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

[Arlborn]

It was expected but still... 

[filmlover]

Another decade, yet another failed stab at the King Arthur tale from Hollywood. Good luck to whoever tries in the 2020s, I guess.

[Orestes]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Another decade, yet another failed stab at the King Arthur tale from Hollywood. Good luck to whoever tries in the 2020s, I guess.

 

Disney's live action The Sword in the Stone remake, I'm sure.

[RySenkari]

Why don't they just do a straight King Arthur movie? Fantasy, big budget, just hit all the classic tropes but with awesome CGI. It's a good enough story on its own to be a great movie with the right dialogue and good acting.

[MrGlass2]

Starts at 44 on Metacritic, better than expected!
 

Quote

The Playlist - Drew TaylorMay

Ritchie’s ‘King Arthur’ is a pleasing big budget spectacle, oddly aligned to the filmmaker’s thematic interests and startlingly compatible with his signature razzle-dazzle style.

 

 

[filmlover]

Now down to a glorious 6%. Obviously it won't finish that low, but will it even reach 20% when all is said and done?

[cookie]

5% on RT 

[Krissykins]

I'm not surprised in the slightest. 

 

The film looks a mess. 

[drdungbeetle]

Obviously they need to have Charlie Hunnam go on LIP SYNC BATTLE and sing Proud Mary, that would boost it to 100% RT!

[Dementeleus]

17 minutes ago, RySenkari said:

Why don't they just do a straight King Arthur movie? Fantasy, big budget, just hit all the classic tropes but with awesome CGI. It's a good enough story on its own to be a great movie with the right dialogue and good acting.

 

We've never had this. The best effort was a low-budget one (and, no surprise, it's also the best one). People keep doing revisionist and reimaginings of the myth but somehow no one's ever bothered to really take on the original. I would've thought it would be a natural green light post-LOTR but the stars never aligned.

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, RySenkari said:

Why don't they just do a straight King Arthur movie? Fantasy, big budget, just hit all the classic tropes but with awesome CGI. It's a good enough story on its own to be a great movie with the right dialogue and good acting.

 

Not a bad question, I wonder if being public domain and that anyone can release a strait king arthur at any time (and beat you too it, like for Jungle Book) make it a risky endeavor, you probably feel to have a twist than the previous version didn't have and next version close to yours will not have.

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

Not a bad question, I wonder if being public domain and that anyone can release a strait king arthur at any time (and beat you too it, like for Jungle Book) make it a risky endeavor, you probably feel to have a twist than the previous version didn't have and next version close to yours will not have.

 

But no one's done a non-twisty version. (Honestly, the original collection of myths are broad and overlapping enough that you could do many "faithful" versions and still have very different movies.)

[drdungbeetle]

1 minute ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

We've never had this. The best effort was a low-budget one (and, no surprise, it's also the best one). People keep doing revisionist and reimaginings of the myth but somehow no one's ever bothered to really take on the original. I would've thought it would be a natural green light post-LOTR but the stars never aligned.

Wait, Excalibur was low budget?! It looked great, especially compared to this crap-brown Gears of Arthur monstrosity! But we all know HOLLYWOOD is far superior to a centuries old Welsh/French legend, after all they made a BAYWATCH remake!!!!

[YSLDC]

This is all you need to know.

https://youtu.be/CMejeTP2edI?t=6236

[filmlover]

Gonna be interesting to see the overseas numbers for this. The reviews are awful to the point where I think it's destined to flop all over the world.

[drdungbeetle]

1 minute ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

But no one's done a non-twisty version. (Honestly, the original collection of myths are broad and overlapping enough that you could do many "faithful" versions and still have very different movies.)

"Twists" mostly suck anyway. Nobody wants to see Arthur as a grubby guy or some kind of chav/Dr. Dre knockoff and if people want Dung Ages, there's Monty Python and Warhammer for that.

[DAR]

41 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Another decade, yet another failed stab at the King Arthur tale from Hollywood. Good luck to whoever tries in the 2020s, I guess.

Camelot?  Excalibur?

[drdungbeetle]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Gonna be interesting to see the overseas numbers for this. The reviews are awful to the point where I think it's destined to flop all over the world.

But muh Russian mafia moneyz and mah Chinese peepul and Brazil!!1

[drdungbeetle]

Just now, DAR said:

Camelot?  Excalibur?

Camelot was a musical and Excalibur was actually directed by someone not lobotomized by the Hollywood system. Both of those are also decades old now.

[TalismanRing]

Quote

Verily, this film's inspiration seems to be not so much "Le Morte d'Arthur" as the leavings of an old game of Dungeons & Dragons, recollected after many years and much mead.  - Stephen Whitty / Newark Star-Ledger

 

  So, I guess it might be best to watch completely hammered.