King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

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!!!

Fmovies: 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(huge towers, arches, 1000 ft bridges, etc), African and Asian characters have been inserted, and there are almost no historical references.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.

It's like some art class full of 10-year-olds got a box of cgi scenes and effects and was told to be creative and then the teacher left the classroom for two hours. There are moments (although rare) when CGI's are absolutely stunning, but they are shadowed by the other 90% of horrible and insultingly bad CGI's that appear to be copied straight from Kurt Wimmer's Ultraviolet.

I'm not even gonna talk about plot-holes, I'd need to write another review just for that.. This whole movie is one huge plot-hole...

It's a mess, there is some sort of a story, filled with numerous Mexican soap opera twists. Embarrassingly bad writing, really bad directing job - actors were doomed even before camera started rolling..

Such a shame, so much money invested, so many great actors that gave decent performances, yet all thrown down in toilet...

All People who were in charge of this project should be banned from Hollywood for the next 10 years, and sent to re-education...

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword fmovies. Saw this at a Promo Screening last night and have been shocked by the harsh reviews from the critics.

I went in expecting to see a by-the-numbers generic fantasy like the ones Disney churns out regularly. But instead I was surprised to find that Guy Ritchie has applied to King Arthur the same style and technique that made his Sherlock Holmes films so beloved.

In this film is the witty dialogue and creative editing we've (at least some of us) have come to love from Guy Ritchie. There was never a boring scene throughout. The action is good, the effects are good, but it is the manner of delivery of it all that brings this to greatness.

The acting is solid, some characters are less developed than others but I did not feel that this hurt the movie at all.

I've seen King Arthur movies before but have never seen it told in this manner, it is to King Arthur what Batman Begins was to Batman.

Should you see it? If you did not enjoy Guy Ritchie's other works, especially the Sherlock Holmes films then you may have issues with his style, but if you were entertained by any of his other films then there should be no reason for you to not be entertained here also.

The elephant in the room is... well, there are lots of elephants in the room; let's be honest.

Before I expound further, let me say this: if you like the movie's trailers, like a fair bit of action but don't particularly care about how every bit of it fits into a story, don't particularly care about the traditional legend(s) of King Arthur, like a bunch of fantasy mixed in, and plenty of (now run-of-the-mill) CGI, you might like this movie. Reading further may unnecessarily dissuade you from watching it.

Of course, if you've seen the trailers, you know that there really are (ridiculously large, CGI) elephants in the film. The other, proverbial, elephants in the room are how far the movie strays from the legendary King Arthur story.

Now, in fairness, legends (King Arthur, in this case) being what they are, it is difficult to know where reality ends and fantasy begins. Nonetheless, even though the legend has changed somewhat over the years (as legends are wont to do), this movie bears little resemblance to the story that moviegoers familiar with Arthur will expect.

Merlin? Rendered unimportant and replaced by a (gender-PC?) beautiful female mage, who remains nameless. (I suppose the lack of a name was supposed to lend some air of irresistible mystery to her. It failed, miserably.) (sigh)

Bedivere, the handsomest of Arthur's knights (almost in the entire land), one-handed, he of the muscular build? Well, at least he had the build. Some, including Bedivere, were obviously cast in a fit of PC multiculturalism. Please. Save it for where it makes sense.

Guinevere? Lancelot? Missing. David Beckham managed to land a spot, though. Go figure.

I read Ritchie's bio here on IMDb. It's stated there that Ritchie thought film school graduates made "boring and unwatchable" films. His disdain for the work of others seems to go beyond those who've studied film art. Huh. That doesn't stop Ritchie from leaning on the creations of others to sell a flick.

Ritchie has a flashy -- often manic -- presentation style. I'll give him some benefit of doubt in presuming that he does so in an effort to create a sense of action. Unfortunately, it often serves more to make stories incoherent.

In watching Richie's Sherlock Holmes re-imaginings, I couldn't shake a feeling of Ritchie's lack of respect for Doyles' Holmes. I get the same sense of lack of respect for traditional tales of King Arthur.

I could go on and on, picking the film apart, but all of it boils down to the simple appearance that Ritchie is simply capitalizing on the popularity of someone else' story -- King Arthur and the legend of Excalibur -- by using the name in the title, then remaking the entire story to suit a flight of his fancy.

Ritchie might as well have just left the sword out of the story and dropped the name of Arthur from the story -- and title. Then he could have gone anywhere he wanted with the story without disappointing moviegoers drawn in by the title. It might have stood on its own as a fair (by no means great) action/fantasy film. As a retelling of the King Arthur legend, it is a disappointment.

On second thought, considering Richie sold the idea to the movie studio as King-Arthur-meets-The-Lord-of-the-Rings, perhaps he should have just named the movie accordingly. Then the Tolkien influence (and the use of Tolkien's oliphants) would make much more sense. Then, too, moviegoers would know better than to

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