I wanted to like this movie. I really did. Part of me does, admittedly. However, despite the production values and spectacle, I can't help but think that it's a bit too tiresome for its own good, and it's even a bit boring. Maybe instead of planning a whole franchise, they could have focused on the story and making the movie as good as it should have been.
If you're looking for a traditional Excalibur-type telling of this story this movie is not for you. If you're looking for a good modern action-adventure, give it a try. Definitely a fun ride.
Just for the record, though I agree with appreciations of a good movie in general, it does tend to further distract from the actual basis and purpose of the Grail legend, which is the actual basis of the Arthurian legends. Which basis of the Grail legends began long before time that Arthur would have lived, if we could pin down for sure IF he lived. So... where's the magic in That? Hint: The SYMBOLISM, not to mention *actual* history of "the Church" is what the whole thing has always been about, albeit recognized as such by very few. WAITTTTT! Who Cares!?! This is about MOVIES! AND (again) where's the magic in that? Well, you either want to know or you don't. And if you do, you won't get it in one frame of a smart phone. Oh, Hey- isn't that (the delving into deeper mysteries) one of the key themes of the grail legends, however Arthur gets Excalibur in or out of that rock? Hmmm, yes, professor, bla, bla, bla... By the way, notice they didn't have a grail in this version - too touchy a theme after the books by Dan Brown, not to mention, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (by Baigent, Leigh, & Lincoln) ? Ok, there's another hint AND I'll stop here ;-)
I really enjoyed all of the film, special effects, sword work, costume and the story was an interesting take on King Arthur
We got at least the $2 that I owe in late fees' worth of entertainment!
This a wild ride with a new fresh perspective on King Arthur using modern film making techniques and screen play. Sure there will be those disappointed in some aspects of the story line or acting but for pure entertainment its movie magic.
Imagine King Arthur plus heavy rock music plus a lot of special effects, and minus a lot of the tenets of the "classic" Arthurian legends, then you've got this movie. Even so, I was pleasantly surprised by the action and the acting.
Not bad, a really unique way to direct the film, I has a less expectation before watching this film due to the critics, but it does really surprises me when I watch it. the part where it can improve more is the length of the back story and more action. it took a little bit too long of explaining King Arthur's past. After this, I am curious and want to watch the 2004 movie with Clive Owen and Keira Knighty
A LE MORTE D'ARTHUR prequel by Guy Ritchie starring Jax (Charlie Hunnam) from SONS OF ANARCHY as the boy king who pulls the sword from the stone. This is LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS version of Camelot. At first I didn't think it was going to work -- and I'm a Guy Ritchie fan -- but succeed it does. Jude Law as the evil uncle Vortigern building his own Tower of Babel is the pillar of the production. He provides a fascinating portrait of a power-hungry ruler, paranoid and ruthless, forever on the lookout for ways to augment his stature. What many of the commentators miss is that Ritchie, in our post-BREXIT world, is calling for a renewed English nationalism, and it is clearly not of the Tory/UKIP variety; rather, it is multi-ethnic (kung-fu fighters and Africans hoisting a mug with Vikings), egalitarian and populist. I agree. If Western democracy is to be renewed our best chance is a governing Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.
There are no ages for this title yet.
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.