King Arthur (The movie)

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Friend let me borrow it and I'm going to watch it, but first I have to take a shower. I'll check to see what you guys say after I take a shower...

Otherwise, just discuss the movie (what you liked/didn't like)

[Strike For The South]

maybe the most historicly accurate movie Ive seen.:2thumbsup:

[Sardo]

AARRGH!!!

:wall:



~:mecry:



Don't ask me to explain further, I get all agitated just thinking about this monstrosity. I'd give myself a heart attack actually talking about it.
Yes, 'traumatic' doesn't even come close to describing my experience.

[Lemur]

Last time I tried to discuss the historical accuracy of a film in here, I got kicked out and thrown into the Monastary. Tough crowd.

[lars573]

It's about as accurate as the versions where they wear full plate armour and fight dragons.

[Samurai Waki]

Utter Crap. They should've called it Guenivere.

[Zalmoxis]

It's so... inacurate. Well, also the fact that somehow 6 guys on horses charged straight at several hundred and weren't even hurt.

[Lemur]

If I learned nothing else from Lord of the Rings, it was this: Small bands of cavalry charging into massed infantry will always win. I'm not sure how or why, but that's how it works. Especially if it's toward the end of the movie.

You can pick apart the rest of the film all you like, but it's now an established fact that a smaller force of mounted warriors will always pwn in a frontal charge on heavy infantry.

:gah:

[Duke of Gloucester]

Alex. Check the DVD box and if you see the words "staring Keira Knightley" then you know the film will be rubbish. (Bend it like Beckham is an exception)

[Red Peasant]

If I learned nothing else from Lord of the Rings, it was this: Small bands of cavalry charging into massed infantry will always win. I'm not sure how or why, but that's how it works. Especially if it's toward the end of the movie.

You can pick apart the rest of the film all you like, but it's now an established fact that a smaller force of mounted warriors will always pwn in a frontal charge on heavy infantry.

:gah:

?
I disagree. It depends on the circumstances. In The Return of the King didn't some 10,000 Rohirrim attack the orcs at Minas Tirith? That's a hell of a cavalry force, and they clearly show the orcish infantry panicking = cavalry win almost every time. Those orcs had probably never had to sustain a massed cavalry attack on that scale = very scary.

Anyway, they're only films. If the script, plot and characterization are ok then bugger the inaccuracies, enjoy! However, I thought that King Arthur was a bit lacking in these departments. Then again, some films just have a certain charisma, like Excalibur.

[ah_dut]

King Arthur was rubbish beyond all compare. It is, was and always shall be in my opinion complete rubbish. I'm sure they put a lot of work into it but I was bored...even with a scantily clad Keira Knightly...and that's a bad sign

[Geoffrey S]

I loved it. Very nicely paced and a most entertaining movie. Shame that Clive Owen didn't quite cut it in the lead role.

It reminded me a lot of Thirteenth Warrior, in a good way.

[Strike For The South]

(Bend it like Beckham is an exception)

no its not

[Red Peasant]

no its not

That's because you're from Texas and you probably like gay American football.

I liked the quote from the film Full Metal Jacket by the drill sergeant:

"Only queers and steers come from Texas, boy!" ~;)

[Strike For The South]

"Only queers and steers come from Texas, boy!" ~;)

Only steers and queers.:inquisitive: :laugh4: :dizzy2:

[Ianofsmeg16]

An alright movie, but about as historically accurate as Gladiator....

but the thing about Gladiator, it was an A+++ movie, King Arthur is more of a C

[King Henry V]

Well at least it was better than the fairy tale Arthur films, although there you're not constantly thinking "That's not true". The tortures of being a history buff!
But why does Hollywood have to get everything wrong? From the date, to Pelagius' death, to the fact that there still Sarmatian auxiliaries when the Roman Empire was so weak it couln't even defend its borders let alone venture into barbarian territory to take a few boys to fight for them. Pathetic.

[Red Peasant]

Only steers and queers.:inquisitive: :laugh4: :dizzy2:

Lol. Nice one Strike, you've got that GSOH thing. I'm sure Texas is a fine place. One of my fave Texans, despite his faults, was LBJ.

[King Henry V]

Why couldn't they just have filmed the Warlord Trilogy? That would have been perfect.

[Geoffrey S]

Why couldn't they just have filmed the Warlord Trilogy? That would have been perfect.
Agreed, they're perfect movie material. But despite its historical faults, which were annoying at times I admit, I rather enjoyed the movie.

[Quid]

I enjoyed it. Seen better but it was good enough for me...it's a film, after all.

Quid

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I watched it on DVD, where it stated that King Arthur may have happened 1000 years earlier in real life. The movie is just a different version of the tale. It said scientists agree, it is a distinct possibility...

I think it could be possible...

[Ludens]

I watched it on DVD, where it stated that King Arthur may have happened 1000 years earlier in real life. The movie is just a different version of the tale. It said scientists agree, it is a distinct possibility...

I think it could be possible...
Nope. Lucius Artorius Castus and his Sarmatians auxillaries did exist, and they fought of a Pictish invasion, but that was over a century before the Saxon invasions, which BTW didn't take place at Hadrian's wall. I never saw the movie - I took one look at the poster and decided I wouldn't like it: it featured Arthur and (I assume) Lancelot in what looked like Medieval plate-mail and Guinevere in a outfit that would have her die of exposure in the Scottish highlands. It seems Hollywood can't reach historical accuracy even when they try.

[King Henry V]

And when they set it the Romans had long departed from Britain. And I have no idea what Cerdic, King Of Wessex (and my possible ancestor) was doing that far north...

[Kralizec]

King Arthur sucked. Not because of the historical inaccuracies, I can deal with that. I liked Gladiator and Braveheart, and could stomach Troy. I can't stomach this piece of shit.

Here's a "review" about the King Arthur Knight Vision Trivia from the directors cut that I stole from another forum.


Knight Vision is a series of trivia that pop up during the directors cut of King Arthur. Only ten minutes in and it's history is even worse than the films itself. Not every piece of trivia is commented on. Here's my running commentary:

First couple comments are copied from another Arthurian messageboard:

Although the historical stuff is pretty obvious. Like "Armed soldiers on horseback are called cavalry". "80 Roman miles is about 73 modern miles, which was the length of Hadrians Wall"

Now those nice little Knight vision facts are telling me that the Woads are supposed to be Picts which really makes the whole damn movie contradictory for the Pretani noted by the Greeks which seem to be the basis for the films Woads were not British at all, like the characters in this movie claim. They were Picts! And the "Woad" language is a combination of Scottish and old Welsh!

Oh, wow, now they told me Latin was the language of the roman empire. What a revelation!

Now it is saying the legends about Joeseph of Aramethea in Britain are true.

Oh god, it actually claims that the Saxons did invade fromt he north!

"Some claim that Merlin was a prophet Myrddin who moved Stonehenge from Ireland to England."
Oh god....
Merlin was the name Geoffrey used for Myrddin because Myrddin was to close to Merde for his liking, and yes there is a legend of Merlin moving stonehenge from Ireland to England, but those are two completley different thoughts! No one has ever claimed that Myrddin brought Stonehenge from Ireland to England!

An ambush is a sudden attack made forma concealed position? Really? Wow, I never knew that! rolleyes

Tristans tatoos were inspired by Mongolian warriors? Wow, bet there were a lot of them serving with Sarmation Cavalry at Hadrians Wall.

Skarssgaard (or however you spell that) cape was made out of Bison hide? Bison hide?! Now that's authentic.

Roman soldiers produced offspring with local Britains? Really? And here I thought soldiers became celebate when they joined the army.

Finally they point out a mistake in the movie. Nothing to do witht he hsitory though, oh no, couldn't have that. Knightleys hand heald 6-8 weeks too quickly.

Falconry is the sport of hunting with Falcons? Yet another revelation! Last they could have done is mentioned why Tristan has the falcon. At least inform people on that one tiny bit of Arthurian legend.

Wow, a mention of Cretien de Troyes. They do not, however, mention that he's the first known guy to use Lancelot. Nooo, that would hurt their "This is how it happened" line....

Hey, Keira Knightly and Natalie Portman look similar! It's true, the pop-up said so! No one ever noticed that before, not ever!

Humans sleep about 8 hours a night? Really? No, I refuse to believe it.

Woads were inspired by the real-life tribe of the Picts? Well, you've already said that, and I've already pointed out a couple problems with that (the Pretani and Picts being totally different, and the Picts not being British but, um Picts) but maybe I should add that THE PICTS AND ROMANO-BRITISH WERE ENEMIES!

Ooooohhhhhhh, Bors is riding the same horse that Russell Crowe did in Gladiator. That's kinda... well, useless trivia that might be kinda cool if you are a horse fanatic. And all the horses were lodged with other horses fromt he same geographic area due to laws regarding horses rights? Ireland has laws regarding horses rights? Who'da known?

Hey, Barbarians sacked Rome in the early 5th century. They could have said "Visigoths" and "410". It wouldn't have taken all that much more work.

The frozen lake in this movie was actually gravel? Well now, that actually is a cool bit of trivia. huh.

Ancient Sarmation Cavalry invented the English longbow? Jeez, that's a surprise (well, tehy don't really say that, but they do say that 5,000 longbows were used for the film, and only the sarmations use them).

Flag standards were used to identify people? No! Never! I REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT!

What do figure skating Swedes from 3000BC have to do with this movie?

Hans Zimmer won and academy award for the Lion King, yet they still left the best song in this entire damn movie off the soundtrack! You know, the one Bors', um, consort sings about going home.

250 years of peace in the last 3500? What BS is this? Where the hell could you get the information for this grand statement? Did the production crew for this film have some sort of objective, all knowing manuscript which details every war in every continent for the past 3500 years? Would have been smarter for them to say that there was only 1 day in all of the twentieth century during which no declared war was taking place. That, at elast, can be verified.

Italian-Roman women had the same status as children? True, Roman culture was very male centric, but I don't recall learning of many Italian-Roman children owning and running their own buisnesses....

Hadrians Wall was built by Hadrian? What insights this is giving me!

6.4 calories per minute per passionate kiss. Huh. I feel like exercising, where is Tanya?

Cupid was the Roman god of love? Not at the time this movie was set!

What, no mention of the Pendragon standard he has? No note at all about it being there, or, (god forbid) it's meaning? Damn pop-ups....

Roman Generals were schooled in battle? I sure hope so!

Wow, a note which contradicts the movie! How did they sneak that in? 'Course they don't go so far as to completley contradict the movie, jsut saying that Roman troops started pulling out of Britain in 402, not sayign they were gone in 410 when the Visigoths sacked rome, long before this movie supposedly takes place.

The final battle took place in the same field as parts of Braveheart were filmed. Braveheart was an awesome movie. I glorify in that movie. I do not glorify in this movie.

A Knight is the modern Equivalant of a Sherman Tank? I never heard that in my tenth grade history class, nope, not a once.

It was considered bad luck for a Saxon sword to be drawn and not used. I did not know that. That's two things out of the last two hours I found interesting....

War drums were used to intimadate enemies? Who were these written for, 8 year olds? You have to be 18 to buy the bloody DVD!

The origin of King Arthur is also portrayed in The Sword and the Stone. Jeez, you'd never guess that Disney made this movie, would you?

The legendary Arthur fought twelve great battles?
No, the Legendary Arthur fought thirteen. It's just that the thirteenth was The Battle of Camlann. Meaning that, despite what you say mr. Kngiht Visions, Baddonw as not his final legendary battle.

The battle of Baddon Hill in the movie is based on the historical Battle of Baddon Hill? Really? I don't believe you. I really don't. It may share the same name, but other thn that....

Shields are both offensive and defensive weaponry. Another surprise. Really, I didn't know that. No, really, why do you think I'm being sarcastic? Oh, right, because I am.

A large Roman catapault... blah blah blah. These arn't catapaults, they are trebuchets, and the design used in this movie wouldn't have been invented for a hell of a long time after this movie is set!

Re-enactors are called experimental archeologists? I know a few re-enactors and I've never heard a single one refer to him/herself in that way.

Tristan is the sexiest man in Denmark is he? Well, good for him.

A retired Nay Seal trained all the extras to fight as if they were 5th century warriars? Um, does anyone see what connection a modern day SEAL has with a Saxon warriar? Anybody?

HAHAHAHA, this entire film is based upon an essay some college student forgot at the school library and Franzini found. Explains so much....

This final battle took 5 weeks to shoot? Sure doesn't look it.

Some Roman forts had hospitals? Jeez, and here I thought they jsut tossed the wounded outside to die.

Lancelot and Guinevere have an affair in some Arthurian Legends? That's crazy talk.

Arthur is supposed to be buried in Glastonbury abbey. Supposed is such a strong, inapropriate word.....

King Arthur reigned in Camelot, according to legend? Now these guys are just getting lazy.

Wow, another pop-up that contradicts the movie, saying that modern attempts at placing Camelot place it at South Cadbury. Two in the entire movie. These guys have some balls rolleyes

Arthur is called the once and future king becuase legend has it he will rule again? No one could figure that out on there own from the line "The Once and Future King"?

[King Henry V]

Is that talking about the director's commentary on the dvd?

[BDC]

Ancient Sarmation Cavalry invented the English longbow? Jeez, that's a surprise

It's so easy to use those 6 foot bows on horseback after all.

[GoreBag]

I'll kick this movie while it's down, too. I hated it. Being gagged with a rusty, chipped spoon would be preferable to watching it again.

[Slyspy]

It was not so bad as a fantasy Arthur series of books which I read. I forget the author (a female American I believe but the name escapes me) but at one point a main character sat down to a meal consisting of rabbit and potatoes. Now you can use all the magic, legend and mysticism you want in such a novel since they were never real, solid objects in the first place. But at least get the groundwork correct!

Oh and the llamas (I think they were supposed to be camels) in Troy were worse than any inaccuracies in Arthur, even worse than Knightley's combat bikini.

PS

That cut-and-paste of a review of a DVD extra really is no basis for criticism of the film itself. Especially considering that the critic thought Braveheart was "awsome". Also he seems to be confused between references to history and to the making of the film.

[Sardo]

There were llamas in Troy? Where?

[Scurvy]

i quite liked it....it doesnt have to be realistic...its a film!

[Ludens]

i quite liked it....it doesnt have to be realistic...its a film!
But if it claims to be historical...

Also, since too many people today get their information from Hollywood, they might make a bit more effort to get their information close to the truth. As opposed to picking some bits out of history, mixing them together, adding a few standard ingredients (romance, honour, truth) and presenting it as historical.

[matteus the inbred]

i don't think Germaanse Strijder liked this film...but that's just the impression i get, mind.
i was quite pleased with it at the cinema, apart from the odd clunky bit of dialogue and some mostly forgiveable but still quite glaring anachronisms and inaccuracies. Knightley's character was so inexplicable and illogical (and i'm not just talking about her magic healing hand), but her unexplained ability to speak cut-glass English when the rest of her people grunt and talk in some Celtic/Pictish dialect. and the bra, yes. oh dear. it gets worse in the extended DVD, she has some girlfriends with the same leather-thongs-and-knives style.

i bought the Director's Cut DVD, which has more scrapping (all good, Branagh's Henry V, Braveheart and Gladiator really set the standard for grim and bloody fights in the mud). some silly bits, and the ol' six knights killing hundreds of badass looking Saxons is a bit silly, but they are heroes and most of them do end up dead anyway.

but it's in the dialogue where the film falls down...any dialogue not involving laddish banter between the knights (particularly Ioan Gruffudd's Lancelot) is rubbish. Stellan Skarsgaard (Cerdic) clearly turned up for the paycheck and cunningly disguised it as 'moody and driven', some of the others had a game effort and Ray Winstone (Bors) clearly had a fantastic time swearing and hitting people (surprise...). If anyone's seen the BBC's 'Rome' series you'll know why they wisely cast Ray Stevenson (Dagonet) as 'strong but silent'.
anyway, pants dialogue, dodgy plot, just a few too many silly things, and the obligatory pre-final-battle hero speech was as duff as Viggo Mortensen's in LotR:RotK; they ought to stop writing these things in, or do something semi-ironic with them. Thought the music was damn good though. But the main let-down was Clive Owen, whose lizardlike lack of expression meant that the whole film was doomed...he's a good actor, but not in this, where he never seems to excite.

phew. sorry about the length, but this is one of those films that i really wanted to see (mainly to rid myself of memories of First Knight <shudders>) and have gradually felt more and more let down by every time i see it...

[Monarch]

Alex. Check the DVD box and if you see the words "staring Keira Knightley" then you know the film will be rubbish. (Bend it like Beckham is an exception)

You cant say Pirates Of The Carribean isn't any good. It's an awesome movie!

Anyway, I tried to rent KA, ended up inintentionally watching the directors cut which is like 5 days long, incredible bordom. All I remember is them on some ice in some part of the movie? Bleh...

[Duke of Gloucester]

You cant say Pirates Of The Carribean isn't any good. It's an awesome movie!


I can. Watch. Pirates of the Carribean isn't any good. (I realise I might be in a minority here, but it really isn't any good, honest)

[Leonin Khan]

well part 1 was oke...but 2 and 3 will SUCK

[Vladimir]

I was dissapointed but it was a nice twist. I always liked to think of Arthur as an early Dark Ages or late Roman guy. It seemed kinda anti-Christian and now days I'm not sure if it's being historical or trying to push a certain agenda.

[Slyspy]

There were llamas in Troy? Where?

There is a string of suspiciously llama like camels in the town-square scene when the invaders first land and all the townsfolk are panicking. Though I could be wrong, having only seen the film once.

[Kralizec]

i don't think Germaanse Strijder liked this film...but that's just the impression i get, mind.

You couldn't be further from the truth. I loved King Arthur almost as much as having my fingers crushed by someone slamming a door shut while my fingers are still on the doorpost! :laugh4:

To be fair though, the first time I saw it I did enjoy it somewhat, but that was in the theatre where movies are off course more enjoyable. But the second time watching it on DVD was a poor experience.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

phew. sorry about the length, but this is one of those films that i really wanted to see (mainly to rid myself of memories of First Knight <shudders>) and have gradually felt more and more let down by every time i see it...

You want to see how bad it is just watch Excalibur just before you watch it. The definitive version of Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable. But what would an RTK know of these things? :inquisitive:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I have never seen Excalibur and I would much like to.:2thumbsup:

[Vladimir]

I have never seen Excalibur and I would much like to.:2thumbsup:

Just think of El Cid. Or if you haven't seen that think of a highly romanticized version of The Death of Arthur (however you spell it in French). I'm into cheezy full plate mail romances (a REAL man keeps his armor on when having sex!). It was made in '81 or '80 but if you get the DVD version it's rather timeless (it looks great).

[matteus the inbred]

Just think of El Cid. Or if you haven't seen that think of a highly romanticized version of The Death of Arthur (however you spell it in French). I'm into cheezy full plate mail romances (a REAL man keeps his armor on when having sex!). It was made in '81 or '80 but if you get the DVD version it's rather timeless (it looks great).

:laugh4: i love that bit!!
the bit where Arthur (or someone?) takes some guy's arm off is funny as well.

is it Mallory's Motre d'Arthur you mean there...? i enjoy that stuff too.

[Sardo]

a REAL man keeps his armor on when having sex!
That's in the film for real?

Excalibur was on tv last Saturday here, I taped it to watch when exams are over, 8 days from now. For all I care, they can have sorcerers shooting bolts of lightning from their crotches and I'd still enjoy it more than King Arthur - because King Arthur promised the "real" story and then had Saxons landing north of Hadrian's Wall and attacking it to get to the south, half-naked woaded barbarians using trebuchets, legendary 7-man "cavalry units", an emperor-pope of sorts, a barbarian Xena discussing the nature of man ("to live free"), people reincarnating into horses and more cheesy things, and to top it all off, a dumb storyline and bad acting! And what was up with sticking beautiful and very expensive swords in graves for any commong thief passing by to take home with him? That's supposed to be the whole sword-in-the-stone thing?

[Vladimir]

:laugh4: is it Mallory's Motre d'Arthur you mean there...? i enjoy that stuff too.

That's the one.


That's in the film for real?

Yup, and it's the director's daughter that is "raped". He does the commentary during the movie and you can tell he wasn't pleased but evidently his daughter was eager to do the scene.

[Slyspy]

I remember seeing Excalibur at school. How we revelled in the brutality and gore! I can't remember what the lesson was about though...

[Vladimir]

I remember seeing Excalibur at school. How we revelled in the brutality and gore! I can't remember what the lesson was about though...

We did too. For some reason our feminist teacher fast forwarded past Genevieve’s boobies but just stared at Lancelot's naked body.

[Zain]

We did too. For some reason our feminist teacher fast forwarded past Genevieve’s boobies but just stared at Lancelot's naked body.

LOL

We haven't watched it in class, but I have at home. I liked the movie for the action and enormously impossible odds. But historically it's definently inaccurate.

-ZainDUstin

[Gawain of Orkeny]

http://i.imdb.com/Icons/poster_under_licence.gif


Along with Ken Russell, John Boorman can be seen as a key figure in the modern British cinema... His interest in myth, dream, landscape and memory may be compared with that of Resnais, Leone, and Roeg...

Boorman's 'Excalibur' is characterized by his use of jealousy and adultery, sex and sorcery... It is also characterized by fire and fog, shadow and moonlight, creating an air of mystery that is essential element in the Arthurian legend...

Boorman's 'Excalibur' is a mythical presentation leading the viewers to travel with the flow of the legend... It is a magical story with wonderful exotic sets, and interesting camera-work in the lush green scenery of Ireland... (The Cinematography won an Academy Award Nomination).

Boorman's "Excalibur" is both fantasy and philosophy... Love seems to be a destructive force, lyrically beautiful and bravely realistic...

The film brings to life the fateful story of a solitary hero, his ascension to the throne, the love triangle of Camelot, the quest for the Holy Grail, the decline and eventual fall of Arthur and Camelot... Along for the ride are his indispensable Knights of the Round Table, particularly Sir Lancelot...

The characters in Boorman's "Excalibur" are extremely well developed... Arthur is seen as a naive squire, who develops into an idealistic king... Arthur tries to use Might for the establishment of Right, and according to his own laws, he puts reason over love...

A prominent figure in the film is Merlin... He lives backwards, which makes him "a dream to some, a nightmare to others." He defines the cave of the dragon as a place where all things meet their opposite: "The future and the past, desire and regret, knowledge and oblivion". But when Morgana pronounces "love", one would expect Merlin to answer "hate", but he just says: "O yes."

Morgana knows that Uther and Merlin are responsible for the death of her father... She dedicates her life to revenge.. Her scenes with Merlin are full of fire and poison... When she steals the "charm of making" from Merlin, Morgana gets stronger... We feared her lines when she affirmed: "I can ease your loneliness."

Lancelot looks at himself as a sinful person who has betrayed a friend... He stays lonely in the forest, haunted by sorrow and pain... He dreams of a fight with himself... And when he wakes up naked, he sees his own sword stuck in his side... The film endures and inspires because it embodies mankind's deepest yearnings...

Among the many elements that make the movie work is the cast: Nigel Terry, the rightful King who, accidentally, removes the sword of power easily, not once, but twice; Helen Mirren, the enchantress Morgana, Merlin's nemesis and Arthur's treacherous half-sister, who seduces Merlin, and then encircles him in a stream of vengeance; Nicholas Clay, persuasively ardent and athletic as the First Knight; Cherie Lunghi, the damsel in distress who loves her husband with her mind and Lancelot with her heart; Nicol Williamson, the wily Merlin who would see that the young Arthur receive the necessary training and guidance to fulfill his unlikely destiny; Gabriel Byrne, the hot-blooded Uther Pendragon, who plunges 'Excalibur' deep into a stone rock in one last act of defiance; Katrine Boorman, the woman taken as by a fully armored King; Liam Neeson, the knight who dares to accuse the Queen; and Robert Addie, the 'unholy child' who comes to Camelot to demand the throne of his father...

One of the more fascinating aspects of the film (and there are many...) are the differences between Uther and Arthur... King Uther is unable to master his instincts... His world is confusion, disorder, and unlimited passion... The characteristic developments of Arthur occur as he faces the trials of his life... The knowledge of the affair yet his love for his beautiful wife and best friend wage war inside of his mind... When he sees Guinevere in the arms of Lancelot, he stuck 'Excalibur' between them loosing his connection to the extraordinary powers of Merlin and the Lady of the Lake...

John Boorman's films frequently concern contradictions and polarities, tensions between nature and civilization, dream and reality... Equally, his career as a whole swings violently between success and failure, intelligent ambition and pretentiousness...



http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/74/142074.jpg

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/allposters/20/1800062820p.jpg

[ShadesPanther]

There is a string of suspiciously llama like camels in the town-square scene when the invaders first land and all the townsfolk are panicking. Though I could be wrong, having only seen the film once.


Yeah I've seen it too. I am almost completely sure it is a llama and it runs like one. It was filmed in Mexico so it is possible