was the overwhelming ambition of the knights to get back home after they're service to Rome was fulfilled. After 20 odd years of living in Britain and even settling there why would they feel the need to go back home to a place that they left when they were boys. It must have been the weather.

I think Bruckheimer has gone for a different approach to the film and tried to make things a bit more real and a bit more dark and dingy to make his effort stand out from previous incarnations of the tale. It might have worked a bit better if we could have got to know the characters a bit better.

Story - Interesting but not gripping you already know most of the story anyway and slightly un-entertaining. The middle section of the film is a little morose and long winded. Acting - Not Bad could have been better if they had more to go with. I think Clive Owen was told to be as uninteresting as possible. Set and Location - Ye Olde England, was dark and dismal in most parts just like the real thing Overall - 5 I found it slightly interesting and atmospheric but un-entertaining, unemotional and a bit drab. I like the idea of retelling the Arthur myth leaving out the magic and derring-do and making Arthur and his knights into a band of brothers on the fringe of the Roman army, but this film is so bad its laughable. The Saxons did not invade north of Hadrian's Wall. The Romans didn't settle north of it either. Hadrian's Wall runs across the country well south of Scotland, so where were these mountains they were travelling through? It looked more like the Alps than the Southern Uplands - rolling hills in southern Scotland. What on earth was that little stone circle on the coast? Was that supposed to be Tintagel? Surely not Stonehenge?! It looked like the Stonehenge out of Spinal Tap. Terrible load of old rubbish
Too long and too full of itself to offer more than a few fleeting moments of entertainment. It doesn't take long for tediousness to triumph.
here[/link]]

According to Antoine Fuqua, the decision to call the Picts Woads was taken by Disney executives, as they didn't like the name Pict and told David Franzoni to come up with something snappier. As such, the fact is that although there were no such people as the Woads, they are supposed to understood as Picts. However, herein lies the error. In Commentarii de Bello Gallico (c.40-50 B.C.), Julius Caesar wrote of the Picts "Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem", which translates as "All the British colour themselves with glass, which produces a blue colour." This has traditionally been interpreted as meaning that the Picts used the woad plant (binomial name: Isatis tinctoria) to colour themselves prior to battle, as the woad produces a blue dye. However, most modern scholarship believes this interpretation of Ceasar is inaccurate, and instead, it is thought that they most likely painted themselves with some form of copper ink. (See here for a discussion of the woad plant as used by the Picts.) Creating a group of people who never existed (ie the Woads) is, in and of itself, not an error, but a conscious choice on the part of the filmmakers. However, the name itself is based on a very traditional, and now somewhat outdated, interpretation of a vague comment in an ancient text, and most major scholars of the period dismiss it. As such, this error again seems due to inadequate research on the part of David Franzoni and/or poor advice on the part of John Matthews. Effectively, the Picts of the film are called after a plant that they probably didn't use to colour themselves.

• The Picts [Woads] are shown operating very close to Hadrian's Wall, when in fact they never came that far south. Generally speaking, the furthest south they came was Antonine Wall in the Central Belt of Scotland. Whilst this error could be attributed to the demands of the plot (the final battle being fought at Hadrian's Wall necessitates the Woads being there, which creates an historical error by necessity), it could just as easily be attributed to inadequate historical research on the part of the filmmakers, and as with the issue of the Saxons invading from the wrong end of the country (see below), the plot could easily have been restructured to facilitate historical accuracy.

• The knights often speak about wanting to return home to Sarmatia. However, by the time of the film, Sarmatia had ceased to exist as a nation. By 467, Sarmatia had been conquered by the Huns and her people rendered subservient. One group of dispossessed Sarmatians, the Alans, invaded Spain with the Visigoths. Many others followed the Huns into Europe and settled in modern Hungary. Some joined the Roman army. Others remained where they were and were absorbed into the Hun population. Again, this inaccuracy can probably be excused as a narrative device. The knights are Sarmatians, and their overriding goal is to return home, even though, historically speaking, that home no longer exists. The use of Sarmatia as an image of home serves to elicit audience sympathy and to give the characters a very definite and definable goal, so again, one assumes the filmmakers chose to ignore the historical inaccuracy for the purposes of narrative expediency.

• The final mission for the knights involves them travelling north of Hadrian's Wall to rescue the family of the Pope's godchild, Alecto. However, as the film correctly establishes, there were no Romans north of the wall, thus creating both a sizeable historical error and a major plot hole (or continuity error, depending on your perspective). Germanus tells Arthur that the mission comes directly from the Pope, and later, Marius tells Arthur that the Pope granted his family the land on which his villa is built. However, if the family is so important to the Pope, why would he give them land beyond the furthest reaches of the Empire's most remote territory, devoid of any protection and surrounded by hostile natives? Due to the plot hole it creates within the film itself, this error can only be attributed to very careless writing on the part of David Franzoni.

• When threatening Germanus before going on the final mission, Arthur says that no "papal army" will be able to stop him if Germanus betrays him. He's correct, but probably not the way the filmmakers intended. A papal army wouldn't have been able to stop him because papal armies didn't exist in the 5th century; the first papal army was raised by Pope Gregory VI in 1046 in anticipation of the arrival in Rome of Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III. Henry had been summoned to Rome by members of the clergy to mediate a bitter dispute between Gregory, former pope Benedict IX and Sylvester III, who claimed to be the real pope and who had brought about the abdication of Benedict. The army was never called into action, as the dispute was settled by Henry, with Gregory stepping down and being replaced by Clement II. This anachronism is difficult to attribute to anything other than careless writing/research on the part of David Franzoni.

• The Saxons are seen invading from the north, meaning they landed somewhere on the eastern coast of modern day Scotland and then travelled south to modern day England. In reality, however, the Saxons invaded from the south; they arrived first in Kent on the south-eastern coast. To have landed in the north and travelled south by foot would make little sense, as they would have to traverse a series of fortifications (such as Antonine Wall and Hadrian's Wall) after marching for days on end. By landing in the south, they were not only nearer the centres of power, they could avoid any obstacles. Whilst it could be argued that the invasion from the north was necessary for the plot, so as to create tension as to whether or not Arthur could complete his mission before the arrival of the Saxons, it seems more likely that this error arose due to careless historical research; the plot could easily have been written to accommodate the historical fact that the Saxons came initially into Britain from the south.

• During their passage through Britain, Cerdic stops a warrior from raping a woman because he claims it would dilute their pure Saxon blood. However, Cerdic is a Celtic name, not a Germanic name, probably derivative from the name Ceretic, suggesting that miscegenation has already taken place between the two races. There are two primary theories as to this naming anomaly; firstly, his father was Saxon, his mother British, and he was simply given a name of his mother's people; secondly, Cerdic himself was a Briton, meaning that the record of his invasion of Britain contained in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle must be false. Whatever the case about Cerdic himself however, both historic and genetic evidence suggests that the Saxons mixed extensively with the Britons almost as soon as they first arrived. This error is difficult to attribute to anything other than poor research on the part of the filmmakers. Whilst the scene itself obviously functions to characterise Cerdic as proud of his heritage, but also cruel and callous, the filmmakers seem to have chosen the wrong way to illustrate this. Having a character whose very name provides evidence of interracial breeding preach about the evils of interracial breeding makes little sense. Either the filmmakers were unaware of the origins of his name, or they simply ignored it.

• During the Battle of Mons Badonicus at the end of the film, Guinevere's barely-there warrior costume is very anachronistic; clothes such as she wears during the battle simply didn't exist at the time. One would assume that the costume department were aware of this, and the costume was chosen for, ahem, aesthetic reasons.

• The traitor (Alan Devine) hides outside Hadrian's Wall in a Horse Chestnut tree. Horse Chestnut trees were not introduced into Britain until the mid 16th century. This error can be due to nothing but lack of research and inattention to detail.

• The weaponry used throughout the film has provoked much dialogue as to its authenticity, or lack thereof, and numerous historical inaccuracies have been cited regarding virtually every weapon seen in the film. The next few points represent a small sample of the discussion.

(1) The Woads are seen using counterweight trebuchets to hurl flaming missiles at the Saxons. The counterweight trebuchet was an advancement of the traction trebuchet, which was invented in China in the early 5th century and spread to Byzantium in the late 6th century. The counterweight trebuchet seems to have been invented in Byzantium in the mid 12th century; there is no record of its usage prior to 1165, and there is no evidence of its use in Britain prior to the Siege of Dover in 1216, some 700 hundred years after the time of the movie. This error can be attributed to nothing other than very poor research; the aesthetics of the film (trebuchets look pretty cool) apparently overriding any sense of historical authenticity.

(2) When the knights are travelling through the forest on their way north, the Woads block them in using modified strips of a barbed wire type material. However, the extrusion technology necessary to produce barbed wire (and any derivatives thereof) was not invented until 1865, in the American west, and patented by Joseph Glidden in 1873. As with the trebuchets, this error again seems attributable only to very poor factual research; using a weapon that would not be invented for over 1400 years.

(3) The Saxons are shown using crossbows whereas there is no physical evidence whatsoever that crossbows were a part of their arsenal. Although the ancient Greeks used rudimentary crossbows (called gastraphetes), as did the Romans (called manuballistae; a portable version of the siege weapons cheiroballistrae), and, possibly, the Picts themselves (crossbow-like weapons are depicted on several carved stones of the era), there is no evidence that they were used by the Saxons, and certainly not as commonly as shown in the film. Crossbows only became a major feature of warfare in Europe in the 11th century, and even then, only relatively advanced armies used them. The argument could be made that because the Romans (and possibly the Picts) had crossbows, the Saxons could have acquired them and duplicated the technology. Whilst this is a possibility, the film depicts virtually every Saxon warrior armed with a crossbow. If crossbows were that commonly used by Saxon armies, evidence would have been found of it. On the contrary however, there has never been a single Saxon crossbow recovered. Once again, this issue seems simply due to lack of historical research, or a blasé attitude about historical factualities, with the filmmakers going for what looks good rather than what actually was.

(4) The swords used by the Roman soldiers in the film are inaccurate for the time period. During the 5th century, all Roman soldiers were armed with spathae. The swords in the film are of a medieval design, which were never used by Roman forces. Again, the answer here is either poor research or a lack of concern about fact.

(5) Tristan uses a Chinese sword called a dao. According to the director's commentary, Tristan thinks of himself as something of a Samurai warrior, wanting only a good death in battle, which would explain why he uses such a weapon. However, it is highly unlikely that a Roman soldier from Sarmatia, who is stationed in Britain would ever have come across or somehow gotten access to a dao. This choice was most likely due to character identification; the character is supposed to be a pseudo-samurai, so he needs to be armed with something with which the audience would associate with a traditional samurai; hence the dao. We shall, of course, ignore Fuqua's error in claiming that a Chinese sword is an appropriate weapon for a Japanese archetype. The answer to this question is simple; according to Antoine Fuqua,

It's much more reality-based as opposed to the fantasy. It excited me because it's King Arthur as you've never seen him before. What appealed to me was that it was based on a sense of a reality. There was historical research done and there were some facts we found that we didn't know before. It's thrilling to discover that there is this hero that you grew up with who actually really existed.

In a more ideological sense, Fuqua has also stated, "I wanted the movie to be about King Arthur and not about a magical sword, because I think, in these times, we need real heroes" (quoted here). This comment identifies a political motif in the film which suggests perhaps a motive for many of the changes to the legend, other than simply presenting a new spin on an old myth.

This political strand was commented on by many critics upon the release of the movie. For example, in his UK Times article, "He was a Dark and Stormy Knight", Stewart Lee wrote,Like all good mythical heroes, King Arthur is all things to all men. For the poets of the Middle Ages, his legend provided the perfect empty vessel into which to pour the ideals of "courtly love". For Henry II, who attempted to legitimise his own rule via Arthurian precedents established in Geoffrey of Monmouth's semi-spurious Historia Regum Britanniae, Arthur was a political propaganda tool. For the monks of Glastonbury Abbey, who fabricated Arthur's tomb sometime in the late 12th century with an eye on box-office receipts of their own, Arthur was a money-spinning tourist attraction.

a5c7b9f00b

Paint Your Teeth: An Introduction to the Tokyo Underground 720p tor...
Back to the Future: The Game - 30th Anniversary Edition movie mp4 d...
download AkaKILL! Theater: 5th Elimination - Glasses
Episode 1.166 full movie hd download
Fortress movie in tamil dubbed download
Kalyug movie mp4 download
Shelter 2 movie download in hd
Durchbruch in hindi free download
Orgy Beach Party full movie hd 1080p download kickass movie
Sky Devils malayalam full movie free download