?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

It would seem that whoever wrote the screenplay to King Arthur has some issues with the Church or the Christian religion, even. There is no record that I'm aware of of any pagans ever being tortured and walled up by fanatical priests anywhere within the Roman Empire -- but poetic licence and all that... Still, in a film that starts off with a message that it's based on new archaeological evidence having recently come to light, it is a glaring inconsistency to paint the Pope as the de facto commander-in-chief of the Roman auxiliary army. Up until the very last minute of the Empire, Rome's armies received their orders from the Senate and people of Rome. Granted, that Senate and people of Rome had been reduced to a gaggle of yesmen by the time Romulus Augustulus was invested with the purple, and the Emperor himself did not have any power seeing as he was only a child, but the Bishop of Rome certainly never had any say over the deployment of troops in any part of the crumbling Empire.

Keira Knightley's hand healed right quickly, too...

Still, that Clive Owen...he's a bit of alright.

Tags:

Comments

sanda56
Feb. 5th, 2005 11:54 am (UTC)
"Total rubbish, but the ice cream was good"

You watched "The Curious House-guest" didn't you? That was what one the actual runners from "Chariots of Fire" said when he saw the film. I really like that program, it's quirky and appeals to my sense of snobbery. ;)

I'll make a note not to see "King Arthur". *nods*
gamiila
Feb. 5th, 2005 02:04 pm (UTC)
You watched "The Curious House-guest" didn't you? That was what one the actual runners from "Chariots of Fire" said when he saw the film.

Yup. Lord Burghley, when asked what he thought of the film that chronicled his famous run against the clock. I thought it summed up nicely what I thought of the film I'd just seen. Wondered if someone would get the reference ;-).

And i like The Curious Houseguest</> for exactly the same reason you do!