Guy Ritchie's King Arthur

MilesMorales1

It was absolutely dreadful!

Incoherent narrative, badly written, badly directed, badly acted, huge waste of time.

PTH2009

I really liked it

Storie is good, effects good and very fast moving. Most of the accents were very eastend london but doesn't take away from the movie

In reality it was Tesco value Game Of Thones

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

King Arthur is a poison chalice as a film subject since Monty Python tackled it. And I'm only sorta joking. It should be a tale that lights up the screen, big or small, but its day is gone IMH. I'm surprised the studios are still willing to throw money at it TBH.

I think it's still possible to do. If you look at something like 'Iron Clad', that kind of stuff can be done relatively well.

It's just that this is a perfect storm of what not to do.

Guy Richie - although I'll admit to mildly liking 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Snatch' - is all shapes of wrong here, idiot action, mindless splosions...and David Beckham...LOL.

Ben Gadot

The acting saved it for me. Hunnam is a very capable leading man, so it sucks that both his big screen efforts have underwhelmed.

I could have done without Sharon's kid from Eastenders having such a prominent role however, plus Beckham's cameo that really is as bad as they say. Absolutely shocking.

Warner fcuked up here on so many levels it's not even funny. Between the budget they gave it and its positioning in the Summer market they have made a thundering bollox of things. For a film that no-one asked for it boggles the mind.

It's mad that Lloyd from Undeclared went on to become so damn buff and a pretty big actor.

but1er

I enjoyed the British twist on it. Don't expect your typical king Arthur film.

K.Flyer

I hear the words King Arthur and Camelot and always I think Monty Python and coconut shells

I don't get people slating a movie they haven't seen.
Just back from the movie in 3D and it was waay better than expected, fast paced with some humour thrown in for good measure.
Really really enjoyed it, great version and would watch it again.

Tony EH

K.Flyer wrote: »

I hear the words King Arthur and Camelot and always I think Monty Python

Funny, the amount of people saying this.

I immediately think of 'Excalibur'.

Skerries

The first time I saw Excalibur was on the ferry crossing going over to England when they had a cinema on board
I was way too young to see this but I was loving it and all the nude scenes but had to leave as I was getting seasick

constitutionus

just back from it now.

i thought it was brilliant !

i dont know WTF is up with the critics on this one . its a cracking little actioner thats actually got at least 2 stand out "moments" . even jude law got me to feel bad for him which has got to be some sort of miracle considering what a bastard he is in this.

hunmans "king arthur daly" is likeable and established believably in terms of his upbringing and how it made him what he is , and his realtionship with the rest of the gang (and theyre more that than knights) was genuinely touching. christ they even do a nice little subplot on peasent insurrection.

i can imagine the 3d version being a pain in the hole with the direction style and theres some ropey as fup CGI in place , but this the best fantasy ive seen in ages

8/10 from me.

i dont get the sheer hate this is getting and can see word of mouth helping it out and a great turn on DVD/stream.

EDIT.

also apprectiated the young one that plays morgana from merlin being in this (same girl thats in supergirl now and got eaten in jurrasic world) for whats basically a cameo role. nice nod of the head

K.Flyer

constitutionus wrote: »

just back from it now.

i thought it was brilliant !

i dont know WTF is up with the critics on this
[..]
i can imagine the 3d version being a pain in the hole with the direction style and theres some ropey as fup CGI in place , but this the best fantasy ive seen in ages

I don't get the criticism either, its a great movie.

We went to see it in 3D and to be honest we all agreed it was a plus.
Strong 8 / 10 from all of us as well, hope they do a second one.

Dave_The_Sheep

I haven't read the thread.

It was a really really fun movie. It's not going to win any oscars, or any other awards but **** me if it's not massively good fun. It's what you'd expect from a Ritchie film, good dialogue, decent action, the occasional over-cinematic piece of ****e... par for the course. Good cast, good script, good timing for the most part.

I really enjoyed it. Well played.

MilesMorales1

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

It was absolutely dreadful!

Incoherent narrative, badly written, badly directed, badly acted, huge waste of time.

I agree with this. A truely dreadful movie. Apart from his first couple of movies Richie seems incapable of stringing 2 decent movies together. The Man from U.N.C.L.E was decent but this is tripe.

The cockney lads camaraderie and accents just doesn't work here in this setting. The action sequences are as if parts joining them together were cut out. Charlie Hunman didn't work as a lead. The CGI is poor. Nothing redeeming at all.

JP Liz V1

It was Jax Teller running around the forest with Robin Hood and his merry men

Did you smash it

Wasn’t aware of this movie before. Caught some of it there. Seems a curiousity, entrusting 175 million to Guy Richie to make a movie about a legend that isn’t really “hot” with a non A list star....losing 150 million in the process. Seems pretty knuckle headed.