>we are never ever going to get a decent Arthurian movie depicting

>>84531190
/thread

>>84531157
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfh0pIAG38

>>84531190
Too much cheese
Nicol Williamson seemed to be high as a kite through the whole thing

File: 1439244780531.jpg (789KB, 2760x2717px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 2760x2717px

>>84531190
is it pleb that this is my #1 favorite film of all time?

>>84531249
Myths are cheesy

>>84531286
It is excellent visually
But the story and plot and dialogue and characterisation needed a lot more work by a better writer before they began filming

>>84531249
It was supposed to be cheesy, it worked tone into the narrative, the performances gradually got more subdued over the course of the film

>>84531471
>But the story and plot and dialogue and characterisation needed a lot more work by a better writer before they began filming

m8

>"I was not born to live a man's life, but to be the stuff of future memory. The fellowship of the Round Table was a brief beginning, a fair time that cannot be forgotten. And because it will not be forgotten, that fair time may come again. Now once more I must ride with my knights to defend what was, and the dream of what could be...I have often thought that in the hereafter of our lives, when I owe no more to the future and can be...just a man, that we may meet, and you will come to me and claim me as yours, and know that I am your husband. It is a dream I have."

es gold

>>84531157

You do realise that the historical myth of Arthur is placed at 400-500 AD?

The pic you posted is 15-16th century ceremonial armor.

>>84531571
>Reviews were mixed. Widely hailed for its visuals, setting and overall design, other elements such as the story and performances some critics found wanting. Roger Ebert, for instance, called it both a "wondrous vision" and "a mess."[4] Elaborating further, Ebert said the film was "a record of the comings and goings of arbitrary, inconsistent, shadowy figures who are not heroes but simply giants run amok. Still, it's wonderful to look at." Vincent Canby was more critical, saying that while Boorman took Arthurian myths seriously, "he has used them with a pretentiousness that obscures his vision."[19] In her review in The New Yorker, Pauline Kael said the film had its own "crazy integrity", adding that the imagery was "impassioned" with a "hypnotic quality". According to her, the dialogue, however, was "near-atrocious". She concluded by saying that "Excalibur is all images flashing by... We miss the dramatic intensity that we expect the stories to have, but there's always something to look at."[20]

>>84531607
>either the Medieval myth or the Dark Age historical

Did you know they found his coffin, it was an oak trunk hollowed out and cut in two, at Glastonbury Abby in the 12th century?

Did you know that in the Dark Ages the region of Glastonbury - that is its later Anglo-Saxon name incidentally, it refers to the glass making that went on there - was originally marshland and rivers, it was later dammed and drained, and originally its many hills were islands in this wetland and the hills were well known for their apple growing.

And did you know one interpretation of Avalon is apple isle.

>>84531249
>Arthurian myth
>made in the 80's
>"too much cheese"
Would you rather everyone loaf around throwing quips at each other with all the luster of Tommy Chong in an opium den?

"Cheese" was some shit cooked up by yuppies to spite their suburban parents and it backfired horribly. There is nothing wrong with cheesiness if you actually let yourself get inspired.

>>84531653
>critics
fuck 'em

>>84531286
not at all m8. you have good taste. just wish it was a trilogy or at least a two parter because the third act feels too rushed. amazing visuals too btw