King Arthur Legend of the Sword Funny Scene
King Arthur
Let's be clear: this contains very few aspects of the actual Arthur legend. They probably should have just gone for a wacky original medieval fantasy film instead. That being said, I didn't expect Ritchie's style to work this well here. And he hasn't been this crazy since Snatch. Some montages are so breathless, fast and innovative as far as editing and soundtrack go, it's a pleasure. Sure, the plot follows the genre conventions more or less, and the finale is a bit heavy on CGI. On the other hand the assassination attempt sequence is fantastic and the portrayal of magic pretty cool. Hell, I had fun with this.
117 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A real mess
Warning: Spoilers
KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD is another example of Hollywood's modern obsession with CGI-enhanced action spectacle, forgetting in the meantime to include anything like narrative coherence, character depth, the usual staples of filmmaking. This one starts off with big, brawling, random fantasy sequence, but who cares when you don't know the characters or indeed know what's going on?
After lots of stylistic nonsense - Guy Ritchie's glory days are long in the distant past - we join up with a Robin Hood-style Charlie Hunnam, a Cockney geezer replete with silly dialogue and tough guy posturing. He fights against evil Jude Law in a series of sprawling action set-pieces, occasionally featuring solid choreography but all too often reduced to lame CGI effects for no reason. The writing is paper thin, the story a mere mish-mash of fantasy tropes from LORD OF THE RINGS and GAME OF THRONES with no realism whatsoever, and it still goes on an hour too long.
38 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Arthur- Guy Ritchie Style
Warning: Spoilers
In some what I'm not all that surprised that Guy Ritchie decided to do a King Arthur film, though I wasn't quite expecting it to be a film done in Guy Ritchie style. In a sense it sort of comes across as being his typical dark and gritty film yet in another sense it is also very much an heroic fantasy. In a way it is a shame that the film flopped the way it did because it was actually a pretty enjoyable film, and I certainly quite like Ritchie's style of directing. Okay, a part of me didn't quite get the humour of the piece, particularly since we had a similar style in all of his films. However, what we do need to remember is the Ritchies style has always been very gritty, and King Arthur is no exception.
The thing with Arthur is that there are quite a lot of stories out there, and none of them are really the same. I guess this is the nature of a legend. Interestingly some of the stories don't even have Arthur meeting Merlin (and this is the case in this film). In fact Arthur didn't even get to meet his father, but I suspect that is consistent with a lot of the legends. In this film we have the sorcerer Mordred ravaging the land, however in the aftermath of the battle, Uther's brother slays his wife to gain power, and releases a demon that kills both Uther and his wife, but allowing Arthur to go free. However, before he dies the sword, Excalibur is buried in rock and only the true born king can pull it out.
Much of the film is really about Arthur coming to terms with who he is. He grows up in a brothel and in true Guy Ritchie style, through perseverance, charm, and simple determination, basically becomes a underworld figure. However the false king suddenly discovers that as long as the sword is in the stone (and for quite a while it was underwater, however the water then drained away revealing it to all), then his power isn't going to be complete, so he sends out his troops to round up everybody Arthur's age to see if they can remove the sword. As you can probably guess Arthur succeeds. However, because is the true king, he is a threat, so he is about to be executed, except the rebels, who have been simmering around for a while, rise their heads and attack.
The other thing that the film reminded me of was Macbeth. In fact it appeared to be a retelling of the Shakespearian play using the Arthurian heroes as opposed to the Shakespearian heroes. The reason that seemed to come about was the appearance of the three witches that lived in the lake. Okay, unlike Macbeth, this film focuses more on Arthur than on the protagonist, but it seemed to come out that way a lot. However, what really grabbed my attention was that despite it being heroic fantasy, it still have the real grittiness of your typical Guy Ritchie film, and it is a real shame that it is a flop because it isn't actually as bad as the takings make it out to be (though this may have a lot more to do with the extravagant nature of the film as opposed to any inherent problems with it).
53 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Entertaining Adaptation of King Arthur & Excalibur Sword
Wow, this is one heck of a movie. I was overwhelmed with some of the scenes, especially the fighting scenes in the beginning, the middle and also in the end. There was a wonderful opening credit scene which I felt was very awesome. It lasted probably only 5 minutes but it really impressed me. And, the movie also had some brief parts which were fun to see, like the scene when Arthur was telling the story about the Vikings. Out of the whole fighting scenes, the one that I enjoyed most was in the middle which I felt was rather breathtaking and having an ultimate amazing ending.
Apart from the cool action sequences, the movie also had some dramatic moments and surprises. I really think that the way Guy Ritchie directed this movie made it very enjoyable. I did feel some similarities with other movies that he directed like the 2009 Sherlock Holmes movie and its sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows in 2011, especially in the part of using pieces of flash backs to explain something.
I think the special effects to the movie was very good, which should not be a surprise considering it has a USD 175 million budget. My only worry is with such hefty budget, it may not be having a large profit since the movie itself might not appeal to some hardline fans of the folklore of King Arthur, Excalibur, mages and so on, due to the rather unusual way of story telling. Some people might also feel that the movie lacks the cruelty & violence of a medieval era war kind of movie such as Kingdom of Heaven or Game of Thrones TV series. For my personal view though, this movie was just nice since its attraction is certainly on the way the story being told, and again, its fighting sequence.
The sound effects of the movie were very good. Some background music truly gave extra sense of suspense or sadness and so on. The duration of 2 hours was just perfect to me, and I honestly felt there was no dull moment. There was no post-credit scene for you to wait, except if you enjoy listening to the soundtrack song & music. Before I forgot, there was a cameo appearance of the popular soccer player David Beckham. Let's see if you noticed him.
So for those who want to enjoy a nice action adventure film in the medieval period with some sword and sorcery plus the background of King Arthur with the knights of the round table, then you would definitely enjoy this one (especially if you are a fan of Guy Ritchie's works). Now if you are not a fan of this kind of movie or you prefer a more bloody/violent movie, then perhaps this one would be a bit soft.
For my complete review, pls have a look at michaelnontonmulu.blogspot.co.id
357 out of 610 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not the type of movie Guy Ritchie should make.
Guy Ritchie should stick at what he's best at. Movies like Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Rocknrolla. Those are the style movies he should make and not one about King Arthur. King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is a big budget movie, no doubt about that, with alot of effort with the special effects, CGI's, costumes and extras. But the problem is the story and the acting. The story is just weak, and sometimes makes no sense at all. Even with all the special effects, that are nicely shot, it still remains boring to watch. The acting was just mediocre, it looked like they were reading their script all the time. Charlie Hunnam can only play Jax, his character in Sons Of Anarchy. I was literally waiting for him to step on his bike and drive away. I don't know what women see in him, his acting is very monotone and average. The acting of Astrid Bergès-Frisbey playing The Mage was also just mediocre. It looked all fake, just like the whole story. With such a high budget you would expect quality, but besides the filming and the special effects it's just below average. Disappointment!
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All style, no substance
Perhaps this movie means more to people who have some kind of attachment or attraction to the King Arthur legend already. That's the only way I can explain how so many people are giving this movie gushing 10/10 reviews.
For me, it was a largely vapid CGI-fest completely devoid of realism or reality. It's pretty much on par with your latest superhero / Avengers type of movie, with fast cut action sequences, explosions, things flying around the screen, and stylized slow motion. I expected more than this from Guy Ritchie.
I also didn't expect it to be so much of a "fantasy" film. I was expecting / hoping for a historical action movie but there is almost no history here. Everything is stylized and made up. The armour and weapons are all made up, the castles are unbelievable and fantastic (huge towers, arches, 1000 ft bridges, etc), African and Asian characters have been inserted, and there are almost no historical references.
So it all kind of mashes together into 2 hours of fantasy-action featuring characters you don't really care about and that have no grounding in any reality that seems to make sense. And you can tell they want to turn this into a franchise with several more sequels. Thankfully we may be spared this horrible future as I hear it's bombing at the box office (there were 2 other people in my theatre). It's a bad film I would never want to see again.
252 out of 463 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a creative and nearly perfect interpretation of Arthurian legend
Warning: Spoilers
At its most basic, the story of King Arthur boils down to this: He was a fabled king of Britain in the late 5th and early 6th centuries, whose legend has grown and expanded over the millennium and a half since. Historically, we don't know for sure whether Arthur actually existed, but literarily, not only can his existence not be denied, but it cannot be avoided. Tales of the great king and his court, called Camelot, his wife Guinevere, his right-hand-man Lancelot and the rest of the Knights of the Round Table, his wizard Merlin and Arthur's magical sword Excalibur have been told, retold, changed and embellished over the centuries by books, stage productions and other media, including, of course, television and film. A countless number of TV shows and movies have referenced the legends and many have used "Excalibur", "Camelot" and, of course, "Arthur" in their titles. In 2017, auteur Guy Ritchie gets into the game with the action-adventure-drama "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" (PG-13, 2:06), the first in a series of films reinterpreting the Arthurian legend with Ritchie's signature creative flare for reinvention. In launching a new franchise, Ritchie gives us an origin story which expounds upon the age-old tales, introduces new elements and characters and combines other stories and legends into a cohesive whole.
In this film, as in the legends, Arthur is the son of King Uther (Eric Bana). After heroically fending off an attack on Camelot by the ruthless evil wizard Mordred and his mammoth war elephants (reminiscent of those in the film "300", but bigger), Uther further enhanced his own stellar reputation among his court, his people and everyone… except for his ambitious, but faux loyal brother, Vortigern (Jude Law). Vortigern soon kills Uther and his wife, but Uther's Excalibur is lost in a lake and the king's two-year-old son gets into a boat and floats away. In a twist on the biblical story of the young Moses, Arthur is plucked from the water by a group of women, prostitutes, in this case. They raise Arthur as their own and he is mentored by an Asian man called George (Tom Wu) who teaches Arthur how to fight. Arthur grows up to be a man of honor and a protector to the women who cared for him his whole life, but his past catches up with him, threatening everything and everyone he knows and changing his life forever.
When the waters of that lake recede and expose Excalibur embedded deep in a large stone, Vortigern worries that young Arthur survived his aquatic exile, grew up and may come back to claim his father's throne. Believing that only the rightful heir to the throne can remove the sword from the stone, Vortigern orders that all young men in the kingdom be brought to the castle and made to try doing just that. When Arthur reluctantly takes his turn, of course, he removes the sword – and the ground actually shakes. Arthur is pretty shaken too – because he has grown up thinking his mother was a prostitute – and because the power flowing through the sword is so strong that it knocks him unconscious. When he wakes up (locked up), he tells Vortigern that he has no designs on power, but it would clearly make Vortigern's life easier if Arthur were out of the picture – permanently. Unfortunately for Vortigern, Arthur gets help from a Mage (a magical human – played by Astrid Bergès-Frisbey) as well as a rebel named Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou) and his cohorts (including Aidan Gillen, Freddie Fox, Kingsley Ben-Adir and Neil Maskell) and even Vortigern's wife, Maggie (Annabelle Wallis). These characters play a role in helping Arthur learn to harness the power of Excalibur and convince Arthur of his responsibility and his unique ability to save the kingdom from Vortigern's power hungry, abusive and murderous ways.
"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is one of the best movies from the first half of 2017 – and one of the best action movies ever. It builds on a well-established and multi-faceted legend and incorporates elements of other movie franchises, but Guy Ritchie's visionary directing makes this cinematic King Arthur tale very special indeed. According to IMDb, the film was pitched to Warner Bros. as a combination of "Lord of the Rings" and "Snatched" (Ritchie's 2000 film), but I see the finished product differently. In addition to those films, I see the influence of TV's "Game of Thrones" and the films "300", "The Ten Commandments", "The Godfather", "Kingsman: The Secret Service" and, of course, Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films. The creative cinematography, editing and visual effects from his earlier movies are more highly developed and more entertaining in this one. Also, the performances are uniformly outstanding, the story is engaging, the dialog is well-written (with some comedic moments and some emotional ones), the action scenes are creative and exciting and the score contributes significantly to the movie's overall quality, with its conjoining of musical styles from today with those from centuries ago. In short, this is a nearly perfect film which will likely entertain Movie Fans of any kingdom. "A+"
143 out of 277 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's King Arthur through Guy Ritchie's filters
The biggest problem with #KingArthur #LegendOfTheSword is that it puts more emphasis on trying to be a Guy Ritchie superhero film than it is about King Arthur. I understand that mythically, Arthur's sword supposedly bears powers of its own, but this films makes its effects work the same way spinach boosts Popeye's strength. Another problem is that instead of watching a movie, some of the time it feels more like you're watching "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor" video game walkthrough.
Charlie Hunnam stars as the born king, Arthur whose father is murdered as Arthur's uncle, Vortigern (Jude Law) seizes the crown. The film traces Arthur's journey from the brothel life all the way to the throne. Robbed of his birthright, Arthur pulls the sword from the stone and finds himself become the king's threat number one.
At the very least, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" does have a clear story, so this is not as messy or as incoherent as a Zack Snyder presentation by any stretch of the imagination. And if you're a die hard Guy Ritchie fan, this too carries his usual brute montage style that often explains a subplot in a very quick, very humorous manner, so in that sense, it is a more dynamic film than any of the other versions of King Arthur you've seen on the screen.
Charlie Hunnam essentially plays a reluctant hero who's having difficulties coming to terms with his destiny but after a while, his continued reluctance becomes frustrating and downright annoying. Not to mention the fact that for whatever reason, this film is so obsessed with wasting time on VFX hallucinations and pointless creatures, there really is no good reason why this film's runtime has to be 126 minutes long. And the supporting characters aren't well-developed either which is why you'd get easily stoked at David Beckham's easily spotted cameo. Jude Law is probably this film's only redeeming quality, as the villain, Law is as incredible and reliable as he's ever been which makes his character, Vortigern, a formidable foe. Overall, I'm not saying that "King Arthur: Legend of The Sword" is not an entertaining film if you're a style-over-substance kind of an audience, but just be aware that you'll be viewing Arthur through Guy Ritchie's filters.
97 out of 185 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Forget about king Arthur
Few months ago when I watched the trailer and considering the fact that Guy Ritchie is directing this I knew one thing for sure - this movie will NOT BE a King Arthur story. What happens here is that Ritchie took the concept of the King Arthur and Excalibur's myths and made a movie out of them in a way only he can (reference - Sherlock Holmes).
So what you should expect and what you will get from this movie is: - Charlie Hunnam (excellent actor with huge potential) - Jude Law (no need of comment here, this movie won't be the same without him). Hunnam and Law were one of the reasons I wanted to watch this movie - Hell of a good soundtrack - Excellent overall atmosphere and FX - 100% Guy Ritchie movie - Fun
What you should NOT expect from this movie is regular King Arthur story - quite the same if you had expected a regular WWII story from Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards. And the only thing I felt missing to get a 100% fun from the new Ritchie's movie was Vinnie Jones :)
I hope you'll enjoy it as I did on my Friday's cinema evening!!!
191 out of 335 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brilliant!
Warning: Spoilers
Hadn't seen a trailer or heard much about this, aside from the face David Beckham was in it (he had like two lines and they were fine so not sure whey everyone was so fussed about that). The movie was really really good. It was intense, exciting, bonus points for a super attractive lead!
Everyones acting was really good, especially Jude Law (who was maybe too convincing) and Charlie Hunnam(?). The little boy called Blue stole every scene he was in.
Guy Ritchie did a cracking job, the music and camera angles plus general style of the film made it interesting and quick paced with some witty banter.
Did have a couple of general questions, why did building a taller tower mean he had more power? Where was Merlin? Who was Maggie? Was this Mage girl actually Merlin? How did he not remember what happened he was like 8? The three women in the basement, who were they?
But all in all I loved it, and would probably watch it again :)
196 out of 294 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Positive reviews from Richie fans only. Movie is tripe
I like films about King Arthur and have done ever since being a child many, many years ago. I find it interesting to see different takes on a classic legend from my part of the world.
However, this movie is the ONLY one I have seen where I have cringed from beginning to end.
It is big - has lots of CGI - and that is about the only thing I can say about it.
The story is ridiculous and the acting is worse than imagining Daffy Duck perform Shakespeare (although that would be far more entertaining).
Then there is the awful, dreadful, dire, and ridiculous appearance by David Beckham.
It does not follow that because Beckham is a mate of Richie's that he can act - he obviously can not - and will never be able to.
Of the thousands and thousands of films I have seem in my lifetime there are very, very few I would like to get a refund for if I could. This is one of them.
201 out of 412 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Pleasant Surprise!
The first trailer had me very excited to see this film. The genre is right up my alley. But negative reviews made me think twice and I was just going to wait for it to go to redbox or watch it online (just being honest LOL). But then I started seeing positive reviews and I knew I had to form my opinion. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised and glad I went because I really enjoyed this film from beginning to end. IT's not without it's flaws but will get into that in a minute.
Of course the tale of King Arthur, Excalibur, Camelot, etc. has been told so many times in Hollywood. However, Guy Ritchie's unique storytelling ability made it a fun ride to watch. I will admit that his signature exposition cut-aways got a bit repetitive and lost it's spice around the third time -- meaning, let's devise a plan, while showing the plan happening in order to save time, but explain to the audience what's going on without long monologues, etc -- it's a really cool way to tell a story but he used it a bit too much.
Other than that, the rest of the movie was fairly enjoyable. It went a good pace and had the right amount of fantasy elements while showing Arthur go from a petty scammer to a King. I will say that the castings of Jude Law and Astrid Berges-Frisbey were the more questionable ones for me. They both were pretty monotone and did nothing for their characters. Charlie Hunnam is a decent actor as well. He didn't do anything Oscar worthy but I definitely believed him as Arthur.
The moments when he actually used the sword in battle were my favorites. I think this is the first time in years where someone actually had a clear vision of how to showcase what exactly made Excalibur special. The final battle was a bit underwhelming with all the quick cuts and camera tricks. It was cool to watch from an aesthetic perspective but being just a regular person in the audience, I just wanted to watch them fight.
Overall the movie is an 8 out of 10, but I gave it a 9 because it does NOT deserve a low score at all. It's a really good film that is actually re-watchable. Don't believe the negative viewers, it's a well made film!
34 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One King Arthur origin story, from small child to King.
Warning: Spoilers
My wife and I watched this at home on BluRay from a Redbox rental. The picture and sound are great as we have become accustomed with BD.
Guy Ritchie is an inventive filmmaker, who could ever forget "Snatch"? He uses interesting visuals with quick cuts and with unconventional ways to tell the story. It requires patience because at first glance many things don't add up but as we keep watching eventually it all, or at least most, becomes clear.
There is no single King Arthur story. Most evidence points to him being a fictional character, perhaps based on a real person. The approach Ritchie uses for this movie is the one which includes magic and supernatural phenomena.
The opening scenes of the movie involve action that often is typical of the finale of an action movie, but it sets the stage for the death of the King Uther, young Arthur's father, and the whisking away of the boy by boat as Vortigern holds onto the crown and becomes an evil King. Most of the middle of the movie shows the boy being raised in a brothel and becoming street smart. That eventually brings us to his pulling Excalibur out of the stone and beginning to reluctantly accept his powers and his eventual role. As the story concludes we see him and his new Knights with his round table about 3/4 completed.
I found Charlie Hunnam to be very effective as the adult Arthur and Astrid Bergès-Frisbey appropriately freaky as The Mage, using her magical powers to assist Arthur. The best actor here is Jude Law as Vortigern. In his rather brief but critical role Eric Bana is effective as Uther.
This is a "popcorn" movie, just made for entertainment. We were entertained.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely god awful
Warning: Spoilers
I made it through twenty minutes. It has possibly the worst video editing that I've ever seen in a film in my life. I didn't even know what I was watching sometimes during those twenty minutes. They cut from one meaningless thing to another like it was vital to a story element when, in fact, it was just a supposedly cool "Suicide Squad" style sequence. It also had two video montages during those twenty minutes, which was intolerable, partly because they were done in the same frantic and headache-inducing manner that the regular cuts were shot in.
There was a battle in which the evil mages that were seizing power were apparently casting spells from the tops of gigantic elephants, but we never saw them actually wielding magic. We just saw people being blown back by explosions. In the meantime, they just showed the mages' glowing eyes. So when Eric Bana's character beheaded the main mage (which ALSO wasn't even shown) it makes it all the more meaningless.
At one point, in one of the worst examples of foreshadowing (if it can even be called such) that I've ever seen in a film, someone reminds a group that Jude Law's character studied with the evil mages. His response: "What are you implying?" Smash cut to Jude performing an evil ritual whereby he became the new king. Aaaaaaand someone please kill me.
When it finally got around to Charlie Humman taking over the main rebel role, I couldn't have cared less. As other people have noted, he is dead-faced and expressionless. I couldn't have cared less if he regained his family's power.
I'm going to go with two stars just because the tentacled demon creature with three women that Jude worships was one creepy positive in this dumpster fire.
183 out of 363 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I recommend you see it on the big screen, while you still can!
'KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)
Director Guy Ritchie's new updated take on the King Arthur legend. He directed the film and co-wrote it, with Lionel Wigram and Joby Harold. Charlie Hunnam stars in the title role; and Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen and Eric Bana costar. The movie has received mostly negative reviews from critics, and it's bombed at the Box Office so far as well. It was made on a budget well north of $100 million, and it was supposed to be the first film planned in a six movie series! I loved it.
In the film young Arthur (Hunnam) rules the streets of Londinium, with his loyal followers, and he's completely unaware of his royal lineage. One day he's stopped by the King's men, and sent to attempt to draw the legendary sword Excalibur from the stone it's been lodged in. When he's successful, King Vortigern (Law) sees Arthur as an immediate threat. So he attempts to have him executed, before a large audience. The Resistance, lead by Sir Bedivere (Hounsou) and The Mage (Berges-Frisbey), rescue him though. Arthur then must learn to use his newly discovered powers, master the magical sword, and accept his true destiny; of stopping Vortigern's evil reign, and replacing him as the rightful king of England.
The movie has been heavily criticized by critics (but it's mostly loved by movie fans) for it's extremely fast pace, and very quick editing style (plus it's excessive shaky camera usage). These are all things Ritchie is well known (and loved for) though. I think it's a lot more entertaining, and a better made film, than the 'SHERLOCK HOLMES' movies (which were loved by critics for some reason, despite the fact that they're made in a similar style). This movie is a little like 'THE LORD OF THE RINGS' mixed with 'SNATCH'. I think it's immensely entertaining, and I had a blast seeing it on the big screen. I recommend you do the same, while you still can!
Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/b6j-_hcq7Wo
22 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kinga Arthur, Yo!
Warning: Spoilers
oh wow so much contrasting emotions.
So, it's a Guy Ritchie film. Well, "film", it's a film-like thing. Set in ... oh god .. set in some sort of very confused middle-ages England .. with magical monsters. Oh and king Arthur. There's plenty of sexy ladies hanging around and everyone has that gangster accent from London. There's vikings and kung-fu. Mountain-sized magical elephants that shoot fireballs.
Think The Great Wall, but even less historically accurate.
So, south-London-born King Arthur is a scoundrel who runs a protection racket. He was abandoned as a child after his dad the true king was murdered by the bad guy. For some reason David Beckham has him (yes, David Beckham the football guy) draw The Sword from the stone and when he does, the Bad Guy(TM) immediately proceeds to upset him by killing his girlfriend and trying to have him executed. Aw snap, IT IS ON!
So Arthur like, escapes and stuff, and immediately scores a new GF much skinnier and sexier than the one before. Aaand i think they got confused with Robin Hood here because he goes into hiding in the woods and basically joins up with a band of merry men, where they use magic to send him on a quest, ermm .. something like Luke's test on Dagobah,with giant animals .. Yoda's part is played by some discount Samuel L Jackson clone.
OK well you get the drift.
It's a totally unrealistic fantasy film where the script is drunk and running naked in a store high on acid.
So, gorgeous production, fairly solid acting, insane direction typical of Guy Ritchie, nice effects, i gotta say, if i was 15yo i would LOVE this film. It's got a lot of random bull in it but it's the immortal story of the sword in the stone and some things in this film are actually pretty clever. The lead is a bit wooden and the bad guy is horrible, but they have little dialogue, with most of the work being done by the supporting actors. If you are not offended by a retelling that takes more inspiration from Hellboy than from the original fable, then you will enjoy this film. if you are a stick in the mud, then you will find this film offensive and you should go watch Excalibur (1981) instead.
my rating: 7/10 - it's bad and good at the same time.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Arthur, No.
Good lord, what a generic try hard of a movie. There is so much polish on this one to try and make it stylish that it hurts. So much that, at times this feels more like a video game cutscene than a movie. There's some fun action here and there and Hunam and Law are fun to watch but this is such a nothing movie that I likely will forget all about very soon.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Honest Review
Yeah, this is a bad movie. I remember rolling my eyes when it was announced, I just knew it was going to be bad... and I knew it was going to be bad for all the reasons I like Guy Ritchie movies....
... there are one or two Anti-Woke reviews. A Black guy in Arthurian Britain? Yeah I hate wokeness too, but let's be fair, he isn't in Arthurian Britain, he's in a Guy Ritchie movie... that means the casting probably wasn't done to be woke, it was done because Djimon Hounsou is pretty cool... but that is part of the problem... not that there was a Black guy in a Guy Ritchie about King Arthur, but that it was a Guy Ritchie movie about King Arthur and he was cast because he is cool, hip, an actor that you would cast in a modern movie and.... That doesn't work for King Arthur.
The same thing goes for Jude Law... just no, not right for that part. And, again, not right for the same reasons... a little too hip. A little too cool. A little too modern.
Charlie Hunnam, believe it or not, I can see in the role... if it wasn't for the dialogue. When he was first cast I was against it. But, honestly, there are times where I think he could sell it if it was taken a little more seriously.
Tom Wu, on the other hand... just no you do not need a Mr. Miyagi ultra-hip kung-fu teacher in Arthurian England. That is the character that a middle school writer is going to add because he thinks it's cool.
And then the bad guys? Same as Tom Wu, they were added because Ritchie saw 300 and thought the immortals looked cool enough to add to the story.
It's a bit too hip for King Arthur, especially since he's introduced as the typically Guy Ritchie criminal that you would see in Snatch, Lock, Stock, whatever with all the same British Tarrintino dialogue that comes with him...
... only done as King Arthur.
And that doesn't really work. King Arthur doesn't have to be stuffy, but he also shouldn't be written as three seconds off of breaking into Cockney rhyming slang either.
It's kind of an important tradition, an important story, an important bit of culture that people identify with as a nation... it really doesn't need the Snatch treatment. It makes everything feel out of place.
Not only that, but the intro is so jarring that you almost walk out before the movie gets rolling. Fx wise, it is everything wrong with First Knight, everything wrong with 10,000 BC, and the 04 King Arthur. It just looks a bit too Lord of the Rings.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A disappointing mess.
There are very little redeeming qualities about this mess of a film, and it really is a mess. If I had to walk away with a positive though, I would say the music was pretty good for the most part.
So where to start.
The acting from Charlie Hunnam (I loved him as Jax Teller) is laughable. Almost as laughable with how "pretty" he was in one of the final fight sequences of the film even though he had just taken a pasting. He is so wooden, so unbelievable that it is hard to take him seriously or believe anyone would follow him. It helps then that the rest of the acting is shoddy too. The female mage is so flat she may as well be horizontal. David Beckham's cameo is out of place and painful and... Well what did you expect when they saw fit to employ "Denny from Eastenders"? The lad can't act in the soap, let alone a movie. Any time a soap actor appears in a "blockbuster" I get that sinking feeling... Let's not forget that Charlie started in Byker Grove though but we can't hold that against him. We can hold this film against him.
Jude Law was decent enough, stepping away from his usual type of character. One of the only characters you could believe in but one you're not supposed to like. The problem being, as he is the only believable character in the film - you can't help but root for him.
The rest of the performances were paint by numbers, collecting a pay check and if this was the best Guy Ritchie could get from them - perhaps he isn't fit for being a director? And - to be fair - he probably isn't. At least, this type of film. He nailed Snatch and Lock, Stock - that much is a given and there are traces of that directorial style in this film (characters recalling stories and flitting between them talking and flash back sequences for example) but the problem is - it felt forced and out of place here. Put with that the fact Guy simply cannot direct action - you have a problem. It felt like two films. One film where you can get suckered in with the stories the characters are telling and the other, you're wishing your life away watching rubbish CGI, limp acting and a muddled mess of a fight sequence. Seriously - why so many slow motion shots of Charlie cutting through wood?!
In one scene where he uses the sword, it happened so fast that I still don't really know what happened. And the fight at the end? I still don't know who hit who for the best part of it. Although, given how pristine Charlie looked afterwards, I am guessing he had time to pop off to a spa whilst the Big Bad fought alone.
The script is as much to blame as the cast and crew though. It's a mess, jumbled up with too many dialogue sections spliced with flashbacks that aren't necessary. For this kind of film - perhaps a more linear story would have made more sense? As mentioned above, it felt like a film of two halves because of the constant jumping back and forth and switching to medieval sword play. It was also trying to be funny when that too missed the mark. The audience laughed a couple of times (a couple more than myself) but that was it.
This is the first time I have stepped from a Guy Ritchie film and felt such bitter disappointment. Had this been someone's first film, I doubt they would ever work again.
326 out of 655 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The reviews does this movie no justice. it doesn't have to be the old story with no creativity.
I believe this movie would have been a master piece of a series due to the huge amount of event packed into 2 hours, but this is no criticism on how great the movie is and how the numbers of this site doesn't do it justice. 90% of the negative reviews comes under the lame excuse of "that's not how king Arthur is supposed to be". If you actually want a movie where you know everything already starting from the story, characters and twists then I'd call you the stupidest ever. Yes this isn't your typical king Arthur movie, and that adds even more to the awesomeness of it.amnt saying the movie is flawless, no movie is, but it was great starting from acting, animation, story, music tracks, everything. Again would have been better off it was a series and I hope there would be a sequel including the knights of the round table, sure Lancelot and some dramatic betrayal or even Arthur's betrayal himself to the kingdom.
794 out of 1,160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
interested but never satisfied
Uther, King of Camelot, is betrayed by his brother Vortigern (Jude Law). Uther's baby son is found floating down the river in Londinium. Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) grows up to run a brothel gaining the loyalty of his people. He is brought, as many others, to pull Excalibur from the stone. After doing so, he is declared the born king and Vortigern intends to publicly kill him. A ragtag group of fighters saves him from the execution and starts a rebellion.
While the legend of King Arthur is well known, each iteration still needs to present the world it represents. Guy Ritchie's disjointed style of moviemaking makes it harder to follow. The basic good guys and bad guys are easily comprehended but everything else is a dark muddle. There is no doubt that Ritchie's skills make some very compelling scenes. I still love some of the gangster banter. He may be trying too hard to excel in the age of big CGI action. At a certain point, it's just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I'm interested for the most part but was never satisfied.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underestimated
This Movie was so much better than everybody told me. The fight scenes, the shots and the music was gorgeous. I really don't now why this movie receives that much hate. For me it was just Guy Ritchie at his best. Give this movie a try, its worth it! No joke, it was the best movie in this year, just stunning and epic. I loved it and i think that a lot of people will love this movie too! 9/10
116 out of 187 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The best BLOCKBUSTER as of May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Let's be frank; 2017 has been a terrible year for big blockbusters pictures. LOGAN was depressing, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST cannot be compared to the animated original (director should be expelled from the movie world), GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY is half as funny as first one. Basically; there is no originality at all (excluding LOGAN which I would preferred to be a repetitive WOLVERINE movie instead of the tragedy it is). Guy Ritchie (ex- Mr. Madonna and the creator of Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and most recently Sherlock Holmes), has crafted another of this crazy movies using his usual tricks that are plenty of fun.
Kings Arthur, Legend of the Sword is a curios movie. It is not particularly serious or over dramatic to tragedy (considering is a British tale).
There are plenty of spectacular scenes; but instead of sword fights Ritchie favors big mass movements, collective fights and foot running action. British style humor mind games played in images are usual Director's trademarks and he perfectly knows how to use them and when making more enjoyable moments taking down the seriousness of the situations.
Acting is superb. Ritchie gives enough screen time to every secondary character; making the movie more live, interesting and funnier (some of the small parts are quite good).
Individually; Jude Law is perfect as the "bad guy". He really looks like a greedy usurper. He can be terrifying and likable at the same time (like a snake). Hunnam's Arthur has been given a scoundrel background story which fits him and the character. He is far from perfect and not always likable.
I was really surprised Djimon Hounsou and Astrid Bergès-Frisbey had too little to do in the movie being such important to the story.
This and the unnecessary use of digital images are the only two drawbacks of the movie.
In brief: It is wonderful way to expend two hours.
20 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Way better than I thought
Warning: Spoilers
My mom picked this for Mother's Day. I saw it had 28% on Rotten Tomatoes but I figured I'd be a good daughter and not complain.
I was totally surprised in the best way. This was actually awesome! I loved that you could tell it was still a Guy Ritchie movie.
It's not perfect but it's totally worthwhile.
35 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972591/reviews
0 Response to "King Arthur Legend of the Sword Funny Scene"
Post a Comment