Guy Ritchie Revives A "King Arthur" Saga - Part 1

So... King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword RT page says...

Critics score: 28%
Average Rating: 4.6/10

Audience score: 78%
Average Rating: 4/5 a.k.a. 8/10

WTF?
92.gif
 
It's clearly a misunderstood, under-appreciated masterpiece.
 
Looked like a POS from what I saw (the teaser trailer and a couple of TV Spots).
 
It was a bizarre role that promised more than it gave. Must have ended up on the cutting room floor.

I'm almost certain there was an entire subplot with Jude Law and his daughter that was cut out too.
 
I saw this today. I loved it.

6.5/10. I like how Ritchie approached Good vs Evil in this. Early in the film Vortigern asks Arthur what gave him so much drive to succeed. Towards the end Arthur replies that he did. All the crap that happened to Arthur was set in motion by Vortigern's ambitions. If Arthur hadn't been raised on the streets he wouldn't have had the grit to succeed. So lowkey it's message is that evil exists so that we can learn how to escape it and better ourselves from those experiences. Not so dumb for a "dumb sword and sandals" flick. The humor was on point too.

If you don't feel like watching this in theaters at least give it a shot on VOD/Blu-Ray. Critics dropped the ball "again".
 
So... King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword RT page says...

Critics score: 28%
Average Rating: 4.6/10

Audience score: 78%
Average Rating: 4/5 a.k.a. 8/10

WTF?
92.gif

The audience score on RT is notoriously unreliable, and kind of worthless. It directly converts the "want to see the movie" ratings to "liked the movie" ratings, so a great big chunk of any major release is "people who rated the movie before even seeing it."

Then there's the issue of spam accounts.
 
I saw this today. I loved it.

6.5/10. I like how Ritchie approached Good vs Evil in this. Early in the film Vortigern asks Arthur what gave him so much drive to succeed. Towards the end Arthur replies that he did. All the crap that happened to Arthur was set in motion by Vortigern's ambitions. If Arthur hadn't been raised on the streets he wouldn't have had the grit to succeed. So lowkey it's message is that evil exists so that we can learn how to escape it and better ourselves from those experiences. Not so dumb for a "dumb sword and sandals" flick.

I liked that aspect as well. I discussed it at length with my wife who originally disliked it, mistaking it as saying that Arthur needed to be driven by evil just as the villain. But she was prejudiced by her intense hatred of the pacing of the film. That Arthur became a leader and protector of his people while rising from nothing being driven by hardship and loss made it more interesting than having him be an anonymous servant/page/assistant as in the older adaptations.

A more straightforward pace would have made people take it all better, as I mentioned before.
 
Critics clearly derided this film because of their Marvel bias.
 
So is this movie WB's John Carter?
 
Care to elaborate?

In the scene that introduces Annabelle Wallis' character there are a few exchanged glances between Vortigan and his daughter that implies that there is some drama going on with them. The point is never followed up in the film, but given what ultimately happens with the daughter, I would imagine there were more scenes that ended up on cutting room floor that would have fleshed out that relationship to make that final moment between them more meaningful.
 
In the scene that introduces Annabelle Wallis' character there are a few exchanged glances between Vortigan and his daughter that implies that there is some drama going on with them. The point is never followed up in the film, but given what ultimately happens with the daughter, I would imagine there were more scenes that ended up on cutting room floor that would have fleshed out that relationship to make that final moment between them more meaningful.

I see... thanks.
 
This wasn't trash... But it was lacking something.

What I liked was the production design, the music, the full on bat guano crazy totally ahistorical fantasy setting, Richie's panache and style both the pacing and editing of shots, the costuming and many of the VFX (though there are a couple hiccups I will get to). Law is also pretty good as the heavy. He has a monologue about fear and control over people that the way Ritchie executed it was really good for me at least.

Overall though I think the issues are the characters, more specifically those in orbit around Arthur. Too often they felt just kinda perfunctory, and unless played by the likes of a Djimon or Aiden, experienced actors that can still command attention no matter what, they tended to fade into the background. If you reacted to anything happening to these characters it was because of simply identifying the situation as bad for anyone but not because of your investment in that particular character. I liked what Blue said about the way Law brought about Arthur, but I don't think that theme was alll that well spelled out in the proceedings. Finally, the inner turmoil the issues with Arthur's memory etc... Sorry they weren't all that well done. I barely understood what the problem was in the first place outside of boilerplate "refusal of the call" hero's journey stuff. Lastly... I don't usually complain about VFX, Slow Mo, "shakes cam" or the like unless it's terribly noticeable or obnoxious. And I am not saying that is the case here but there are at least two VFX set pieces and one is the finale that, I don't know, just didn't feel all that well done given the what I pointed out about over use of certain techniques.

It's a bit of a misfire but hardly the total disaster the Internet likes to paint all things as if it's not somehow an "instant classic". Still, I think on balance it underwhelmed due to the elements I listed.
 
I think there is now an extremism towards judging movie that does a disservice to everyone and everything.

I feel disappointed because many aspects of the production which were great at let down by other aspects. I did not enjoy this as I thought I would.

But I would not say it is an awful movie either. There is a lot that was well made.

A read a review where the writer clearly was more about cramming in snark that doing actual analysis. It was more about his humor that the movie at times. I feel these wannabe comedians are better not trying to be reviewers because the humor in a well written review is different to the snark you share among friends while shooting the ****.

For example, he complained about the lack of Lancelot and Guinevere, later additions to the lore in many senses, and later mentioned that he heard it was to be the start of a multi-film franchise, which is clearly the answer to his complaint, but he was too oblivious to notice.

I am not a believer in conspiracies or anything like that, it is just that the critical attitude in the general field has become a bit too self-serving and the ways the criticism is presented and aggregated currently may not be the best for actually serving the public as a honest guideline.
 
So is this movie WB's John Carter?

I'm not sure about John Carter, but I do feel like this movie could be to Guy Ritchie what Legend was to Ridley Scott; a visually striking fantasy film that got panned and didn't perform well at the b.o., but later on benefited from home video and a director's cut(provided there will be one for King Arthur:LOTS).
 
I saw this today. I loved it.

6.5/10. I like how Ritchie approached Good vs Evil in this. Early in the film Vortigern asks Arthur what gave him so much drive to succeed. Towards the end Arthur replies that he did. All the crap that happened to Arthur was set in motion by Vortigern's ambitions. If Arthur hadn't been raised on the streets he wouldn't have had the grit to succeed. So lowkey it's message is that evil exists so that we can learn how to escape it and better ourselves from those experiences. Not so dumb for a "dumb sword and sandals" flick. The humor was on point too.

If you don't feel like watching this in theaters at least give it a shot on VOD/Blu-Ray. Critics dropped the ball "again".

You loved it and gave it a 6.5?

:hehe:
 
What always amazes me is how so many of these incredibly expensive movies end up looking like crap. I mean, seriously, at least if I'm going by the previews, I'd think this was one of those low budget, direct-to-DVD fantasy movies you see at Redbox and think to yourself, "Oh, so that's what Billy Zane is up to these days." I mean, if you're going to spend enough money to potentially sink a studio, the least you could do is actually make the film LOOK good. The effects I've seen in this look atrocious in some shots.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,560
Messages
21,760,175
Members
45,597
Latest member
Netizen95
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"