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

[marveldcfox]

Highly underrated and underappreciated movie like Man From Uncle. Atleast that made some money...This completely bombed. Feel bad for Charlie Hunnam as he was really good in this movie. Guy will survive as he has alladin + Disney to get a big blockbuster at the box-office.

 

[Goffe]

Had it been more coherent it would have been pretty rad. Not being a slave to its source material was a non-issue, seriously screw that.

[Arlborn]

6 hours ago, Eric Lancer said:

I think King ARthur:Legend Of the Sword is a fantastic movie, just because many people don't appreciate this movie, it doesn't mean it is bad... In fact, many viewers who watch this movies agree with me.

 

This movie is such a refreshing as compare to the tons of BORING super heroes franchise and fast & Furious yawning franchise..

 

First of all, the character interaction is good, the fantasy setting was nice and it gave new life to legendary characters.... I especially intrigued with the character "The Mage", who i believe is the fable Morgana. It gave a refreshing idea on Morgana was on other's side , Morgana's understanding on dark art/ witch craft is exactly what Arthur needs to help him in a treacherous realm..

 

As for those who argue that they prefer originality , then why don't they argue it with all those super heroes movies ? Did they follow any originality at all? The haters of King Arthur are just bunch of HYPOCRITES who thought they are the righteous persons in the world and know what is right or wrong... 

 

Many viewers enjoy this movie and we are longing for a new twist in the story line , a new interpretation of this legends.. Hope the rest of the 5 sequels will be made 

 

First of all welcome to the forums! I hope you'll stick around, this is a great community!

 

Second, I agree with your views regarding this movie but I do enjoy the other movies you crapped on while expressing your views so ehhhh.

 

2 hours ago, Goffe said:

Had it been more coherent it would have been pretty rad. Not being a slave to its source material was a non-issue, seriously screw that.

 

Well, I'm glad you went to watch it after all.

[WrathOfHan]

6 hours ago, Eric Lancer said:

I think King ARthur:Legend Of the Sword is a fantastic movie, just because many people don't appreciate this movie, it doesn't mean it is bad... In fact, many viewers who watch this movies agree with me.

 

This movie is such a refreshing as compare to the tons of BORING super heroes franchise and fast & Furious yawning franchise..

 

First of all, the character interaction is good, the fantasy setting was nice and it gave new life to legendary characters.... I especially intrigued with the character "The Mage", who i believe is the fable Morgana. It gave a refreshing idea on Morgana was on other's side , Morgana's understanding on dark art/ witch craft is exactly what Arthur needs to help him in a treacherous realm..

 

As for those who argue that they prefer originality , then why don't they argue it with all those super heroes movies ? Did they follow any originality at all? The haters of King Arthur are just bunch of HYPOCRITES who thought they are the righteous persons in the world and know what is right or wrong... 

 

Many viewers enjoy this movie and we are longing for a new twist in the story line , a new interpretation of this legends.. Hope the rest of the 5 sequels will be made 

I don't like it because it's a sloppy film. Guy Ritchie threw a lot of stuff on the wall and created a mess. Somewhere in there is a decent blockbuster, but it gets dragged down by so much stuff.

[Eric Lancer]

10 hours ago, Arlborn said:

 

First of all welcome to the forums! I hope you'll stick around, this is a great community!

 

Second, I agree with your views regarding this movie but I do enjoy the other movies you crapped on while expressing your views so ehhhh.

 

 

Well, I'm glad you went to watch it after all.

My apology for involving other movies into it..LOL, but it was a mere expressing of an honest feeling, had been watching lots of movies for past 2 years.. but normally i chose to keep it quiet within myself and not criticizing any of it (because i don't intend to becoming a hater myself).. but watching King Arthur Legend of the sword brought some life into me and reignite some of my movie passion... i haven't felt that intriguing about a movie in a long time (approximately 2 years, even though there were loads of "good" movies where i forgot their names ), reading some bad comments from critics and haters alike kind of push me into leaving a comment or two of my own, and in doing it i release some of the hidden feeling about other movies (my personal opinion anyway)

 

Umm.. well, i don't understand why someone thought it is sloppy, maybe i have to reply that person in another reply...LOL

 

in comparison between this version of King Arthur and the one by Clive Owen + Kiera Knightny(i forgot her surname), i felt this one actually brought some authentic and unique element into it, Clive Owen version was the one that tried too ard to impress the critics with a traditional and rigid portray of the Legend, and even so it didn't do too well either, Legend of the sword brought some  likable chemistry between the characters, especially between Arthur and the Mage(i think she is Morgana), now this is a cute and unique couple that rival the famed John Connor and Cameron Philips ( from TV series sarah connor chronicles).. in the sense that it is a mysterious relationship that cross between trusted ally and love, they didn't need to talk too much and even expressing some lovable feeling openly, but with the few words that they utter, it feels like they understand each other and trusted each other..and it had the argument of a foolish trust that was explainable, can a guy trust a witch that wield dark magic just like can john connor trust a cyborg who was program to kill him, and told him that "she" love him ? Just like John connor, Arthur hold destined responsibility on his shoulder  and he made a gamble into trusting a lady who he may had a feeling for .. I am glad it was not Guinevere who appear in the movie, because if it was Guinevere i will less interested , i hope the producer didn't actually turn guinevere's character into a Morgana like witch... because i believe Morgana as the Mage is enough to transform a new legend, and i never like Guinevere , she was never Arthur's true love, their marriage is out of politics and she BETRAY him... but for Morgana, conflicting legend told that she actually was the one that truly love Arthur, as a powerful witch, she can easily slay Arthur if she really wanted to..  Arthur is so naive that even Merlin can't protect him all the time... so for my interpretation , Morgana actually tried to warn Arthur of Guinevere and Lancelot's betrayal ...

 

Hence , after watching this first movie , i felt like maybe the producer is going with this direction ? Hopefully in the 2nd movie, Mage is review as Morgana and she was heart broken when Arthur need to marry Guinevere out of politics to please nobles alike, but the Mage never betray Arthur, she tried to warn him when Lancelot join the round table (Lancelot was actually a villain in one of the arthurian novel i read, i forgot the title unfortunately because i stand reading it in a book store one whole day without buying it, i should had bought it then).. Arthur doesn't listen because he is so naive, so the Mage/Morgana left but when she heard that Arthur had been betray, she will rush back trying to save him but she was too late and Lancelot blame her in his plots, Morgana needs to change her identity into Merlin in order to rally Arthur's force (because no one will trust a witch), The Mage didn't manage to save Arthur but she help crush Lancelot's force, and she preserve Arthur's body... In order to make Arthur a true legend, Morgana took the blame herself and create a heroic legend for the person she love .... Sound like too much of a fan fiction right? But i believe this will make the legend and story more refreshing to watch....  so i really hope this is going to be the direction ahead

[Macleod]

There will be no second movie for this iteration of King Arthur.  It's a bomb in the U.S., and not very successful worldwide vs. what was spent on it.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Macleod

[Eric Lancer]

10 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

I don't like it because it's a sloppy film. Guy Ritchie threw a lot of stuff on the wall and created a mess. Somewhere in there is a decent blockbuster, but it gets dragged down by so much stuff.

I don't think it is sloppy and a mess, the mood and setting is perfect for a dream like medieval fantasy story ... maybe you can provide some scene where you feel it was sloppy and confusing?  we can discuss about it? Well... for movies and tv series i like, i used to join a forum and talk  about it, explaining some ambiguous scene based on my interpretation .... of course that's only my vision of it..

 

Just like "Sucker Punch", another cult classic which i felt under rated, i put in lots of my own thought about it regarding what really happen there...LOL

[Eric Lancer]

3 minutes ago, Macleod said:

There will be no second movie for this iteration of King Arthur.  It's a bomb in the U.S., and not very successful worldwide vs. what was spent on it.

That is what i heard and i felt sad..... even over seas fans are hoping there will be a sequel,  This movie will be another Cult Classic that love by many and under appreciated ..

Just like Sarah Connor Chronicles, good TV series that inspired and loved by many fans, but just don't get enough people into appreciating it ..

 

That still doesn't betray the fact King Arhur Legend of the sword is good classic, although a cult classic ..

[Arlborn]

3 minutes ago, Eric Lancer said:

That is what i heard and i felt sad..... even over seas fans are hoping there will be a sequel,  This movie will be another Cult Classic that love by many and under appreciated ..

Just like Sarah Connor Chronicles, good TV series that inspired and loved by many fans, but just don't get enough people into appreciating it ..

 

That still doesn't betray the fact King Arhur Legend of the sword is good classic, although a cult classic ..

Yeah man, I appreciate your passion and I did feel that this movie is underrated as well because it feels so different from what people are expecting from a King Arthur story but sadly there will indeed be no sequel to this movie as the studio apparently will lose dozens of millions of dollars on this movie, you can google it and see the news. It's a shame but it is what it is, hopefully some day they will make a King Arthur movie that can actually make some money.

 

I hope Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets will be able to have a different fate from this in a couple of months... That is another movie that looks real good.

[Eric Lancer]

12 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

Yeah man, I appreciate your passion and I did feel that this movie is underrated as well because it feels so different from what people are expecting from a King Arthur story but sadly there will indeed be no sequel to this movie as the studio apparently will lose dozens of millions of dollars on this movie, you can google it and see the news. It's a shame but it is what it is, hopefully some day they will make a King Arthur movie that can actually make some money.

 

I hope Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets will be able to have a different fate from this in a couple of months... That is another movie that looks real good.

Hmm.. i guess even with the DVD sales, it won't help much.....  actually the cost for a sequel should be less, since they can re-use the equipment , items and some of the scene, hope miracle do happen   

If there is really no sequel, then the good thing is it is up to fans for their own interpretation on what happen next.. things will always live in our own dream

 

If i am not mistaken, traditionally ALL fantasy films suffer ill-fate except for Lords of The rings, because wizardry , dragons and knights are not for everyone's taste ... Lord of The Rings was smart to manipulate the title into sort of historical movie and they change lots of heroic staff into focusing on the humble humanity, like they change Aragorn larger than life heroic story into a mere humble king and focus about how a humble hobbit can change the world, this sort of things are perfect for critics and they can accept it..

 

 

[Blankments]

this legitimately is one of the worst films I've ever seen in a theater. I had a better time at THE IDENTICAL, being completely honest

[Arlborn]

1 hour ago, Blankments said:

this legitimately is one of the worst films I've ever seen in a theater. I had a better time at THE IDENTICAL, being completely honest

It's so weird to read comments like that about a movie you genuinely appreciated. It makes you think.

[MrGlass2]

On 06/06/2017 at 3:19 AM, Eric Lancer said:

This movie will be another Cult Classic that love by many and under appreciated ..

Just like Sarah Connor Chronicles, good TV series that inspired and loved by many fans, but just don't get enough people into appreciating it ..

 

That still doesn't betray the fact King Arhur Legend of the sword is good classic, although a cult classic ..

 

Agree. It is a movie that will live on, become a cult classic, and turn a profit in a few decades.

 

[Eric Lancer]

After watching the movie few times..don't laugh, because there are some of us who will do that, i know at least 2 had watched it six times... i was mesmerised with the scene with some unique background music, and end up wanting to deduce the movie more ... 

 

Spoiler

I like it especially with the music "The Born King"  who attached it with the scene where Morgana and others trying to rescue Arthur from being beheaded , the music play with the moment when Arthur was lead to the execution table, and Morgana started to utter her spell with such flair and elegant ... her lips movement with the slight gesture of her finger in wielding the spell gave it such a stylish and elegant scene that display "here is how you will cast your spell in awe..."  , as oppose to the laughable previous interpretation on how a witch usually chant her spell .., and with the scene switch  back and forth between Arthur and Morgana, Morgana's spell slowly change the pace in slow motion until the Eagle had landed.. it was such a classic scene and i am not sure whether "The Born King" was meant to compliment Arthur or Morgana instead ? But the music match that scene so well that i think it was all right to compliment them both..

some people comment that "The Born King" will suit well into the pc game "The witcher" too.....ahemm, well, it could be because Morgana is a Witch too right?  but I believe Morgana play her role so well that it might actually give a good name to the witch..

 

 

By the way, some of my thought after watching the movie, ahemmm... few times,  was it the producer reluctant to use the term "Witch" in the movie and change it to a more moderate term of "Mage" instead? I understand Witch had somehow become a notorious term lately, but in truth, Witch is just another specialist profession in the Wizard world, a male witch is called a warlock, as in the case of Mordred ... i am wondering if they had called her "The Witch", it might generate more outcry from those "Righteous" people who just like to lecture us what is right and wrong...

 

Spoiler

Then, anyone notice that Mordred was slain in the beginning of movie ? so who will be Arthur's bane next, it will be illogical to simply bring him back alive later.. so this may run concurrent with my theory that Lancelot should be the bane of Arthur in this version, this universe of King Arthur..

 

 

For those who complain the characters look too "CLEAN" in the "Old medieval Times".... this is a Fantasy Medieval story, NOT a History Lesson, don't tell me the critics actually thought this is what happen in the history channel ...... this story happen in a parallel universe , some universe has super heroes running around looking clean, a universe has King Arthur ruling in it...  By the way, why don't those critics say anything about someone named Hela breaking the Hammer of Thor? In the Norse mythology, Thor's Hammer is invincible ...basically these movies made Thor's Hammer look like a child's play , and i thought Thor's Hammer is supposed to be Sacred for their culture....

 

Last, but not least ,I would also like to bring up some observation or deduction of my own, in Guy ritchie's sherlock holmes, wasn't that Irene Adler, a supposedly rogue who only have a brief appearance in one of the original sherlock adventure, being made into sort of romance interest for sherlock holmes ? the irony is that the same Morgana, who was a roguish character in the original legend, can be made into Arthur's romance interest as well ?

 

The general logic is that both Irene Adler and Morgana had been living their life in cruel, dark and sinister life with merciless men who would one day turn on them mercilessly ( as it happened for the case of Irene Adler), but in Holmes and Arthur, they will find the safety and security they are longing for, because they know both Arthur and Holmes are such naive that they will still bail them out of troubles if the ladies stay in good term with them. So it is logic that Morgana can fall for Arthur too.. and the scene where the Eagle carrying the snake, Eagle had been symbolised as righteous and good mostly, while the snake had always being an Evil incarnation for most people's belief... but the Eagle willingly working together with the snake show that both polar opposite world can be brought together for a common goal.. well, an indication of Arthur can be with Morgana too ?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Eric Lancer

[Napoleon]

This was much better than I was expecting. It was very entertaining, had a good pace, and Charlie Hunnam is really, really good in it. Very likable character. It's a shame we won't see more of this.

[ddddeeee]

This sentence in the opening paragraphs for the wiki page really made me laugh for some reason.

 

'The film grossed $140 million worldwide against its $175 million production budget, losing Warner Bros. around $150 million, with critics "warning audiences to stay away".'

[Arlborn]

Shame we won't see another movie in this universe, I'd have liked to see that. Oh well, I got an enjoyable movie out of it, it's all good.

[Napoleon]

 

[Valonqar]

On 8/1/2017 at 8:40 PM, Arlborn said:

Shame we won't see another movie in this universe, I'd have liked to see that. Oh well, I got an enjoyable movie out of it, it's all good.

cause the universe and characters are super outdated. Nobody cares about Arthurian legends, Robin Hood, Ivanhoe, etc old medieval stuff anymore. I don't know why Hollywood is still trying to make them happen but it's not going to. However, movies/TV that are inspired by but created their own universe that appeals to modern audience could succeed (look at GoT). 

[kayumanggi]

On 8/2/2017 at 8:12 AM, Napoleon said:

This was much better than I was expecting. It was very entertaining, had a good pace, and Charlie Hunnam is really, really good in it. Very likable character. It's a shame we won't see more of this.

And that epic final battle.