09-06-2017, 05:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2017, 05:49 PM by bionicbob. Edited 1 time in total.)
KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD
I love Arthurian Lore! I love/hate Guy Ritchie! What happens when these worlds collide?
A potential filled but ultimately underwhelming summer dud.
What I liked:
--Jude Law! He gives a great, layered performance as the evil King. Complete scene stealer.
--I enjoyed the fantastical elements, particularly in regards to the sword Excalibur. It is the first time I can recollect where the sword is more than a symbol, it is actually magical and grants it's user super-powers! There is also an amazing sequence involving Eric Bana and the sword, showing how it became embedded in the stone that I loved. There is also some very amazing imagery moments, such as the Lady in the Lake.
--the making of Arthur a street gangster and his crew future knights of the Round Table was an interesting new spin....
...but that also leads me into what I did not like....
--Charlie Hunnam, as smartass, badass and kickass hood he is good, but his range of other emotions seemed very limited in this performance. Thus in many key scenes where he needed to create an emotional connection with the audience he fails. I could not help but compare him to Eric Bana, who is onscreen maybe 10 minutes in this movie, but like Jude Law, his presence jumps off the screen and you completely understand and buy his character.
--same problem with Arthur's crew.... all lack any real screen charisma and are forgettable.
--typical Guy Ritchie quick banter and quick cut editing.... some sequences it was energizing, but there were times it felt very wrong for this genre, as though Ritchie was uncertain what type of movie he was making... it was off putting at times. For a movie with a runtime of 2hrs6mins, it felt much,much longer, with me often looking at my watch in disbelief.
--and then this movie makes the same mistake most superhero blockbusters have made in the past decade, by having our hero fight a CGI villain in the climax.... in this instance, not only is it emotionally boring but it also looked very video gamey bad.
In the end, there are lots of cool concepts and some fun moments, but the movie lacks any real weight. Compared to previous King Arthur outings, it is not as deliciously bombastic as Excalibur, or earnestly epic as Clive Owen's King Arthur or even as b-movie fun as Colin Firth's The Last Legion. It is a movie trying to be a bit of everything without fully succeeding at anything.
6.5 out of 10.
I love Arthurian Lore! I love/hate Guy Ritchie! What happens when these worlds collide?
A potential filled but ultimately underwhelming summer dud.
What I liked:
--Jude Law! He gives a great, layered performance as the evil King. Complete scene stealer.
--I enjoyed the fantastical elements, particularly in regards to the sword Excalibur. It is the first time I can recollect where the sword is more than a symbol, it is actually magical and grants it's user super-powers! There is also an amazing sequence involving Eric Bana and the sword, showing how it became embedded in the stone that I loved. There is also some very amazing imagery moments, such as the Lady in the Lake.
--the making of Arthur a street gangster and his crew future knights of the Round Table was an interesting new spin....
...but that also leads me into what I did not like....
--Charlie Hunnam, as smartass, badass and kickass hood he is good, but his range of other emotions seemed very limited in this performance. Thus in many key scenes where he needed to create an emotional connection with the audience he fails. I could not help but compare him to Eric Bana, who is onscreen maybe 10 minutes in this movie, but like Jude Law, his presence jumps off the screen and you completely understand and buy his character.
--same problem with Arthur's crew.... all lack any real screen charisma and are forgettable.
--typical Guy Ritchie quick banter and quick cut editing.... some sequences it was energizing, but there were times it felt very wrong for this genre, as though Ritchie was uncertain what type of movie he was making... it was off putting at times. For a movie with a runtime of 2hrs6mins, it felt much,much longer, with me often looking at my watch in disbelief.
--and then this movie makes the same mistake most superhero blockbusters have made in the past decade, by having our hero fight a CGI villain in the climax.... in this instance, not only is it emotionally boring but it also looked very video gamey bad.
In the end, there are lots of cool concepts and some fun moments, but the movie lacks any real weight. Compared to previous King Arthur outings, it is not as deliciously bombastic as Excalibur, or earnestly epic as Clive Owen's King Arthur or even as b-movie fun as Colin Firth's The Last Legion. It is a movie trying to be a bit of everything without fully succeeding at anything.
6.5 out of 10.
"... let's go exploring!" -- CALVIN.
![[+]](https://forums.fanedit.org/images/focus/collapse_collapsed.png)