King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (Post-release)

Comicbookgirl 19 rocks! :thumbsup

So, on topic, I originally planned to see this movie with a friend - she loves Charlie Hunnam since we watched 'Pacific Rim' in 2013. But then, after browsing some Reviews yesterday, I guess I'll let this one pass. Maybe gonna watch 'First Knight' instead, just for the Goldsmith score alone.

Yeah, if you go by critics reviews, which are in the toilet, then yeah, dont see this. I however saw it last night and it was REALLY good. I enjoyed the hell out of it, it was fun, had killer music, likable characters, good effects. It was predictable yes, but any story thats being "reimagined" youre going to know the end to. I really liked it alot, you should check it out. The local theater does movies now for 8 bucks so my sister and I decided to give it a try, we watched SOA so we liked Charlie Hunnam, and man did he get ripped for this movie. Its always a bummer when a movie comes out, people put so much work into it, but people dont see it cause of crappy reviews by critics. Such a shame.

Axlotl said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLlX3kA8vQ

Click to expand...

Normally I like her, but she comes off as a real ditz in this interview. Granted, not everyone is going to like everything, but I didnt even finish it because she is just babbling incoherently. The film was really easy to follow, the accents were easy to understand, and it doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out what the hell is going on. Totally disagree with her on this one. It seems like she got the "its going to be the cool thing to talk **** about this movie so Im totally doing that" kind of thing. :facepalm

Snikt said:

Normally I like her, but she comes off as a real ditz in this interview. Granted, not everyone is going to like everything, but I didnt even finish it because she is just babbling incoherently. The film was really easy to follow, the accents were easy to understand, and it doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out what the hell is going on. Totally disagree with her on this one. It seems like she got the "its going to be the cool thing to talk **** about this movie so Im totally doing that" kind of thing. :facepalm

Click to expand...

Oh Snikt. Finally. FINALLY. Our paths are at a true cross roads. :love

I don't like insulting people, and I won't personally as I'm sure she's a nice person at heart - but Comicbookgirl19 is extremely aggravating to me. Whenever she pops up on Collider Heroes, I have to give it a miss or skip parts. She very, very rarely makes a coherent, well thought out point. But 90% of the time, it's inane, derivative and you can predict almost to the word what she'll say about a given subject once you've seen her once.

AND - we both enjoyed King Arthur! **** the reviews on this one. The only problems I had with it, was some of the action scenes - specifically the hand to hand stuff. It never used to bother me so much, but I really do appreciate a well choreographed and well shot fight scene now - and these were too much jump cut, as much as I despite shouting out a standard complaint. Fast cuts can work really well sometimes, but this made some of the action too hectic, and tiring to follow.

The rest of it was pretty good! The music was energizing, really got you pumped up into that mindset of an action film that had a strong pulse. It's almost a trope to run some form of metal/rock with this kind of material but Guy Ritchie melds it pretty well.

The spectacle was great - I got similar feelings about some of the big set pieces that I did when I saw Fury Road's action. The big difference between this and Fury Road is that Fury Road has all the ingredients, this only has most. And it suffers a little for it.

Predictable plot - well, as Snikt says...of course it is.

I even got over my Charlie Hunnam dislike (not as a person, just not so keen on his acting style/voice) and thought he delivered a fine performance. The confidence/capability and drive of Arthur came across really well - he's not a guy you can mess with easily. Which sells everything else - otherwise you wouldn't believe that this guy deserved his followers or the sword.

I enjoyed the film - it's not a Fury Road, but it certainly isn't rubbish - if your expectations are set to the right level, and I don't just mean "whether it will be good or bad" - I mean set your genre expectations correctly, set your humour levels to the right level. I'll always maintain that while its a big part, it isn't 100% a movies job to take YOU to the right place. You have to be open and work with it too.

It's a shame this hasn't done very well at the box office, because I think I'd be up for a sequel, if we went off to explore Merlin/build up the round table etc. More adventures (key word...adventure. Not noir classic, not crime drama, not space comedy. Adventure.) would be entertaining. Loved that this felt at some parts to be a true Guy Ritchie movie, which was great.

Fawbish *insert did we just become best friends meme* Rock on man! Im glad you enjoyed it! :love Very well said man. I totally agree regarding the fight scenes, some were a tad too jumpy. Hell yeah man, reading your post made me feel warm and fuzzy! They said that if this did well they would have 5 more planned out, sadly, that doesnt look like thats going to be the case. I really wanted to see some merlin action in the future, but looks like we arent going to get it. I alot of the set design was great, definitely had that old world feel, I also liked how Excalibur had a wood grain in the sword because it was fashioned for Merlins own stuff. Little stuff like that is rad. Hell, I might even see this again.

Snikt said:

@Fawbish *insert did we just become best friends meme* Rock on man! Im glad you enjoyed it! :love Very well said man. I totally agree regarding the fight scenes, some were a tad too jumpy. Hell yeah man, reading your post made me feel warm and fuzzy! They said that if this did well they would have 5 more planned out, sadly, that doesnt look like thats going to be the case. I really wanted to see some merlin action in the future, but looks like we arent going to get it. I alot of the set design was great, definitely had that old world feel, I also liked how Excalibur had a wood grain in the sword because it was fashioned for Merlins own stuff. Little stuff like that is rad. Hell, I might even see this again.

Click to expand...

I had the same feeling leaving the cinema as when I left watching the The Magnificent Seven - a solid, not ground breaking genre movie. And I really really wanted a six shooter and a gun belt walking out. Walking out of this, I want Excalibur on my back and an open mystical land to run around in, powering it up like a ******* lightsaber (in case that puts anyone off, its just similar, not actually like that)

Snikt said:

@Fawbish *insert did we just become best friends meme* Rock on man! Im glad you enjoyed it! :love Very well said man. I totally agree regarding the fight scenes, some were a tad too jumpy. Hell yeah man, reading your post made me feel warm and fuzzy! They said that if this did well they would have 5 more planned out, sadly, that doesnt look like thats going to be the case. I really wanted to see some merlin action in the future, but looks like we arent going to get it. I alot of the set design was great, definitely had that old world feel, I also liked how Excalibur had a wood grain in the sword because it was fashioned for Merlins own stuff. Little stuff like that is rad. Hell, I might even see this again.

Click to expand...

Agreed on the world building and even costume design was nice, but the wood texture on the blade is, I think, not wood texture but Damascus steel, if I say that correctly. It's a very real type of steel that gives this pattern. Pretty cool none the less !

And glad to see I'm not the only one here that enjoyed it for what it is.

teragon said:

Agreed on the world building and even costume design was nice, but the wood texture on the blade is, I think, not wood texture but Damascus steel, if I say that correctly. It's a very real type of steel that gives this pattern. Pretty cool none the less !

And glad to see I'm not the only one here that enjoyed it for what it is.

Click to expand...

Ah, I didnt know that about the blade, thanks for clarifying. Damn Teragon, we usually butt heads too but glad we can all agree on liking at least one movie!!! That isnt DC that is.

King Arthur deserves better than this. It's an utter mess.

Guy Ritchie's thing works for some things - the first Sherlock Holmes is a great example. Arthurian. legend. does. not. Although, suggesting that this is Arthurian legend is a whole other story. Add some terrible score and Jude "Kevin Spacey" Law and some sketchy CG and it's no wonder that this bombed.

There are some cool bits here and there. Some classic imagery that was beautifully done (the Lady in The Lake being a stand out). But, mostly, this King Arthur is just something generic and unworthy to carry the name King Arthur.

JD said:

King Arthur deserves better than this. It's an utter mess.

Guy Ritchie's thing works for some things - the first Sherlock Holmes is a great example. Arthurian. legend. does. not. Although, suggesting that this is Arthurian legend is a whole other story. Add some terrible score and Jude "Kevin Spacey" Law and some sketchy CG and it's no wonder that this bombed.

There are some cool bits here and there. Some classic imagery that was beautifully done (the Lady in The Lake being a stand out). But, mostly, this King Arthur is just something generic and unworthy to carry the name King Arthur.

Click to expand...

How do you mean about the Kevin Spacey thing? I'm wracking my mind to figure out what you mean (and that this is an insult somehow, because Spacey is fantastic) - I'll give you, his material isn't always stellar. Superman Returns etc.

JD said:

King Arthur deserves better than this. It's an utter mess.

Guy Ritchie's thing works for some things - the first Sherlock Holmes is a great example. Arthurian. legend. does. not. Although, suggesting that this is Arthurian legend is a whole other story. Add some terrible score and Jude "Kevin Spacey" Law and some sketchy CG and it's no wonder that this bombed.

There are some cool bits here and there. Some classic imagery that was beautifully done (the Lady in The Lake being a stand out). But, mostly, this King Arthur is just something generic and unworthy to carry the name King Arthur.

Click to expand...

How is it a mess? Why doesnt Arthurian legend work with his style? Terrible score? Man? What were you listening to? The music was rad! While I agree some of the CG was sketch, a lot of it was good. It bombed because it had ****ty marketing and critics bashed it so the sheep didnt come out. Why is King Arthur held in such high esteem anyway? Let me guess, youre going to say Excalibur is the only movie worthy of carrying the King Arthur mantle. :rolleyes

Snikt said:

It bombed because it had ****ty marketing and critics bashed it so the sheep didnt come out.

Click to expand...

I didn't come out because it looks effing ridiculous.

Axlotl said:

I didn't come out because it looks effing ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Yeah, crappy marketing. The trailers were awful, and barely even there. As a matter of fact, the one I saw online was abysmal. And I had to look for it. Never even saw it on tv, no billboards, no busses, no nothing.

Its a story about dude who gets a magic sword from a lady in a lake to kill an evil wizard. The legend of King Arthur is ridiculous. :lol

Snikt said:

Yeah, crappy marketing.

Click to expand...

No, not crappy marketing.
Even with the best marketing the world has ever seen, I would still have zero interest in this movie.
It looks utterly stupid to me.

Axlotl said:

No, not crappy marketing.
Even with the best marketing the world has ever seen, I would still have zero interest in this movie.
It looks utterly stupid to me.

Click to expand...

Ok well maybe one day you will change your mind when its on netflix or hbo and give it a whirl.

Snikt said:

Ok well maybe one day you will change your mind when its on netflix or hbo and give it a whirl.

Click to expand...

Your optimism makes me laugh

Axlotl said:

Your optimism makes me laugh

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure how that attitude benefits you or others in any way whatsoever. Fair play if you don't want to invest time or money into a film for 'X' reason, but how does being dismissive or annoyed at a film you haven't seen achieve anything useful?

Life is far, far more interesting and enriched with an open mind - or so I've found.

Fawbish said:

How do you mean about the Kevin Spacey thing? I'm wracking my mind to figure out what you mean (and that this is an insult somehow, because Spacey is fantastic) - I'll give you, his material isn't always stellar. Superman Returns etc.

Click to expand...

It's not really an insult. It's just that Law is looking more and more like Spacey.

Snikt said:

How is it a mess? Why doesnt Arthurian legend work with his style? Terrible score? Man? What were you listening to? The music was rad! While I agree some of the CG was sketch, a lot of it was good. It bombed because it had ****ty marketing and critics bashed it so the sheep didnt come out. Why is King Arthur held in such high esteem anyway? Let me guess, youre going to say Excalibur is the only movie worthy of carrying the King Arthur mantle. :rolleyes

Click to expand...

The marketing had nothing to do with this movie bombing - in fact, the marketing seemed to make it seem much more than it was worth. I saw quite a bit of advertising for which seemed to sell a much different - and a much better product. I'm sure the fact that it got (well deserved) bad reviews and most likely had little word-of-mouth promotion led to the studio to pull back on the marketing budget... because they knew that they had a flop on their hands.

But, yeah - I found it an utter mess. Ritchie's attempt at a frenetic film fell flat and just doesn't work with this setting. Whereas, it did work for his first Sherlock Holmes movie for the most part - but, medieval England and Camelot is not Victorian London and Charlie Hunan is not Robert Downey Jr. It can't decide what it wants to be, is it Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings or a Snatch? Add the bastardized Arthurian tale they're telling and it's just an utter mess.

...and the music, complete with sampled breathing and loud jarring effects was distracting if not outright annoying at times. I expect a soundtrack to help envelope me into a movie - not sit up, take notice and think "WTF?" Even something a little more rote would have been better than this loud, brash score that I heard.

I've certainly seen Excalibur - but, it's not really on my radar. I can't say it's the only movie worthy of carrying the King Arthur mantle - as it's something that I've not really seen in a very long time and I don't remember it being "all that." But, it's in my queue for a rewatch. I wish there was a movie out that captured the majesty of Arthurian lore the way that it really deserves to be seen... seeing what Jackson has done with Lord of the Rings shows us that it can be done, but is there an audience for it?

Axlotl said:

No, not crappy marketing.
Even with the best marketing the world has ever seen, I would still have zero interest in this movie.
It looks utterly stupid to me.

Click to expand...

Without the commercials and marketing I did see, I would've written this off more as an attempt to cash in on Hunan's popularity, I'm still not totally convinced that it wasn't (based on posts on social media, he's quite popular with the ladies).

JD I disagree on it not working in that setting. You can apply quick cuts to anything. Yeah, Charlie Hunnam is not Robert Downey Jr. Thank you for pointing that out. Whats wrong with it being all of the above? But its not close to Game of Thrones, its not nearly as serious. I dont get why creative liberty cant be taken with "Arhturian legend". Whats the big deal? Maybe Im not as well versed in it as others, so maybe thats why I wasnt so bothered like you were. What aspects from the legend did this movie deviate from? Im seriously asking cause I dont know.

Couldnt disagree more regarding the music. But Im into heavy metal and a drummer so I found it very adrenalizing.

I shouldnt have directed that at you, so I apologize, but every one I talk to mentions that movie as being the "definitive version" and I havent seen it, but its on my Netflix queue. Thats a good question, I think thats why they didnt go the traditional route with the legend because we already have Lord of the Rings. When you make those types of movies, at that level, its hard to compete. I think thats why the studio wanted to go with Guy Ritchie. What other fantasy movies have came out post LOTR that havent flopped? Even though I liked this movie its still a failure, I just dont think it should be. Its a shame. Especially since I want sequels and there definitely wont be any.

Snikt - it's great that the movie worked for you. Creative liberty can be applied to anything - including Arthur. I enjoyed a great deal of the 2004 King Arthur movie despite it's many, many flaws. I found it a great deal more enjoyable and it just felt much more put together than this - the story was tighter, no silly edits or distracting score.

It's not (just) that it deviated from the legend. There are many variations of Arthurian lore - it's much more on the way it was done. The 2004 flick took even more liberties with the story, but just felt more solid and more put together (and even still, it's not a great take on the legends).

I'm a metal fan myself and a guitar player - still found the score annoying. It just felt out of place and distracted from the movie. On its own, it might be great...


(All this said, I'm going to give Excalibur and the 2004 King Arthur a rewatch - time/memory might have been a bit kind with them).