King Arthur: Legend of the Sword | Guy Ritchie | May 12, 2017 | Charlie Hunnam

[James]

Oh, ffs, he looks good and stylish and king-ish. And it's a perfect contrast to the rough, underdog look of Arthur. Guy Ritchie may have many faults as a director, but his movies are always visually stunning. 

[grim22]

 

 

Hunnam looks like he is on the GoT set.

[Dementeleus]

Aside from trying to ride on the KA name and familiarity, I honestly don't know why they'd call this a King Arthur movie.

 

Maybe I'll be wrong.

[Klingo]

Just now, Telemachos said:

Aside from trying to ride on the KA name and familiarity, I honestly don't know why they'd call this a King Arthur movie.

 

Maybe I'll be wrong.

This guy is KA.  Adventures that will lead to him being the King!

[Klingo]

Plot

The young Arthur runs the back passages of Londonium with his crew, not knowing his royal lineage until he grabs Excalibur. Instantly confronted by the sword’s influence, Arthur is forced to make up his mind.^{[further explanation needed]} Joining the rebellion^{[further explanation needed]} and an enigmatic young woman named Guinevere, he must learn to address her and eventually understand her magic weapon, deal with his demons and unite the people to defeat the dictator Vortigern, the man who murdered his parents and stole his crown to become king.^[2]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur:_Legend_of_the_Sword

[grim22]

2 minutes ago, Klingo said:

Plot

The young Arthur runs the back passages of Londonium with his crew, not knowing his royal lineage until he grabs Excalibur. Instantly confronted by the sword’s influence, Arthur is forced to make up his mind.^{[further explanation needed]} Joining the rebellion^{[further explanation needed]} and an enigmatic young woman named Guinevere, he must learn to address her and eventually understand her magic weapon, deal with his demons and unite the people to defeat the dictator Vortigern, the man who murdered his parents and stole his crown to become king.^[2]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur:_Legend_of_the_Sword

 

 

A+ Wiki-vandalism right there

[Dementeleus]

I'm with the "[further explanation needed]" crowd.

[Elessar]

Ben-Hur, King Arthur.... so much awesome potential... but, alas, probably it'll be squandered. Oh, how i would love to see a great historical / fantastical period piece again... Those movies done right can be so amazing...

[Goffe]

On 14/04/2016 at 2:53 AM, filmlover said:

He's not terrible but he's the definition of a bland young white dude who doesn't stand out in any of his projects. It also doesn't help that I constantly confuse him and Garrett Hedlund, another bland young white dude who also doesn't stand out in any of the movies he's in either.

 

you mean, they are not the same person? what sorcery is this

[4815162342]

I think we can count on Jude Law bringing some fun medieval ham to this.

[MovieMan89]

It'd be nice if we actually got a big budget mythological fantasy fueled take on Arthurian legend, aka the one people actually find interesting. These History Channel more "realistic" takes of the past two Arthur movies are boring as fuck. 

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

It'd be nice if we actually got a big budget mythological fantasy fueled take on Arthurian legend, aka the one people actually find interesting. 

 

Yes, this. It's not like I'm automatically against some new re-imagining of the story (that's basically how the legend came to be famous anyway), but the only decent version we've gotten is the relatively low-budget EXCALIBUR, and that was back in 1981. You'd think it'd be perfect for a grounded, dark-but-poignant epic take, like LOTR.

[The Futurist]

I am not sure Excalibur'81 was low budget at all for its time.

 

The armors are magnificent, lots of action sequences, make up, costumes ...

 

 

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, Telemachos said:

 

Yes, this. It's not like I'm automatically against some new re-imagining of the story (that's basically how the legend came to be famous anyway), but the only decent version we've gotten is the relatively low-budget EXCALIBUR, and that was back in 1981. You'd think it'd be perfect for a grounded, dark-but-poignant epic take, like LOTR.

I'm kind of excited for the live action adaptation of Disney's The Sword in the Stone. Could be the big budget fantasy take on it I'm hoping for. Would be cool if they even went POTC and make it PG-13 and aimed at an older audience. 

[Klingo]

Just now, Telemachos said:

 

Yes, this. It's not like I'm automatically against some new re-imagining of the story (that's basically how the legend came to be famous anyway), but the only decent version we've gotten is the relatively low-budget EXCALIBUR, and that was back in 1981. You'd think it'd be perfect for a grounded, dark-but-poignant epic take, like LOTR.

[Dementeleus]

31 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

I am not sure Excalibur'81 was low budget at all for its time.

 

The armors are magnificent, lots of action sequences, make up, costumes ...

 

It was pretty low budget for an epic, even for 1981: $10-11m, I think. Consider that Universal spent $30m+ making JAWS 2 in 1978, and Paramount spent $40m (or more) on STAR TREK: TMP.

 

28 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I'm kind of excited for the live action adaptation of Disney's The Sword in the Stone. Could be the big budget fantasy take on it I'm hoping for. Would be cool if they even went POTC and make it PG-13 and aimed at an older audience. 

 

This is an almost certain guarantee that it will be crappy, at least in terms of the original legend.

[MovieMan89]

2 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

This is an almost certain guarantee that it will be crappy, at least in terms of the original legend.

Bryan Cogman is supposed to write it and he's done some mighty fine Game of Thrones work. So I have some hope. Besides Disney will for sure play up the fantasy, which already makes it more interesting to me than this film. 

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

Bryan Cogman is supposed to write it and he's done some mighty fine Game of Thrones work. So I have some hope. Besides Disney will for sure play up the fantasy, which already makes it more interesting to me than this film. 

 

Disney's inherent Disneyfication of everything that passes through their hands is anathema to me.

[MovieMan89]

Just now, Telemachos said:

 

Disney's inherent Disneyfication of everything that passes through their hands is anathema to me.

Well, it is a remake of their own movie so there's really no way they can "disneyfy" something that's already theirs. So am I to assume you felt this way about TFA then? Honestly Disney is responsible for a huge variety of films these days, seems unfair to write them all off as being cut from the same cloth. 

[filmlover]

5 hours ago, Goffe said:

you mean, they are not the same person? what sorcery is this

I think Grandpa has finally reached the age where all these young blonds look alike to him.