~~~~Healing Vibes for RLP!!~~~~ I've never broken any bones and as far as I can remember, no one in my immediate family has, either.
I shall be interested in hearing DR George's views re Arthur. From what I have seen (and heard from the dialogue) I have no intention of seeing this version of the legend.
I still prefer "The Mists Of Avalon" to all other films about the subject matter. "The Sword In The Stone" is still a favourite and the last few minutes of "Camelot" make the journey worthwhile.
Well, I've never read "The Mists of Avalon" so I don't know that version of the story. I haven't actually seen the movie "Camelot" all the way through and the stage musical was the only show that I didn't know of before I did it, but didn't like afterwards. Good score, but I just didn't like the show.
About "King Arthur," the movie: I didn't really like it, either. Well, actually it was okay. Not really bad, but it didn't grab me. It was so melodramatic and for some reason, that bothered me in this movie. I know it's not supposed to be a documentary, but things like Guenevere's outfit near the end when she was all painted in blue and wearing the straps for a top really made me lose interest. Now if Arthur or Lancelot wore the straps,
then I might have remained interested...but that would've been a different story.
Anyway, I've always wondered (but never did any research into) what the true historical version of King Arthur was and I certainly didn't mind that it was so different than the musical/legend
Camelot version, but the endless underscoring and the Enya-like songs seem so cliché anymore. The
very accurate shooting of the arrows by the good guys and the marching armies just made me think of the "Lord of the Rings" movies. My niece has now seen it twice and she really likes it, as did Ebert and Roeper. And I know that a lot of other people do like it as well, and that's fine, but I just don't think that I'll need to see it again.