Description

King Arthur the Extended Unrated Director's Cut contains fourteen minutes of never-before-seen footage, including more intense battle sequences and the scenes "Rain and Snow" and "Saxons Surrounded." Bonus Features

• Alternate Ending "Badon Hill" With Optional Director Commentary
• Blood On The Land: Forging King Arthur
• Cast And Filmmaker Round Table
• Director Commentary
• "Knight Vision" Trivia Track
• Producer's Photo Gallery
• Konami's King Arthur Playable Xbox Demo ... Read more

Reviews (77)

This legend just didn't live up to itself
This movie was yet another retelling of the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. It had an unusual angle to the familiar story, and a lot of potential that I believe it just didn't live up to. But wait, isn't this a kind of foolproof, proven winner? Well...

What I liked:
it was a grittier, more historically plausible interpretation of the King Arthur legend than anything filmed before. The chaos of the battle scenes was nicely done. There was nothing mystical or magical mixed up in there. The main characters were very flawed humans with their own stories: Merlin was a prominent leader, perhaps a Druid, but not a wizard; Arthur was a conflicted half-British, half-Roman noble who learned egalitarian values and cared deeply for his pagan comrades; and all the knights of the Round Table were foreign men eager to leave the service of the Roman Empire once their 15 year tour of duty was up. I was able to appreciate the care that went into researching the likely historical setup for the tale of these renowned "heroes".

What I disliked:
First, there were logistical flaws like wimpy people pulling bows that had 120 lb draw weights, weapons from inconsistent historical periods and countries, the overly done "tough Amazon warrior princess" typing done with Guinevere (it was laughably implausible). That's enough to bother some people, but I can get over that sort of thing if the rest of a movie is pulled off well.

Sadly, King Arthur wasn't pulled off that well overall, and I think it was a problem with the basic story being a bit underwhelming. The biggest (meaning, what took up most of the screenplay) task that these men faced involved not the fate of the nation nor the defeat of great evil, but protecting a small village from a band of marauding Saxons. I just had a hard time caring. You know a film is in trouble when the director has to rely so heavily on the music to convince the audience that there's deep emotion to a scene. Yes, that score was swelling heavily and often, but somehow, I just didn't connect on the visceral level with the dilemmas of Arthur and his knights, or the plight of the oppressed common folk that they were shepherding to Hadrian's Wall. The Arthur/Guinivere/Lancelot romance was halfhearted. Even the "sad" parts involving deaths of good guys didn't grab me, and I normally choke up. I kept wondering, what's missing -- why can't I lose myself in this story?

So this is a valuable lesson to all future filmmakers that may wish to tackle this subject. Perhaps the Arthurian legend does need magic and mystery to carry it successfully on the big screen - after all, if you're going to take on a larger-than-life tradition, your scope had better be larger than life. Otherwise, why bother? You could any number of other documented military campaigns instead. Too much petty realism combined with a too-small plot focus may have been the death of this King Arthur movie.

-Andrea, aka Merribelle

Quite decent upon re-review
As I said I would do, due to negative feedback from a past review, I watched the film again, listened to the soundtrack, and am reading the novelization (I also happened to catch an MSN Video interview from Jerry Bruckheimer in regard to the film).

I have to say, now that I fully understand the context of the film and researching behind the actual Arthurian legend used (the 5th Century, first-account of the legend my a monk whose name I cannot think of now). This was the first account of King Arthur...a King Arthur who at that time had no (full) alliegence to Christianity, since 15th Century re-writing of the legend incorporated Christianity, despite Arthur's alliegence to Rome in the 5th Century

With that all said and done, I can see where the film is coming from. The film does not have anything to do with the very culturally familiar fiction of "Sword And The Stone" or "Merlin" feating Sam Niell, which would cause most of us to scold the film...when we were probably told in our childhood something fictitous and he hold that as the fact. King Arthur has no fiction, no magic, no nothing...it's all the raw legend of the 5th Century...the ORIGINAL story (stilghtly adapted to 21st Century in terms of dialogue et al), since each century had their own version of the story.

This film centers on a period of time when King Arthur, being born in Britian yet showing allegience to Rome, paves the path for his future, and what is now the legend; standing up for what he beleives despite ridicule. The events in the film just happen to be about this one point specifically, and not a whole epic life story as would be expected by the vague title King Arthur.

The music, performed by the brilliant Hans Zimmer, saves some points of the movie I still have issues with. The vivid use of color, lighting, and scene staging helps as well. I still enjoy Keira Kinghtley's acting, and am growing onto Clive Owen a little more, however he still seemed a bit stale for my liking, however it could be all in the part if one considers Arthur is somewhat in dismay and doesn't have true confidence throughout most of the film.

All in all, weighing everything again, I was able to get more out of the film and appreciate it much more and like it much better now that I know the context of the story. However, I suggest that all people in my situation at first watch the MSN Video interview with Jerry Bruckheimer since it helps sort things out and actually brings more to the film which ended up being quite good, however it has a bumpy path toward getting great reviews from people unless they do some research into the film's origins.

King Arthur
Coming off of last year's "Pirates of the Caribbean", Disney's hopes had to be high for Jerry Bruckheimer's supposed factual retelling of the Arthur legend in "King Arthur". Instead, they get something that is hit and miss, no doubt in part to a studio mandated editing that turned a n R-rated violent and bloody movie into a PG-13 family affair.

Arthur (Owen), is presented as Arturius, a commander for the Roman empire. On the brink of gaining freedom for himself and his knights, he rescues Guenivere (Knightley), turns on Rome, and alighns with the Guenivere's people, the Woads. Eventually, this turn will lead to him becoming the ruler of all the Britons.

This movie is filled with action and fighting, but as I mentioned earlier, it has been toned down and sometimes feels choppy. Clive Owen does not have enough screen presence or noteriety to carry the role of Arthur. Kiera Knightley is most likely the only recognizable name in the cast to Americans, and she does not show up until almost halfway through the film. She also seems to be a little too small to be wielding the swords that she does, especially against some very large men. I like the idea of Guenivere being a warrior, but perhaps they should have chosen someone that fits the part.

Perhaps I nitpick too much, but this movie for the most part did little for me. That fault does not lie on any one person's head, and perhaps I will have a different opinion when the R-rated version comes out on DVD, probably this fall.

Imaging a new story for the "real" King Arthur
I am open to reinterpreting classic myths and legends in different settings. For example, it their "Elseworld" stories DC comics has retold the familiar origins of Superman and Batman in different time periods: e.g., Superman arrives in the England of the Dark Ages or Batman in the London of Victorian England. For that matter, "Camelot 3000" has Arthur and the knights of his roundtable reincarnated in the year 3000 in time to save England from an alien invasion. So when "King Arthur" wants to locate the "true story" of Arthur in the last days of the Roman occupation of Brittania I find that to be an intriguing idea.

The Romans had always found this last outpost of the Empire a problematic area: Hadrian's Wall essentially separates the north (Scotland) from the south (England), trying to keep the Woads (Huh? We would get the wrong idea if you called these people the Celts?) on the other side of the barrier. Adding to the incentive to abandon the land is the arrival of the Saxons on the scene who are set on killing everyone and pillaging everything. In such a land, a man who could become a rallying point against the onslaught of barbarism would be worth remembering.

In David Franzoni's script Arthur (Clive Owen) is the son of a Roman officer and a Briton woman. Sent to Rome to be educated he returned as Arturius, commander of a garrison on Hadrian's well. His knights, in a subplot that does come across as a bit forced, are from the land of Sarmatia, far to the west. When their land was defeated the Romans spared their lives, but bound the knights and their male descendants to 15 years of military service. Now that period is up and awaiting their honorable discharges (and safe passage throughout the empire) are the last six of the Sarmatia knights who ride with Arthur: Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Bors (Ray Winstone) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). They just want to go home, but a bishop (Ivano Marescotti) shows up from Rome with one last mission.

The knights go, but it is not for the bishop, because they are all pagans, or for Rome, because they care little for an empire that is abandoning the land their friends died defending, but for Arthur. The only one who does not seem to know that he is a living legend is Arthur himself; or, if he knows, he neither cares nor believes in the stories. But Merlin (Stephen Dillane), the holy man of the Woads respects Arthur as the warrior who can lead men in battle, Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgård) the leader of the Saxons hears Arthur's name everywhere he goes and finds him the rare man worth killing, and young Guinevere (Keira Knightley) has been raised on fairy tales about Arthur and his knights. This film is not about King Arthur as much as it is about how Arthur became king in this reimagining of the tale.

Given the context of this telling of the Arthur story it makes sense that the epic love triangle between Arthur, Guenivere and Lancelot is jettisoned. In many ways that story, which remains the greatest love triangle since it is the husband's wife and best friend, has taken over the Arthurian legend. Director Antoine Fuqua is really going back to the basics, although in a way that will make most Arthurian scholars cringe. In this context I like not only turning Guenivere into a Celtic warrior but also that she advocates Arthur's destiny and is not merely a landed lady worthy of marriage. Besides, there is the nice contrast between Knightley's stately beauty as she fires her arrows and her ferocity as she gets to race across a battle field and win a bunch of sword fights. You get the feeling she was having the most fun of anyone in this film (I waited patiently for Ioan Gruffudd to do something really impressive with his two swords but they never really came up with anything).

What is interesting given the idea that the Knights of the Round Table were the personification of Christian warriors is how the Church is blamed in the film for the downfall of Rome. Arthur is a true believer who has taken the teachings of Christianity to the level of the equality of all human beings, while the only other Christians we see in the film are engaging in torture and slavery. Arthur embodies the best of both Roman and Christian virtues, which makes him a most unique individual, but this film really does some serious retroactive Church bashing.

Yes, there are some problematic elements in this film. No Roman family, let along one with the Pope's favorite godson, is going to be living beyond Hadrian's Wall in Caledonia (Scotland), and I the ending of the sword fight between Arthur and Cerdic is so trite by this point in movie history it is rather insulting to the audience. But on balance this is ambitious effort to tell the "real" story and there the situation is reasonably well thought out (plus working in bits from classic films like "The Seven Samurai" and "Alexander Nevsky"). Most importantly, the actors make it believable, even when they have to proclaim rather pretentious dialogue. The climactic battle scene offers a nice blend of Roman technology and Celtic bravery (I thought the charge of the Woads was a nice representation of the speed of the Celtic attack since they do not bother with armor), and the result, while not a great film, is certainly interesting enough to warrant a look.

LONG LIVE "KING ARTHUR!"
Taken from elements of the Arthurian legend and archeological fact, "King Arthur" is a rousing, action-packed film of gigantic proportions. While some of the revisionistic elements are debatable, director Antoine Fuqua has crafted an entertaining and emotional epic. The characters are perfectly cast, with Clive Owen doing a remarkable job as Artorious Casstus, a man forced to choose between returning to Rome and defending the home of his mother: Britain. Ioan Gruffud is great as Lancelot, and Keira Knightley is beautiful and charming as the revisionist Guinevere, who can love Arthur while still kicking butt as a Woad warrior. Supplemented by a great supporting cast, an amazing score by Hans Zimmer, and an excellent recreation of the battle of Baden Hill, "King Arthur" is one heck of an adventure story. Any fan of historical epics, and students of the Arthurian legend, will not want to miss "King Arthur!" Grade: A+ ... Read more

Reviews (447)

A Micraculously Provocative Must-See Cautionary Tale
Antoine Fuqua's (The Replacement Killers) exasperatingly intense, masterly evocative,
and grandly psychologically accosting crime police thriller Training Day starring
Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke, Scott Glenn, Macy Gray, and Snopp Doggy Dogg
commences by imprinting on the viewer an all-together familiar seedy crime melodrama.
Then this seemingly recycled cop movie equation summarily becomes estranged
from all of the genre's pre-conceived formulas, conventions, and clichés and
zestfully thrusts its audience into a Pulp Fiction-esque Twilight Zone of infinite
unknowns.

Overtly intense it may be, Training Day's so-called excesses are absolutely necessary to this film's shockingly disquieting view of modern law-enforcement and societal factors. Brimming full of the morally deplorable, tumultuously volatile, and authentically immediate sights and sounds that at first may resonate as a typical wam bam thriller, Training Day intellectually reaps a ground-braking resourcefulness that consistently curtails the audience from comprehending its inner plot points too quickly or becoming aware of it's character predestined paths before they develop into view. Though the film does provide us with ample evidence to it's character's interior inner workings, Training Day continues to creativity and tirelessly redefine it's identity so often and so cleverly that any first-time viewer can't help but be consciously blown away by it's narrative, radically stunned by it's story-telling audacity, or emotionally bewildered by it's cultural implications. It remains a testament to this film's resiliency that it persists in haunting you so long after it concludes spinning web of intrigue.

Dominantly at the artistic center of this vivaciously riveting crime tale, Denzel
Washington blazes open, with one decisively unforgettably potent character,
an entirely new occupational direction for the once cinematically pure leading
good guy. In an unexpected melee of acting bravado, Washington almost appears
to be inordinately possessed with this character that is so aesthetically and
dramatically powerful that you almost forget Washington is playing it.

In a blisteringly radiant gem of a performance that should earn him an Academy
-Award nomination, Denzel plays L.A.P.D. Narcotics veteran Alonzo Harris who
in the course of a single day trains and enlightens 19-month rookie cop Jake
Hoyt (Ethan Hawke) in the increasingly sinister underbelly of drug policing
in Los Angeles. Harris initiates Boyt upon the mandatory necessity of protecting
the tax-paying sheep (the citizens) from the Narcotic predators by becoming
predators themselves. Alonzo sanctifies these views by lulling Hoyt into believing
that his skeptical pessimism is an indispensable requisite of becoming an undercover
cop, and with this premise the audience's unfathomable descent into inconceivable
darkness begins.

Encased with incredibly edgy supporting performances, invariably claustrophobic
locales, an charismatically haphazardly enticing plot, many subtly thrilling
story eccentricities, and a superbly larger than life leading performance by
Denzel Washington, Training Day transcends it's source genre to pose generally
unsettling questions with such relish and audaciousness that it still should
remain as fresh and relevant fifteen years from now.

As for Training Day's upcoming DVD edition, hopefully it will include a descent
anmorphic widescreen presentation, an Antoine Faqua commentary track, deleted
scenes, and several other fine materials to go along with such a fabulous film.

P.S. Always Pick Up a Rape Victim's Wallet

Reality Bites
Denzel Washington should be a lock for at least an Academy Award nomination as best actor in 2001 for his totally heartfelt, violent and over the top performance as a corrupt Los Angeles police narcotics officer. It's obvious that the LAPD is less than thrilled with this movie which is an amalgam of all the scandals which have rocked the department; i.e. Rodney King, 'Ramparts' for starters. Despite the potential difficulty in putting together a coherent tale the director has done his job with a film which holds the viewers' interest from the rising sun to the final scene early the next day.

The supporting cast is outstanding with Ethan Hawke, Snoop Dog, Dr. Dre, Scott Glenn and others providing excellent back up to Denzel as he glides through one day and night in the life of an LA narcotics officer.

Seeing this film twice let me appreciate all the more how well acted is the role played by Denzel. He is philosophical, violent, humorous, practical, political and, at all times, wise to the ways of the street. Ethan Hawke is marvelous as his 'rookie'and meshes very well with his more senior counterpart, Denzel Washington.

The only reason Denzel may not receive the major kudos he deserves for this role is that in today's hyper-patriotic, support the law enforcement climate, this downbeat look at the cops may not be deemed politically correct even as it is spot on.

I hated this movie
I first of all am not a Denzel Washington fan. So my review is a little biase in the sense that I went in thinking this movie was going to be bad....and boy was it. I first want to say that Denzel Washington is a good actor he just doesn't do anything for me. I thought this movie was waaaayyyy over the top unrealistic and I could not in good consious recommend it. For one thing all the singers and rappers in the movie who can't act took away from any beliveable scenario. Ethan Hawkes character was such a wimp he had literally no back bone. Every "bad" thing that Denzels character wanted him to do he did it. I think this is one of the worse movies I ever seen. And the ending who didn't see that coming a mile away.

The "Wolf" of Action Films...
...is what you can call Training Day, the distrubing police epic starring Denzel Washington in an Oscar-winning performance.
Denzel stars as Alonzo, a very corrupt cop playing both sides of the law. He doesn't resort to evidence, or jurys, or interrogations. He just packs brutal violence into his brand of law-making.
Training day is about a young cop's training day, a day that will test if he is good enough material that can become an infamous narcotic officer. His mentor, and mental abuser, is Alonzo. During the day Alonzo sets Jake(Ethan Hawke)up, holds a gun to his head and forces him to use narcotics that destroy his mind, and he makes him assist in murder and robbery. Alonzo teses him, plays with his mind, and puts jake way over his boiling point.
In the end, Alonzo ditches Jake with a gang of Mexican hitmen, leaves him for dead, and goes back to his wife(Eva Mendes) and their son.
Jake finds Alonzo, chases him to a rooftop, and they battle for control over Alonzo's ground. It is a climatic battle of "mentor" and "student".
Training Day is brutal and disturbing to watch and digest. It will certainly make you think about the NARC squad, and will leave you feeling different than when you came in.

Overall Good
The acting is supurb by all, especially Denzel. I had some qualms about the type of character he played in order to get the statue, but actually seeing the movie put all that on the backburner. This film is not as cookie-cutter predictable as most cop dramas and in fact I was left honestly waiting to see what would happen next. There was a point where I felt the movie was dragging, but when the credits rolled I didn't feel at all cheated of my time or money. ... Read more

Reviews (203)

Nigeria's Bitter Tears
TEARS OF THE SUN starts out as an actioner for star Bruce Willis, but soon morphs into an introspective soul-searching film that disguises itself in a series of bloody jungle ambushes. Director Antoine Fuqua presents an image of Africa that has become increasingly commonplace in the media, a continent rent with tribal internicene warfare that degenerates into genocidic ethnic cleansing. Fuqua chooses Nigeria as the background for some truly horrific tribal slaughtering. The elected president, his cabinet, and his family have all been executed by advancing rebels who do not pause to kill anyone found in their path. Monica Belluci is Doctor Lena, a good-hearted woman who chooses to tend to the suffering of a tormented population. With her is a priest, Father Gianni (Pierrino Mascarino) and a nun Sister Grace (Fionnula Flanagan), all of whom choose to remain in harm's way rather than abandon some 70 wounded natives. Enter Bruce Willis as Lt. A. K. Waters, who is ordered to enter Nigeria with his Special Ops team to extricate only Doctor Lena. Waters and his team find Doctor Lena, but she refuses to go with them unless her 70 wounded can go too. Most reluctantly, Waters agrees to this change of orders. Until this point, Waters is a strictly by the book officer, one who regards this war, this country, and its natives as irrelevant to his mission. But he cannot close his eyes to the ubiquitous suffering to which he has a ringside seat. He surprises Doctor Lena, and probably himself as well, by making a genuine effort to extricate the entire group of helpless natives.

TEARS OF THE SUN is a violent film filled with both disturbing images of jungle battle and the even more malific glimpse into the depths of sadism and inhumanity that seemingly reside within the collective breasts of all the rebel commanders. Malick Bowens as rebel Colonel Sadick is especially convincing as one who is as equally determined as is Lt. Waters to complete his own mission but allows not his conscience to bother him in the least. To Colonel Sadick, natives of his own country, but of a different tribe, are disposable people. As a moral counterbalance to Sadick, Sammi Rotibi as Arthur Azuka, the son of the slain president, is the reincarnated collective soul of his bitterly abused people, most of whom see in him the restored dignity of a once proud Nigeria. TEARS OF THE SUN suggests that the evil and insanity of ethnic cleansing is a moral disease that, far from being an epidemic, afflicts only those who are predisposed to violence. Lt. Waters and Arthur Azuka remind the audience that for good to triumph, brave men must show their bravery, not to an armed enemy wearing a different uniform, but more to their own kind ordering them to commit acts that differ from those of the rebels more in degree than in kind. The tears of the son that are being shed for his people are constant reminders that this sort of bravery cannot be assumed to exist in any great quantity.

Not bad, but it just didn't do it for me
You can't really call "Tears of the Sun" a bad movie. By any account it's certainly a decent action war movie, and I enjoyed it. Where "Tears of the Sun" fails to succeed is in it's somewhat one-dimensional and shallow aproach at including policical and social messages, and in it's seeming impotence at crossing the lines from mediocrity to greatness.

The plot is pretty much a no brainer that gets set up right from the get-go. The Democratic government in Nigeria gets ousted by a military coup and rebel forces execute the presidential family and begin an genocidal killing spree, killing christians and rival tribes. Bruce willis and his small special forces team is sent to to find and evacuate several US Citizens, including a doctor working at a christian mission. The doctor wont leave without her patients, and so Willis and his team agree to escort the people to the Cameroon border. Of course they are followed by the rebels the whole way and are grossly outnumbered and it becomes a race to get to the border and to safety before they are completely over run.

Not exactly full of surprises and not much food for thought. of course there is the initial lie/double cross, and then the classic (not to mention very cliche) moment where our heroes grow a conscience after witnessing the horrors and extent of ethnic cleansing that is taking place and decide to help the people as thier way of making amens with thier own guilty consciences. other than this there is little to talk about plot-wise.

The acting is pretty good, although it varies throughout. Willis himself does a very good job playing his charcter though other than him and the doctor none of the characters grew on me. The setting is great, and the shots of the african landscape were very nice. For being an action war movie, "Tears of the Sun" offered only sporadic action until the climatic battle at the end which was mildy impressing, though nothing you havent scene before.

There is a constant attempt throughout the movie to bring attention to the brutality the ethnic cleansing that occurs in Africa that most americans are unaware of. We hear about bosnia, kosovo, but not so much about the many war torn regions in africa many of which are subject to constant guerilla warfare, famine, tribal clashes, and civil wars. The current attention being given to the situation in Sudan is very similar to what is shown in the movie. The look we are given however, although sad and mildly graphic, is a little one dimensional, and doesnt really explore the complexity of the political, ethnic, and religious angles of african conflicts. instead this is all reduced to "good guys vs bad guy" with the US as the good guys who sit idley by of course. I think many people will wish that the movie had a more realistic and more complete look at this angle of the plot rather than just showin "a bunch of rebel guys in red hats who run around killing all the christians and guys from the other tibes".

Other than that there is an overwhelming lack of depth and substance to the movie. Character development was underdone and there just arent many layers beyond what you see on the surface. And what is on the surface, though not bad, is not spectacular either. While I liked the movie over all, it just didnt have enough meat to it I felt. There were times I would just feel like something I couldnt put my finger on was missing to this one.

"Tears of the sun" does win points however for atleast trying to shed some public light to the attrocities in africa that most of the world lives happily ignorant to. It also serves as an effective, and enjoyable military action movie that is hard to hate but impossible to love.

One-dimensional but...
I really have quite ambivalent felings about this movie. From one hand, it's full of cliches and very simpleminded. You pretty much know what will happen, a lot of things are overdramatized (not the scenes of atrocities though). The acting is mediocre but it's not a problem of actors but rather of a bad script. On the other hand, the scenes of atrocities in the movie (somewhere in Africa - Sudan comes right away to mind) make people to realize that such terrible things are really happening today. It did really resonate through probably some shock - at least that's the way I feel. And who knows, maybe a simplemindness of this movie helps to deliver the message. I would give one star for cinematographic qualities and five stars for revealing the problem and showing disasters really happening in the world today.

DOA Near the End....
Rent it when you've seen the better combat stories. Well I had high hopes for this one at the theater, and the first half was good enough. Then on the second half the whole "reality" of the movie fell through. If you ever read any real SEAL stories you will wonder what happened at the end. Bad tactics, bad acting, and just poor story. They all died about the start of the "big battle", somehow walking out in the B-movie end. Total science fiction. Sorry, that was just too much. And Why? No one to write a realistic script? Ran out of ideas? What a waste for the budget and huge effort. Thats my take. BlackHawk down Was a good movie though!

Tears for Humanity
Bravo to the filmakers for making this movie based on the plights of many war torn countries in Africa. This film exposes some of the atrocities faced by Africans, genocide, rape, torture, mass graves and the list only grows. A very necessary exposure for the world as it sits back and watches a great nation destroyed.

The direction is excellent, war scenes mixed with touches of humanity and nature giving a sense of what people are fighting over. Some of the acting is a bit overdone, but then what other reason is there to watch a Bruce Willis movie? The most touching scenes are unfortunately the most brutal, the slaughter of towns, the piles of dead bodies, innocents pleading for life and the factual account of women being raped by militias who "de-breast" them so that future generations are deprived of something as simple as a mother's milk.

I highly recommend this film for the horror it provokes and try to imagine the nations of Africa pleading for their lives while our fat and happy nation only fights for oil. Shouldn't war be about saving lives? This movie says it all....the right way. ... Read more

Reviews (77)

This legend just didn't live up to itself
This movie was yet another retelling of the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. It had an unusual angle to the familiar story, and a lot of potential that I believe it just didn't live up to. But wait, isn't this a kind of foolproof, proven winner? Well...

What I liked:
it was a grittier, more historically plausible interpretation of the King Arthur legend than anything filmed before. The chaos of the battle scenes was nicely done. There was nothing mystical or magical mixed up in there. The main characters were very flawed humans with their own stories: Merlin was a prominent leader, perhaps a Druid, but not a wizard; Arthur was a conflicted half-British, half-Roman noble who learned egalitarian values and cared deeply for his pagan comrades; and all the knights of the Round Table were foreign men eager to leave the service of the Roman Empire once their 15 year tour of duty was up. I was able to appreciate the care that went into researching the likely historical setup for the tale of these renowned "heroes".

What I disliked:
First, there were logistical flaws like wimpy people pulling bows that had 120 lb draw weights, weapons from inconsistent historical periods and countries, the overly done "tough Amazon warrior princess" typing done with Guinevere (it was laughably implausible). That's enough to bother some people, but I can get over that sort of thing if the rest of a movie is pulled off well.

Sadly, King Arthur wasn't pulled off that well overall, and I think it was a problem with the basic story being a bit underwhelming. The biggest (meaning, what took up most of the screenplay) task that these men faced involved not the fate of the nation nor the defeat of great evil, but protecting a small village from a band of marauding Saxons. I just had a hard time caring. You know a film is in trouble when the director has to rely so heavily on the music to convince the audience that there's deep emotion to a scene. Yes, that score was swelling heavily and often, but somehow, I just didn't connect on the visceral level with the dilemmas of Arthur and his knights, or the plight of the oppressed common folk that they were shepherding to Hadrian's Wall. The Arthur/Guinivere/Lancelot romance was halfhearted. Even the "sad" parts involving deaths of good guys didn't grab me, and I normally choke up. I kept wondering, what's missing -- why can't I lose myself in this story?

So this is a valuable lesson to all future filmmakers that may wish to tackle this subject. Perhaps the Arthurian legend does need magic and mystery to carry it successfully on the big screen - after all, if you're going to take on a larger-than-life tradition, your scope had better be larger than life. Otherwise, why bother? You could any number of other documented military campaigns instead. Too much petty realism combined with a too-small plot focus may have been the death of this King Arthur movie.

-Andrea, aka Merribelle

Quite decent upon re-review
As I said I would do, due to negative feedback from a past review, I watched the film again, listened to the soundtrack, and am reading the novelization (I also happened to catch an MSN Video interview from Jerry Bruckheimer in regard to the film).

I have to say, now that I fully understand the context of the film and researching behind the actual Arthurian legend used (the 5th Century, first-account of the legend my a monk whose name I cannot think of now). This was the first account of King Arthur...a King Arthur who at that time had no (full) alliegence to Christianity, since 15th Century re-writing of the legend incorporated Christianity, despite Arthur's alliegence to Rome in the 5th Century

With that all said and done, I can see where the film is coming from. The film does not have anything to do with the very culturally familiar fiction of "Sword And The Stone" or "Merlin" feating Sam Niell, which would cause most of us to scold the film...when we were probably told in our childhood something fictitous and he hold that as the fact. King Arthur has no fiction, no magic, no nothing...it's all the raw legend of the 5th Century...the ORIGINAL story (stilghtly adapted to 21st Century in terms of dialogue et al), since each century had their own version of the story.

This film centers on a period of time when King Arthur, being born in Britian yet showing allegience to Rome, paves the path for his future, and what is now the legend; standing up for what he beleives despite ridicule. The events in the film just happen to be about this one point specifically, and not a whole epic life story as would be expected by the vague title King Arthur.

The music, performed by the brilliant Hans Zimmer, saves some points of the movie I still have issues with. The vivid use of color, lighting, and scene staging helps as well. I still enjoy Keira Kinghtley's acting, and am growing onto Clive Owen a little more, however he still seemed a bit stale for my liking, however it could be all in the part if one considers Arthur is somewhat in dismay and doesn't have true confidence throughout most of the film.

All in all, weighing everything again, I was able to get more out of the film and appreciate it much more and like it much better now that I know the context of the story. However, I suggest that all people in my situation at first watch the MSN Video interview with Jerry Bruckheimer since it helps sort things out and actually brings more to the film which ended up being quite good, however it has a bumpy path toward getting great reviews from people unless they do some research into the film's origins.

King Arthur
Coming off of last year's "Pirates of the Caribbean", Disney's hopes had to be high for Jerry Bruckheimer's supposed factual retelling of the Arthur legend in "King Arthur". Instead, they get something that is hit and miss, no doubt in part to a studio mandated editing that turned a n R-rated violent and bloody movie into a PG-13 family affair.

Arthur (Owen), is presented as Arturius, a commander for the Roman empire. On the brink of gaining freedom for himself and his knights, he rescues Guenivere (Knightley), turns on Rome, and alighns with the Guenivere's people, the Woads. Eventually, this turn will lead to him becoming the ruler of all the Britons.

This movie is filled with action and fighting, but as I mentioned earlier, it has been toned down and sometimes feels choppy. Clive Owen does not have enough screen presence or noteriety to carry the role of Arthur. Kiera Knightley is most likely the only recognizable name in the cast to Americans, and she does not show up until almost halfway through the film. She also seems to be a little too small to be wielding the swords that she does, especially against some very large men. I like the idea of Guenivere being a warrior, but perhaps they should have chosen someone that fits the part.

Perhaps I nitpick too much, but this movie for the most part did little for me. That fault does not lie on any one person's head, and perhaps I will have a different opinion when the R-rated version comes out on DVD, probably this fall.

Imaging a new story for the "real" King Arthur
I am open to reinterpreting classic myths and legends in different settings. For example, it their "Elseworld" stories DC comics has retold the familiar origins of Superman and Batman in different time periods: e.g., Superman arrives in the England of the Dark Ages or Batman in the London of Victorian England. For that matter, "Camelot 3000" has Arthur and the knights of his roundtable reincarnated in the year 3000 in time to save England from an alien invasion. So when "King Arthur" wants to locate the "true story" of Arthur in the last days of the Roman occupation of Brittania I find that to be an intriguing idea.

The Romans had always found this last outpost of the Empire a problematic area: Hadrian's Wall essentially separates the north (Scotland) from the south (England), trying to keep the Woads (Huh? We would get the wrong idea if you called these people the Celts?) on the other side of the barrier. Adding to the incentive to abandon the land is the arrival of the Saxons on the scene who are set on killing everyone and pillaging everything. In such a land, a man who could become a rallying point against the onslaught of barbarism would be worth remembering.

In David Franzoni's script Arthur (Clive Owen) is the son of a Roman officer and a Briton woman. Sent to Rome to be educated he returned as Arturius, commander of a garrison on Hadrian's well. His knights, in a subplot that does come across as a bit forced, are from the land of Sarmatia, far to the west. When their land was defeated the Romans spared their lives, but bound the knights and their male descendants to 15 years of military service. Now that period is up and awaiting their honorable discharges (and safe passage throughout the empire) are the last six of the Sarmatia knights who ride with Arthur: Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Bors (Ray Winstone) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). They just want to go home, but a bishop (Ivano Marescotti) shows up from Rome with one last mission.

The knights go, but it is not for the bishop, because they are all pagans, or for Rome, because they care little for an empire that is abandoning the land their friends died defending, but for Arthur. The only one who does not seem to know that he is a living legend is Arthur himself; or, if he knows, he neither cares nor believes in the stories. But Merlin (Stephen Dillane), the holy man of the Woads respects Arthur as the warrior who can lead men in battle, Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgård) the leader of the Saxons hears Arthur's name everywhere he goes and finds him the rare man worth killing, and young Guinevere (Keira Knightley) has been raised on fairy tales about Arthur and his knights. This film is not about King Arthur as much as it is about how Arthur became king in this reimagining of the tale.

Given the context of this telling of the Arthur story it makes sense that the epic love triangle between Arthur, Guenivere and Lancelot is jettisoned. In many ways that story, which remains the greatest love triangle since it is the husband's wife and best friend, has taken over the Arthurian legend. Director Antoine Fuqua is really going back to the basics, although in a way that will make most Arthurian scholars cringe. In this context I like not only turning Guenivere into a Celtic warrior but also that she advocates Arthur's destiny and is not merely a landed lady worthy of marriage. Besides, there is the nice contrast between Knightley's stately beauty as she fires her arrows and her ferocity as she gets to race across a battle field and win a bunch of sword fights. You get the feeling she was having the most fun of anyone in this film (I waited patiently for Ioan Gruffudd to do something really impressive with his two swords but they never really came up with anything).

What is interesting given the idea that the Knights of the Round Table were the personification of Christian warriors is how the Church is blamed in the film for the downfall of Rome. Arthur is a true believer who has taken the teachings of Christianity to the level of the equality of all human beings, while the only other Christians we see in the film are engaging in torture and slavery. Arthur embodies the best of both Roman and Christian virtues, which makes him a most unique individual, but this film really does some serious retroactive Church bashing.

Yes, there are some problematic elements in this film. No Roman family, let along one with the Pope's favorite godson, is going to be living beyond Hadrian's Wall in Caledonia (Scotland), and I the ending of the sword fight between Arthur and Cerdic is so trite by this point in movie history it is rather insulting to the audience. But on balance this is ambitious effort to tell the "real" story and there the situation is reasonably well thought out (plus working in bits from classic films like "The Seven Samurai" and "Alexander Nevsky"). Most importantly, the actors make it believable, even when they have to proclaim rather pretentious dialogue. The climactic battle scene offers a nice blend of Roman technology and Celtic bravery (I thought the charge of the Woads was a nice representation of the speed of the Celtic attack since they do not bother with armor), and the result, while not a great film, is certainly interesting enough to warrant a look.

LONG LIVE "KING ARTHUR!"
Taken from elements of the Arthurian legend and archeological fact, "King Arthur" is a rousing, action-packed film of gigantic proportions. While some of the revisionistic elements are debatable, director Antoine Fuqua has crafted an entertaining and emotional epic. The characters are perfectly cast, with Clive Owen doing a remarkable job as Artorious Casstus, a man forced to choose between returning to Rome and defending the home of his mother: Britain. Ioan Gruffud is great as Lancelot, and Keira Knightley is beautiful and charming as the revisionist Guinevere, who can love Arthur while still kicking butt as a Woad warrior. Supplemented by a great supporting cast, an amazing score by Hans Zimmer, and an excellent recreation of the battle of Baden Hill, "King Arthur" is one heck of an adventure story. Any fan of historical epics, and students of the Arthurian legend, will not want to miss "King Arthur!" Grade: A+ ... Read more

Amazon.com

Part concert, part history lesson, part summit meeting, and all blues, Lightning in a Bottle puts a bright spotlight on this quintessential American music. There are some heavy hitters at work here, both behind the camera (Martin Scorsese executive produced, while the film was directed by Antoine Fuqua of Training Day and King Arthur) and especially in front of it, with a superb house band and a mind-boggling array of musicians (including B.B. King, Bonnie Raitt, Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry, Solomon Burke, Keb' Mo', Macy Gray, the Neville Brothers, Robert Cray, and John Fogerty, to name but a few) performing at New York's Radio City Music Hall in February, 2003. The idea was to trace the music from its beginnings; thus we get an African song (by Angelique Kidjo), some early gospel blues (the great Mavis Staples), acoustic Delta blues, and so on, right up to blues-drenched electric rock and even some rap (a riveting version of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" by Chuck D.). Virtually all of the immortals who defined the blues (Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, and even Jimi Hendrix, whose fiery style is re-enacted by Buddy Guy) enter the picture, either through vintage film clips or new performances of their songs. One might wish for more insight into the influence of the blues on jazz (Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit," sung here by India.Arie, is a fine song, but it's not a blues tune) or country, but overall, Lightning in a Bottle is an edifying and, most important, highly entertaining portrait of the music and its heritage. --Sam Graham ... Read more

Reviews (6)

the Blues edition of The Last Waltz
Back when The Band was splitting, Mr Scorsese gave us a stage filled with a revolving personnel of the Rock heavies of the day.
This show gives you the same kind of entertainment with a revolving personnel of the absolute Blues masters - plus some bloody entertaining ring-ins.
Video files are perfection. Sound is clear and full.

Tearjerker Stylin' with a Groove and a Happy Ending
People who appreciate this kind of music might still be surprised at the ample, 109 minutes' worth of joyful tears rolling down their faces when they watch this. If that ain't the blues, I don't know what is.

A Great Start To The Year Of The Blues
This memorable concert was filmed at New York's Radio City Music Hall in February 2003. It was the start of the "Year Of the Blues". Martin Scorsese, who gave us the wonderful (but a bit controversial content-wise) series of Blues Films (which took over a year to be screened and available here in Australia) opens the show, after the Blues Year he was also a voice in "Shark's tale"!

There is no denying that this is a memorable and well presented concert. Many of the greatest living Blues players are hear as well as those we might refer to as marginal-transitional people with Blues interests. Some we don't get to hear, Robert Jr Lockwood and Jimmie Vaughan are seen, but not heard. the concert itself represents a musical journey through various Blues styles from African songs, to WC Handy, to music hall styles, women singers, the lone Juke Player right up through B.B. King and Hendrix and, yes, Chuck D trying to stop the Iraq Invasion with "Boom Boom" Rap!

This DVD is most enjoyable and a great and reasonably priced addition to one's music library. Highlights for me include B.B. King's story about "Sweet Sixteen" and his performance. Robert Cray's input, as usual is outstanding with his clean understated guitar work. Honeyboy Edwards, who knew Robert Johnson provides a rare self-penned tune (he mostly did covers during his career), Hubert Sumlin(who has just lost a lung!! And was smoking in the interview!!!! And who I got to meet in 1991) plays a great rendition of "Killing Floor" with the riff he made famous for Howlin' Wolf. Natalie Cole (a comeback?) does a great update of Bessie Smith's "Saint Louis Blues"-reminds me a bit of Janis Joplin-remember she started out sounding like Aretha on "This Will Be". The tune with Natalie, the great Mavis Staples (who does a great version of Blind Lemon Jefferson's "Be Sure My Grave's Kept Clean") Ruth Brown and Bill Cosby "Men Are Like Street Cars" is a great humourous blues. It was horrible to hear the Ruth had suffered a stroke prior to this concert and was still superb (see more of this delightful lady in the "Blues Story" DVD).

Solomon Burke, who I just saw in Australia, was fabluous as usual. His singing is great and he sure knows how to work the crowd (like all great church inspired soul singers). Clarence"Gatemouth" Brown was an awesome talent. This was probably his last recorded performance. His no pick guitar style was unique and classic. His playing is a highlight of the entire DVD!

Macy Gray does a great version of "Hound Dog" in the style of Big Mamma Thronton. It's interesting to see her at the rehearsal a bit perplexed about the whole thing and then transform on stage. Buddy Guy is Buddy Guy, he's great, out front, out of tune, and, to me, stands for what the Blues is all about. He does a rare acoustic version of "I Can't Be Satisfied" in dedication to his mentor Muddy Waters. He also does a bit of Jimi Hendrix's "Red House"-this was great because if purists ran the show this would not have been done. I agree with the previous reviewers the rap, Aerosmith, John Fogarty and rock in general are farther from the blues than Jimi Hendrix, but in a show like this I can stomach anything, for one thing the band is so great.

Another highlight of this show is Odetta, the hippy Black folk singer from the 1960s. She does a great version of Leadbelly's "Jim Crow Blues" and even phrases like Leadbelly! A wonderful effort. The documentary footage between songs, the lighting and effects and the interviews are great. The bonus tracks are suberb as well. Get this if you are a Blues lover!

TERRIFIC, ONCE IN A LIFETIME, BLUES CONCERT
Martin Scorsese executive produced and Antoine Fuqua ("King Arthur") directedLIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE (Sony), the vibrant blues concert at Radio City Music hall that is nothing less than a compressed celebration and history on the hundredth anniversary of this uniquely American art form.

Legendary performers from the roots of rock, jazz and gospel gather for a once-in-a-lifetime concert to benefit musical education.B.B. King, Mavis Staples, Macey Gray, Keb Mo, Buddy Guy, Mos Def, Bonnie Raitt, India Arie ( she sings Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit"), the Neville Brothers, John Fogerty and more perform vintage and modern material in an exceptional looking and sounding digital recording.

I especially enjoyed the African song (by Angelique Kidjo), the early gospel blues and the haunting acoustic delta blues.

A sort of History of The Blues...
Great HD - transfer.If you have an HDTV you will really enjoy this. Audio / video was superb.All DVD concerts should be of this quality.Except for a few "rap" style tracks - it was a great show. There were a few tracks in the "bonus" portion that should have been included or swapped out for the "rap" tracks.This was a blues history concert with some fabulous musicians and singers - except for the "rap"...If your interested in blues music from the "roots" you will enjoy this... ... Read more

Amazon.com

When petty thief and hustler Alvin Sanders (Jamie Foxx from Any Given Sunday and The Wood) gets arrested for stealing shrimp, the worst of his problems would seem to be going to jail. Unfortunately, he ends up sharing a cell with a guy who, while stealing $42 million in gold from the Federal Reserve, double-crossed his partner--a partner with a knack for computers and a long memory. While being interrogated by a hardball Treasury agent (David Morse from The Green Mile), the double-crosser dies from heart failure. All the feds have are an incomprehensible message that was left with Alvin, so they decide to release him and use him as bait to catch the partner by secretly implanting a combination tracking device and electronic bug into Alvin's jaw. From that moment on, a surveillance team can follow Alvin's every move and hear his every word. Unfortunately, Alvin has a talent for getting into trouble--which means that the feds have to become his guardian angels so that he can serve his purpose. Bait certainly has its problems (there's a lot of fancy editing for no good reason, a few plot holes you could drive a truck through, and the actor playing the bad guy really wishes he was John Malkovich)--but even though it's nonsense, it's not predictable. The clever story moves along with surprising efficiency and has some successful comic bits. The characters can't be called well developed, but they aren't clichés; the movie doesn't require any great acting, but the cast is consistently engaging. In fact, Bait is one of the more enjoyable action movies of the past few years. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Amazon.com

While it offers nothing new to the military action genre, Tears of the Sun distinguishes itself with fine acting, expert craftsmanship, and seriousness of purpose. Its familiar "extraction mission" plot is essentially similar to that of Black Hawk Down, involving a crack team of U.S. Special Ops commandos struggling to rescue innocent missionaries amidst the bloody horror of Nigerian ethnic cleansing. With Bruce Willis as their grizzled, no-nonsense commander, the skillful team enters a hot zone that gets even hotter when their "package"--an American national (Monica Bellucci) who runs the isolated mission--demands that 70 Nigerian villagers be included in the rescue. Willis's uneasy conscience leads him to defy orders and expand his mission, and in an ambitious follow up to Training Day, director Antoine Fuqua escalates tension and strike-force with considerable emotional impact. Originally considered as a potential entry in Willis's Die Hard series, and released on the eve of America's war with Iraq, Tears of the Sun admirably avoids jingoism with its rousing story of personal good vs. political evil. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (222)

Enjoyable Action movie with Navy Seals and tough decisions..
I'm one of those who has never been a big Bruce Willis fan, but I did think this was a great movie and he played his part better than some things I have seen him in recently.

A career soldier is forced to choose between following orders and saving lives in this action thriller. Lt. A.K. Walters (Bruce Willis) is a veteran Navy SEAL whose commander (Tom Skerritt) has given his team a special assignment. A Central African nation is expected to explode into war at any moment, and Walters and his cohorts are to escort any American citizens in the area to safety, most notably Dr. Lena Kendricks (Monica Bellucci), a doctor from the United States who has set up a clinic in the jungle. Walters and his men find Kendricks, but she refuses to leave with them unless she can bring along 70 refugees who have been left to her care. Kendricks makes it clear that if they are left behind, the refugees will face certain death, but Walters' C.O. insists he bring back Kendricks - but not her patients. Forced by his conscience to disobey orders, Walters and his team race against time to escort the refugees to a border town where they will find safe haven before invading troops can ambush them.

Not that great
I can't really see the fuss about this movie - or Monica Bellucci for that matter. I wasn't bored as such through most of it, just wondering what was going on, and when it was going to end. And wishing Monica would do up a few more buttons on her shirt.

I don't mind Bruce Willis movies at all, although it's disappointing sometimes when they don't live up to expectations. I might take a peek at Hostage when it comes out on DVD, plus it's got his daughter in it, playing his daughter, which should be interesting. But as for this, I'm so glad I didn't buy it, as it would have been a waste of money.

Does anyone else think that when Bruce has the very grey stubble, he looks like Jean Reno?!

The characters very one-dimensional in this, particularly Monica Bellucci's character. (Why do I think she's French instead of Italian?) All she had to do during a lot of the movie was stand around, look worried, and not very much else - except call Bruce all the names she could think of in a different language. She was highly unbelieveable, particularly as her husband was said to have been killed not that long ago, in a similar situation. Wouldn't that have awakened old memories? Brucie must have got a right slap off set, during the scene where she got knocked out, cos he got a right feel of her ass when he put her over his shoulder. Plus, the director must have realised that there's a few boring moments, cos suddenly, Monica bares a lot of cleavage, just to get the guys interested in the movie again, when there's not much action.

What stops this movie from being rated two stars was the shoot out/war towards the end. This definitely made up for the rest of the movie being rather tedious, as it was a shocking, nail biting few minutes, as one by one the SEALS got killed, or injured. It was simply amazing, and brutal. The score reminded me very much of Armageddon, and all the fighting and the planes coming to the rescue, strangely enough, reminded me of Pearl Harbour.

Although it was only 10 minutes longer than Secretary, which won in a toss up over which movie to watch late at night, I still found Secretary to pass a lot quicker. This was incredibly slow, and definitely felt quite a bit longer than its 1hr 56mins at some points.

This movie does a great job of portraying the heartbreak that people go through in that part of the world, and I will admit, I did get quite teary towards the end when people were reunited. It doesn't make up for the fact the rest of the film was pointless and tedious.

Good action/drama...but very lacking as a "war movie"
I finally watched this film after strong insistence from a few friends who hailed it as one of the best war movies ever made.Well, as my title states, this is a very well-made drama as well as a great action flick.But I cannot call this a great war film.First off, there is far too much disobeying of orders, especially by the most highly trained warriors in the U.S. arsenal, trained first and foremost not to disobey (or even question) orders.Secondly, they are made to look like heroes for doing so, and the commanding officer responds with an "Oh well, all's well that ends well" attitude.

The acting is great.The music is also very good (kudos once again to the great and versatile Hans Zimmer).The technical details regarding SEAL operations are also dead-on (with the obvious exception of following orders).

Overall, this film is about moral principles on the battlefield.This is a very thought-provoking concept and makes us think about some important issues.But in real-life situations, the mission is more important, and completing the mission will help maintain a great number of moral principles.For instance, innocent people die in war.But how many more innocent people would die if there were not a war (i.e. World War II, Operation Desert Storm, and yes, even the recent Iraqi War)?

So, I do not regret seeing this film.And most film goers who like movies of this kind will not be disappointed either.But there was still room for improvement.For real war films with realistic portrayals of soldiers (using the generic term) obeying orders and maintaining their moral principles, I would recommend WE WERE SOLDIERS, BLACKHAWK DOWN, and the now classic SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

Difficult to figure out but pays off emotionally
Here is a worthless fact for you. Tear of the Sun was supposed to be Die Hard 4. It was taken from a book called Les Larmes du Soleil by Henri Vernes.

In "Les Larmes du Soleil", a plane in which the hero is travelling over South America is hijacked by rebels. They intend on asking for a ransom to the Governments of the countries of the 'white' passengers. The plane crashes and the hero escapes into the amazon. Soon he hooks up with a tribe of Aztec descendants and leads them away as the rebels are after them. This book was written as Die Hard 4 but Bruce Willis liked the title so much he agreed to do Die Hard 4 if he could use the Tears of the Sun title and script for a completely different movie.

Now it's about a group of Elite Navy SEALS given the simple sounding mission of rescuing a doctor (an American Citizen) from a jungle village in war-torn Nigeria as an Evil General seizes control of the country and imposes brutal ethnic cleansing. Not a pretty situation.

But as soon as Willis and his hardass SEALS (including Cole Hauser, Johnny Messner and Nick Chinlund) show up the stubborn Doctor (that's the lurv-ley Monica Bellucci) refuses to budge unless she can take 70 villagers with her. Willis lies, telling her that this is fine by him as long as she agrees to go. The choppers arrive, Bellucci freaks as Willis-calling him every name under the crying sun (!) as only she is escorted to safety. Minutes later they fly over the village to find that the rebels have massacred everyone. His conscience gets the better of him, he orders the choppers back and they lead the ditched villagers to the safety of the Camaroon border through 40 miles of jungle.

Trouble is, one of the villagers is a mole and someone else isn't who he says he is. As a result, what seems like every member of the Nigerian rebels go after them with about a bazillion bullets and rockets at their disposal.

The difficulty lies in the fact that Tears of the Sun both does and does not glorify war. You can't really tell if the film is gung-ho or serious. But there's something quite moving and noble about a bunch of hardened commandos willing to die for a cause they've not had enough time to understand. Soldiers are humans and are too often portrayed as killing machines. There is no entertainment in the combat, only a sense of real danger and hopelessness. I actually prefer this film to the Black Hawk Down because A) it's not a jumpy, jittery blur and B) there a subtler emotional investment. Subtlety is something Black Hawk Down did NOT have. You can argue that it hardly belongs in a war film but it does give Tears of the Sun a strange edge.

I have the Superbit DVD that has a brilliant 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen picture with a loud, dynamic Dolby/DTS 5.1 soundtrack. Get this version, it's only available in R2 at the moment so you'll have to import if you live outside the UK.

Compelling film.
Wow.I was not expecting this.I thought oh good, another mindless Bruce Willis action flick.This is an emotionally draining movie. Willis did an excellent job portraying the Lieutenant. If he seems stoic and unemotional, it's because he has a job to do. Obviously, he does have emotion as he turns the chopper around after seeing the burning blood-bath of the church he had just left several hours ago.And the fact that he didn't follow his orders exactly is totally realistic; people break rules all the time to follow their conscience.

I've read a lot of reviews, and people seem to be confused as to why the SEAL's were sent in to extract the American doctor, and why she was so important. Um, people.Stay with me here.....that's what we do. As Americans. We get our people out of war torn countries when it is no longer safe. Why was she so important? How do you rate the importance of human lives?

The action was credible. I like how not a fire was shot until halfway through the movie.The way the SEAL's cover each other, the stealth, the efficiency when they go into the village to kill the rebels is amazing to watch.All the SEAL's were excellent actors. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The director of Chow Yun-fat's first Hollywood outing, music-video veteran Antoine Fuqua, seems to be trying to squeeze the charismatic Asian superstar into a conventional American action-hero mold, and the results are dispiriting. Fuqua never lets this high-spirited actor smile, fetishizing him as a gunslinging clotheshorse in a series of garish, scenery-smashing battle scenes. As a paid assassin whose former employers turn against him, Chow enlists the help of an illegal documents specialist played, with surprising grit, by Mira Sorvino, and then spends most of the time fending off squads of killers in mirror shades. The movie is art-directed and photographed fit to kill (even the most routine incidents are eye-gougingly colorful) and edited to a hip-hop beat. It's garishly superficial. The frequent gunplay duels may keep action fans riveted, but they'll hate themselves in the morning. --David Chute ... Read more

Reviews (87)

Good Lord! The Bad guys actually look like bad guys!
That's effin' illegal! In a day where every bad guy that has appeared in an action movie looks like he escaped from a guess jeans commercial, its nice to see a movie where the bad guys look like some SOB you would not want to meet in a dark alley. And with the likes of Dan Trejo and Jurgen Pronchow in this movie you've got plenty of them.

PLOT Same old song and dance as a lot of other movies, Morally righteous assassin (how the heck does that work anyway?) John Lee (Chow Yun Fat) refuses to kill the son of the cop (Micheal Rooker)that killed the son of his employer, Mr. Wai. So Mr. Wai calls in two assassins(Trejo and some other guy) who don't know the meaning of the word low profile. Their job, kill John then kill the boy. Meanwhile John, realizing that his disobedience has pissed off his boss, needs to get his family out of Shanghai before they get eliminated. From the far side of the stage enters Meg Coburn (Sorvino) a document forger who can turn Wai's army of rent a thugs into hamburger with the best of them. After Wai's trenchcoat & Armani clad goons make swiss cheese out of her home, she and John pair up to stop Wai.

REVIEW First off, Kudos to Fuqua for being one of the few directors who ever did the Woo-trademark two fisted gunfight the right way. (Bad memories of Double Impact's sucky shoot outs starting to arise....ack! eye's glazing over....medic!) The action scene are awesome, kick butt, etc.,etc. and score brownie points for the unusal locations they're set in. There's one set in a car wash (While its running, not only is he dodging bullets, but hot wax as well!) another takes place in a movie theatre showing a Mr. Magoo cartoon and a video arcade, where SEGA product placement doth conquer all. The final shootout is also ultrabitchin' to watch, concluding with a who-can-reload-and-shoot-the-fastest-mexican-standoff between Chow and his ex-boss.And the photography and camera work in this movie is pretty damn impressive, meaning this is one good looking movie, whether the camera lingers on a Buddha statue or on a hood getting splattered in slow mo.

Any problems? 'fraid so dear listener, while the gunfights make this movie worth watching, the performances range from Above average, ( Chow being a cool & silent Charles Bronson type) to cheesy (Jurgen Pronchow spouting off every cliched line in the book and coming up with a few new ones. ) However watching Sorvino doing a Dirty Harriet routine is fun. (Heck watching Sorvino is fun period! heh heh) and the actor who plays Mr. Wai has his moments. The script is predictable in parts but adequate enough.

Overall, a good action pick to watch with a bowl of popcorn in your lap and that special someone sitting by you when you have and afternoon to kill.

A Well-Done Art Action Film.
Some movies are made to be seen for the effect and drama and emotion, others are made just to be entertaining and to drink in the visuales, "The Replacement Killers" is just that kind of a movie. This is a film to admire and view for it's look, for it's style and the artistic touch it brings to scenes of violence. In fact, there is no need for a story, there is only a script and plot to make sense of what's happening on screen. You really can't expect an intelligent plot in a movie titled "The Replacement Killers," but this isn't about story or drama, it's about style. It's an excellent American debut for Chow Yun-Fat, who really knows how to make these films. It's no wonder it was produced by John Woo, one if not the greatest of action filmmakers. Take away the plot and you see that this is a very well-done action piece, with scenes that deserve to be seen twice for the detail in the cinematography, the colors, the detail in the violence and action. The entire film is one rich work. Add that to the soundtrack, full of great techno as well as Oriental music. It's a hyper and active piece that shows how violence can be turned into an art form through the art of film. "The Replacement Killers" is entertaining and yes, the story is interesting, but I enjoyed it because of all the style on screen. This is an ART film at the most. Like "Blade" or "Spawn," "The Replacement Killers" should just be appreciated as an art film. It's never boring to watch. A well-done action piece.

Loved it
I have no idea how I first saw the movie, but I bought the video soon after. It has a great look. It's very sharp. It's in the tradition of the of unknown/unexpected heros coming along and taking care of the bad guys; so you don't need this big old character development. It has a great sort of mystical quality to it.

I've watched it many times and like it better each time I see it.

Fat and Sorvino work great
the chemistry between the two leads is a treat and the stunts are super with Cow Yun Dat tearing up the asphalt and burning down the hitmen. though it runs out of fumes for a while then picks up with great gunplay and suspense. Antoine Fuqua's first feature film(you may know him as a music video director, or his other films like Training Day, Bait and Tears Of The Sun).

Kill or be replaced.
In reading reviews for Chow-Yun Fat's first American movie, The Replacement Killers, it seems people either really liked it or really hated it. I, myself, really loved the movie.

The story centers on John Lee (Chow Yun-Fat), a hitman who fails to carry out a contract for moral reason, and soon finds himself and his family targets by the mob that hired him. In an effort to save his family, he goes to Meg Coburn (Mira Sorvino), a specialist in making forged documents, to hire her to make him a passport so he can get back to China and protect his family from the vengeful wrath of an Asian mafia. She soon becomes entangled in the war between John and his former employers. In the meantime, other assassins are brought in, the replacement killers, to finish what John couldn't, and to also kill John for his failure.

Some have complained that the movie is too short, but I would say it's tight. How many times have you watched a movie and thought the movie could have been shorter? So many times I have thought certain scenes in movies serve no other purpose other than to pad out the run time. This is a lean movie (87 mins) with lots of action. The pacing was such that it didn't allow for a lot of character development, but I felt there was enough to drive the story. I think Antoine Fuqua did an excellent job directing this movie, keeping the focus on the action rather than getting mired in useless details.

Some have criticized Mira Sorvino's character and her change of heart in the movie, saying that it was unrealistic. Well, I thought the whole movie was unrealistic, but I was just along for the ride. Did that element hurt the movie? I didn't think so...unrealistic? Maybe, but how many HK actions movies have you seen where something comes out of left field, like a main character changing allegiances? She did speak of how sometimes it was necessary to do the right thing, doing that one good think to make up for all the bad things. Most movies require a suspension of disbelief, and some require more than others. If you really want pick on a character that acted unrealistically, look at Kogan, played by Jurgen Prochnow. He appeared to be a high ranking member in the Asian mob after John but in a few scenes we see him involved in doing rather menial tasks better assigned to henchmen. His boss, Terrence Wei (Kenneth Tsang), did say something along the lines of taking a more hands on approach after the first failed attempt on John's life, but I think Kogan might have taken it a little too serious. At one point, he was staked out eavesdropping on a cop, trying to get specific information. Didn't seem like he would be so involved at that level of operations, but I let it slide.

Anyway, I had a lot of fun with this movie, and while not substantial in some areas, it certainly delivered with the action. Slick visuals, fast pacing, and lean story come together and work where others have failed. Also, the soundtrack really works well, complimenting the movie nicely, while not overshadowing it. ... Read more

Reviews (87)

Good Lord! The Bad guys actually look like bad guys!
That's effin' illegal! In a day where every bad guy that has appeared in an action movie looks like he escaped from a guess jeans commercial, its nice to see a movie where the bad guys look like some SOB you would not want to meet in a dark alley. And with the likes of Dan Trejo and Jurgen Pronchow in this movie you've got plenty of them.

PLOT Same old song and dance as a lot of other movies, Morally righteous assassin (how the heck does that work anyway?) John Lee (Chow Yun Fat) refuses to kill the son of the cop (Micheal Rooker)that killed the son of his employer, Mr. Wai. So Mr. Wai calls in two assassins(Trejo and some other guy) who don't know the meaning of the word low profile. Their job, kill John then kill the boy. Meanwhile John, realizing that his disobedience has pissed off his boss, needs to get his family out of Shanghai before they get eliminated. From the far side of the stage enters Meg Coburn (Sorvino) a document forger who can turn Wai's army of rent a thugs into hamburger with the best of them. After Wai's trenchcoat & Armani clad goons make swiss cheese out of her home, she and John pair up to stop Wai.

REVIEW First off, Kudos to Fuqua for being one of the few directors who ever did the Woo-trademark two fisted gunfight the right way. (Bad memories of Double Impact's sucky shoot outs starting to arise....ack! eye's glazing over....medic!) The action scene are awesome, kick butt, etc.,etc. and score brownie points for the unusal locations they're set in. There's one set in a car wash (While its running, not only is he dodging bullets, but hot wax as well!) another takes place in a movie theatre showing a Mr. Magoo cartoon and a video arcade, where SEGA product placement doth conquer all. The final shootout is also ultrabitchin' to watch, concluding with a who-can-reload-and-shoot-the-fastest-mexican-standoff between Chow and his ex-boss.And the photography and camera work in this movie is pretty damn impressive, meaning this is one good looking movie, whether the camera lingers on a Buddha statue or on a hood getting splattered in slow mo.

Any problems? 'fraid so dear listener, while the gunfights make this movie worth watching, the performances range from Above average, ( Chow being a cool & silent Charles Bronson type) to cheesy (Jurgen Pronchow spouting off every cliched line in the book and coming up with a few new ones. ) However watching Sorvino doing a Dirty Harriet routine is fun. (Heck watching Sorvino is fun period! heh heh) and the actor who plays Mr. Wai has his moments. The script is predictable in parts but adequate enough.

Overall, a good action pick to watch with a bowl of popcorn in your lap and that special someone sitting by you when you have and afternoon to kill.

A Well-Done Art Action Film.
Some movies are made to be seen for the effect and drama and emotion, others are made just to be entertaining and to drink in the visuales, "The Replacement Killers" is just that kind of a movie. This is a film to admire and view for it's look, for it's style and the artistic touch it brings to scenes of violence. In fact, there is no need for a story, there is only a script and plot to make sense of what's happening on screen. You really can't expect an intelligent plot in a movie titled "The Replacement Killers," but this isn't about story or drama, it's about style. It's an excellent American debut for Chow Yun-Fat, who really knows how to make these films. It's no wonder it was produced by John Woo, one if not the greatest of action filmmakers. Take away the plot and you see that this is a very well-done action piece, with scenes that deserve to be seen twice for the detail in the cinematography, the colors, the detail in the violence and action. The entire film is one rich work. Add that to the soundtrack, full of great techno as well as Oriental music. It's a hyper and active piece that shows how violence can be turned into an art form through the art of film. "The Replacement Killers" is entertaining and yes, the story is interesting, but I enjoyed it because of all the style on screen. This is an ART film at the most. Like "Blade" or "Spawn," "The Replacement Killers" should just be appreciated as an art film. It's never boring to watch. A well-done action piece.

Loved it
I have no idea how I first saw the movie, but I bought the video soon after. It has a great look. It's very sharp. It's in the tradition of the of unknown/unexpected heros coming along and taking care of the bad guys; so you don't need this big old character development. It has a great sort of mystical quality to it.

I've watched it many times and like it better each time I see it.

Fat and Sorvino work great
the chemistry between the two leads is a treat and the stunts are super with Cow Yun Dat tearing up the asphalt and burning down the hitmen. though it runs out of fumes for a while then picks up with great gunplay and suspense. Antoine Fuqua's first feature film(you may know him as a music video director, or his other films like Training Day, Bait and Tears Of The Sun).

Kill or be replaced.
In reading reviews for Chow-Yun Fat's first American movie, The Replacement Killers, it seems people either really liked it or really hated it. I, myself, really loved the movie.

The story centers on John Lee (Chow Yun-Fat), a hitman who fails to carry out a contract for moral reason, and soon finds himself and his family targets by the mob that hired him. In an effort to save his family, he goes to Meg Coburn (Mira Sorvino), a specialist in making forged documents, to hire her to make him a passport so he can get back to China and protect his family from the vengeful wrath of an Asian mafia. She soon becomes entangled in the war between John and his former employers. In the meantime, other assassins are brought in, the replacement killers, to finish what John couldn't, and to also kill John for his failure.

Some have complained that the movie is too short, but I would say it's tight. How many times have you watched a movie and thought the movie could have been shorter? So many times I have thought certain scenes in movies serve no other purpose other than to pad out the run time. This is a lean movie (87 mins) with lots of action. The pacing was such that it didn't allow for a lot of character development, but I felt there was enough to drive the story. I think Antoine Fuqua did an excellent job directing this movie, keeping the focus on the action rather than getting mired in useless details.

Some have criticized Mira Sorvino's character and her change of heart in the movie, saying that it was unrealistic. Well, I thought the whole movie was unrealistic, but I was just along for the ride. Did that element hurt the movie? I didn't think so...unrealistic? Maybe, but how many HK actions movies have you seen where something comes out of left field, like a main character changing allegiances? She did speak of how sometimes it was necessary to do the right thing, doing that one good think to make up for all the bad things. Most movies require a suspension of disbelief, and some require more than others. If you really want pick on a character that acted unrealistically, look at Kogan, played by Jurgen Prochnow. He appeared to be a high ranking member in the Asian mob after John but in a few scenes we see him involved in doing rather menial tasks better assigned to henchmen. His boss, Terrence Wei (Kenneth Tsang), did say something along the lines of taking a more hands on approach after the first failed attempt on John's life, but I think Kogan might have taken it a little too serious. At one point, he was staked out eavesdropping on a cop, trying to get specific information. Didn't seem like he would be so involved at that level of operations, but I let it slide.

Anyway, I had a lot of fun with this movie, and while not substantial in some areas, it certainly delivered with the action. Slick visuals, fast pacing, and lean story come together and work where others have failed. Also, the soundtrack really works well, complimenting the movie nicely, while not overshadowing it. ... Read more