King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

[Rick Kitchen]

Comic-con trailer:

 

 

This looks like shit.  Too many 21st century sensibilities.  The costumes look like something you can pick up at the local Wal-mart.  Those red leather pants!  He grew up on the streets?  The streets of what fucking city?  I hate when they toss in a token black actor just for diversity's sake.

And are they trying to claim that the sword he pulled from the stone is Excalibur?  Bullshit.

[Joe]

I like it. There's room for Excalibur, there's room for this. Looks fun. I don't demand historical authenticity. Also, there's more than one black character in the movie, plus the giant elephants. My guess is that it deals with some kind of African connection. Invasion? I dunno.

For those curious about the music, it's a song called The Wild Wild Berry. I don't know if this version is on Youtube, I haven't done that much looking.

[Artsda]

I like the trailer, it interests me. 

Charlie Hunnman looks good in the role.

[ribboninthesky1]

Several months to go, but I have my doubts on the box office for this one. Doesn't mean I won't see it, though.  It's got an interesting cast, and it looks like Ritchie plays to Hunnam's strengths.  I appreciate how Ritchie incorporates humor in his films. 

[Just Here]

Here's a synopsis, from a March 2015 Deadline article.

Quote

Warners released a synopsis for the film this month, calling it a bold new story that introduces a streetwise young Arthur who runs the back alleys of Londonium with his gang, unaware of the life he was born for until he grasps hold of the sword Excalibur. Instantly challenged by the sword’s power, Arthur is forced to make some hard choices. Throwing in with the Resistance and a mysterious young woman named Guinevere, he must learn to master the sword, face down his demons and unite the people to defeat the tyrant Vortigern — who murdered his parents and stole his crown — and become king.

Also, this is suppose to be the first of six films.

[Which Tyler]

6 films? hah!

 

If they're going to do another Arthur, then at least do it properly and use the Cornwell books.

[Kromm]

Wow this looks like total shit. I mean steaming fetid smelly smeary shit.

[OakGoblinFly]

I saw the trailer and was thoroughly confused; at first I thought it was about a man who dreams/dreamed he lived during ye olden days of King Arthur because everything about the film seemed way too "modern"; but it seems that the films is supposed to actually be about King Arthur's origin.

 

Then I saw Guy Ritchie's name and thought, "well, now it all makes sense."

 

It's a shame, because I really enjoy Arthurian Legend stories; well-done ones that is.

[Bruinsfan]

Ritchie really should have just re-imagined the basic story into happening among late 20th century London gangsters. It's a time-honored tradition and the result might have been interesting rather than laughable.

[OakGoblinFly]

23 hours ago, Kromm said:

Wow this looks like total shit. I mean steaming fetid smelly smeary shit.

Now, I've just got to find a way to work "fetid smelly smeary shit" into my daily conversation.  

[revbfc]

I wouldn't ever call myself an expert in Arthurian legends, but I do know that there is enough good story to be gleaned from already existing material to craft amazing movies.  It's not about a streetwise tough guy who becomes king, it's about hope, despair and longing for something greater.  Arthur is idealism and striving for the seemingly unattainable.  I'm not getting that from this trailer.  It looks like fun, but I'm very skeptical.

[BetterButter]

[revbfc]

It's better than the first trailer, that's for certain.

[AimingforYoko]

It's more mythology, less Guy Ritchieology, for sure. We'll see what wins out for the film in total.

[Artsda]

This trailer is a lot better.

[Danny Franks]

I wonder if this will be the movie that finally convinces people that Guy Ritchie is actually shit. It's past time for it to happen. The guy seemed to fluke his way into a couple of decent gangster movies at the start of his career, but has done nothing decent since.

At least the trailer seems to make it clear that no one will be able to confuse whatever this is with actual history.... I hope.

[Hanahope]

I'm a sucker for King Arthur everything.  I absolutely love the movie Excalibur (the best cast ever), and I've watched just about every other movie and TV show about him (very disappointed in the end of Merlin, but whatever), and read a very large number of books on the legend, both fiction and non-fiction, and even visited some of the "sites" in England.  So I'll probably watch this, but it might wait till DVD.  I'm not sure when it comes out, but there's a lot coming out over the summer that I'm definitely seeing.  Guy Ritchie is a bit hit and miss with me on this versions of stories.  I'm hoping this new idea works.

[xaxat]

Jude Law looks like he is having soooo much fun lording over his army of CGI peasants. 

He actually makes chain mail look good.

[SimoneS]

I like Charlie Hunnam and Guy Ritchie, but that trailer is not persuading me to go see the movie, more like wait for the DVD.

Edited May 4, 2017 by SimoneS

[magdalene]

This looks like a gigantic flop.

[BitterApple]

Wow, this looks like total shit. The feel is way too modern and nothing looks authentic, especially those Dollar Tree Halloween costumes. Maybe they're banking on ladies flocking to the theater because of Charlie Hunnam, but I'm predicting total flop as well. 

On another note, was that Littlefinger and Roose Bolton in the trailer?

Edited May 7, 2017 by BitterApple

[Morrigan2575]

I had to check IMDb, yes to both.

[BitterApple]

45 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I had to check IMDb, yes to both.

Thanks! 

[ribboninthesky1]

Shame this bombed at the box office, I enjoyed it. I got what I expected - an absurd medieval fantasy with some hot men.  But then, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. wasn't well received, either, so WB just can't catch a break.  I assume those planned sequels won't come to pass.  

[Proclone]

I saw it a few nights ago, it's not as awful as the box office and some reviews make it out to be, but it's not good either.  I didn't mind idea of the British gangster movie wrapped up in a medieval fantasy piece...I just don't think it worked with Arthurian Legend.  I actually think it might have worked as a Robin Hood adaption with out much tweaking to characters as presented.  I really do think a slick fast talking conman character and his similarly quick tongued brothers in arms, really would have worked much better as Robin Hood and the merry men, rather than King Arthur and the Knights of the round table.  And doesn't someone named Goose Fat Bill sound more like he'd be in a Robin Hood story than King Arthur's?

While I don't mind taking myths and legends and putting a new spin on them and there are different versions of Arthur's story, this really bares almost no resemblance to any legend about King Arthur save the titular sword. Modred for example is not a dark sorcerer that battled Arthur's father Uther, he was Arthur's son and/or nephew and in most versions Arthur's downfall.  Making Modred the throw away villain at the beginning makes no sense, just name the character something else besides Modred.   If they had managed to make the story interesting I probably would have been more willing to let my annoyance at the large gap between the movie and traditional Arthurian legend go, but it wasn't really.  Or at the very least the story (Arthur's) that they they chose to tell was the least interesting.  I would have much rather the movie centered on Uther and Vortigern and the events leading up to the start of the movie.  Both were much more interesting characters IMO and I would have much rather seen their dynamics play out leading to Vortigern's betrayal rather than Arthur whine for two hours.

I also found this to be oddly paced, and I feel like there might be big chunks of the movie left on the cutting room floor.  The backstory is rushed.  Arthur grows up in a montage, but they don't seem to use the time they saved doing that to give us anything really great.  Also why in the hell is Annabelle Wallis in this?  He character doesn't serve much of a purpose.  She does give the merry men (I refuse to call them knights) information about where Vortigern will be, but really anyone could have played that character...or they could have given that action to Vortigern's daughter and actually had her do something in the movie and maybe made her an actual character instead of a plot device.  There had to be big chunks of screen time for Wallis's character cut.  It's hinted that she's important, but she disappears after the attempted assassination.  You don't even see Vortigern torture her to get information about Arthur and his men.  I was convinced they were going to reveal her real name as being Guinevere at the end to sequel bait, but nope.

I will give Jude Law due as being the most enjoyable part of the movie for me.  He was delightfully creepy, without actually gnawing on the scenery too much. I also thought he managed to be convincingly conflicted in the scenes where he killed both his wife and then his daughter.  And I will give the film this, the combination Wyrd sisters from Macbeth/Ursula the sea witch thing he bargains with, was legit unsettling.

And the CGI for that creature was also one of the few times the CGI was even passable in this movie.  I thought some of it was really awful, especially anytime they CGIed a real animal.  The hawk in particular was so obviously fake, it wasn't funny. I didn't think that CGI during the climax was good at all either and they seemed to be trying to cover up their bad CGI with bad smoke CGI at some points. I didn't see this in 3D, and thank god, otherwise I think I would have thrown up.  There's shaky cam and then there's shaky cam.  This movie is the another level beyond that at certain points.

I may have made it sound like I hated the movie, which isn't true.  I'm not sorry I saw it.  I will probably never see it again though.  The acting isn't bad, from anyone. I actually chuckled a few times at a couple jokes, but this wasn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination.

[ribboninthesky1]

I agree that there seemed to be key aspects edited out. But the film was 2 hours long as it was, and I've read complaints when films go beyond that (particularly recent WB films). I wonder if there was a lot of studio interference, or if the assumption was that, because it was planned as a franchise, they would have time to flesh things out.  Or a bit of both.  Guess we'll never know. I'm no expert on Arthurian legend, so I have no bone to pick with that.

I recently rewatched the BBC Merlin series on Hulu (interesting to see Katie McGrath in a different role, since she was Morgana in the series), and was annoyed at how much telling they did of Arthur's greatness rather than showing viewers when they had five damn seasons to do it. So I appreciated that, in the film, Arthur wasn't constantly praised for little to no reason.  He had his friends who were loyal to him, and the people began to rally around him because of what they saw - him pulling the sword from the stone, and how he dispatched men when he tapped into Excalibur's power. I liked how they showed yet fast-tracked Arthur's coming of age, but different strokes.  I didn't find Arthur to be whiny, though I'd have liked to see more of Uther. 

The cast was mostly solid, save the actress playing the Mage, who was a miscast.  I also thought some of the CGI was interesting, like Uther becoming the stone in which Excalibur was embedded.  

Perhaps they'll release a director's cut.

[Bruinsfan]

The two trailers that seemed to be advertising two very different (yet similarly awful) movies were enough to keep me far, FAR away from this thing. Was its conception basically Ritchie seeing Gods of Egypt getting slammed as the worst big budget movie of the 2010s and going "hold my beer"?

[BitterApple]

I'm not surprised this bombed. At my local cineplex they weren't even showing it in the big, premiere theaters. They stuck it one of the small cubby holes usually reserved for movies that are on their way out.

As far as the time, I thought the original was over three hours and they had to do a major hack job to get it down to two. That's probably why it felt like key elements of the story were missing.

[Proclone]

4 hours ago, BitterApple said:

As far as the time, I thought the original was over three hours and they had to do a major hack job to get it down to two. That's probably why it felt like key elements of the story were missing.

I'm not surprised to hear this.  Like I said in my earlier post, it felt like big chunks of the movie were missing, especially everything having to do with Annabelle Wallis's character Maggie.  I feel like there had to have been a whole subplot about her and her relationship with Vortigern and Arthur cut completely.  I also think some of the other characters could have been fleshed out more completely and there's probably quite a bit of Vortigern's reasons for betraying Uther left on the cutting room floor.

I actually would probably watch a longer cut of the movie if WB releases a directors cut (or one of their Ultimate cuts), to see what this movie was actually meant to look like.  I'm not sure if a longer cut would actually turn out to be a better movie, but I think there was potential there (like I said I don't think it's as awful as some reviews make it out to be) and I'd like to see the story that Ritchie envisioned.

That being said, if the originally cut was that long, and there was planned six sequels, the moral of this might be that Ritchie's vision would have been more at home on TV via HBO, Showtime or the like.  He wouldn't have gotten the budget at first (but like I said the CGI was so awful I don't think he actually took advantage of the money he had anyway), but if it had been a hit he'd probably get Game of Thrones level money fairly quickly and been more able to tell the story he wanted to tell.  I'm sure there is some network that wants their answer to Game of Thrones.  And I'd for one like a gritty adult version of Arthurian Legend played out on the screen.  The one recent attempt, Camalot, was...not good. YMMV.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Proclone

[supposebly]

I'm rereading Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy at the moment and with a decent budget, it would make a lovely "answer to Game of Thrones" on TV. Or at least an interesting adaptation. This one looked supercheesy in the trailers.

I figured it was some sort of similar take on Arthur that reminded me of his Sherlock Holmes movies which I'm not entirely convinced by either. The trade-mark Guy Ritchie stuff doesn't work for this kind of material, I think.
With the Sherlock Holmes movies, I always feel like I'm watching Lock, Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels in costumes. And the Arthur trailer left me feeling about the same. With an added dash of shallow CW prettiness.

[johntfs]

I watched it and I liked it pretty well for what it was, which was King Jax: Arthur: Legend of the Harley Sword.  It was very much a Guy Ritchie movie.  Doing the knights as a bunch of asshole criminals mostly trying not to die was pretty good.  Sure it wasn't straight Arthurian legend, but fuck it, this is how the story went on the Earth of Dimension B-172 or whatever.  I was entertained and that's really about all I should ask of a movie.

[thuganomics85]

Saw it a few days ago, but I waited to post to process it, but I still really can't decide what I fully think of this film.  There were times where I thought it was the silliest thing I ever saw, but then there where other times where I found it strangely fascinating and interesting to watch. For better and worse, it really was what I imagine the Arthurian legend would be if Guy Ritchie got his hands on it, complete with his patent modern, hardboiled dialogue, slo-mo fight scenes, and rapid cuts.  Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, but I kind of respect the film for at least trying.

The same with the cast.  I know he has his fans, but I've never been impressed by Charlie Hunnam in his previous work (Sons of Anarchy and Pacific Rim), and I wasn't too impressed here either.  He wasn't bad by any stretch, but was just kind of dull.  I just feel like he lacks the presence or charisma to make him the bonafide star Hollywood clearly wants him to be.  Still, he fared much better then Astrid Berges-Frisbey, who was God-awful.  Was she really the best choice for that role?  Hell, poor Katie McGrath showed up and got killed in five minutes (at least it was a better fate then the one she got in Jurassic World.  Or at least less brutal..), and she would have been much better (especially since I suspect the mysterious mage was Morgana.)

On the other hand, the rest of the supporting cast was good, ranging from Djimon Hounsou once again punching above his weight class (poor guy: so talented, but always seems stuck playing sidekicks or secondary villains), Annabelle Wallis, Neil Maskell, and two Game of Thrones dudes with Michael McElhatton and Aiden Gillen (playing a good guy for once, even if he still had the Littlefinger-ish smarm and smirk.)  And then there was Jude Law, who was easily the highlight.  I enjoyed every minute of his sneering, preening, and camp.

The music was pretty good at least.  And the scenery.  Really need to book a trip the the U.K.

So, in the end, I guess it was an imperfect film, but I'm glad I watched it, because it at least will stick with me longer then some other films that are technically better, but maybe safer.  That said, I have no sympathy for how this blew up in Warner Brothers' faces.  Really, WB?  You sunk $175 million dollars and where planning on a six (!) film franchise about King Arthur, someone who isn't as popular as he use to be?  Headlined by an actor who has a fanbase, but isn't a household name?  Helmed by the non-mainstream director who is known for cult gangster films and the Sherlock Holmes franchise that is probably now best known as the one that doesn't star Benedict Cumberbatch?  Sometimes I forget that outside of the Harry Potter franchise and DC Films (no matter their quality), that studio can be dumbasses.  Go home, WB, you're drunk!

[ribboninthesky1]

Apparently, there was some behind the scenes shuffling at WB, along with studio interference, and Richie's creative vision seemed to be lost in the process.  Not surprised. According to the same article, the 2004 Disney film bombed as well (with a $120 million dollar budget = just under $160 million in 2017 dollars).  I remember that film only because it was my introduction to Ioan Gruffudd, and damn....he was mighty fine. 

[Bruinsfan]

Between this and the DCU I'm assuming Warner Bros' house moviemaking philosophy is the plot of The Producers.

Super-anachronistic dialog and characterizations can work if you're being tongue-in-cheek or outright shooting for comedy (e.g., A Knight's Tale or Galavant), but it's a recipe for disaster if the director wants people to take it seriously, as seems to be the case here.

[ribboninthesky1]

Eh, A Knight's Tale has its comedic moments, but I recall it being fairly earnest. I see some parallels with this film, save the outrageous budget and CGI.   

[revbfc]

I’ve said before that I’m only a casual Arthur fan, but this was horribly disrespectful to the legends, and a bad movie on top of it all.  I’m unable to give a comprehensive list of dumb shit that Guy changed, but off the top of my head:

-Mordred was Arthur’s bastard, not Uther’s nemesis.

-Excalibur was not the sword in the stone.  Arthur had to make an exchange with the lady of the lake.

-Excalibur is not Mjölnir.

-Perceval showed up after Arthur became king.

-Arthur was not a pimp.

Guy, I like your movies, but this was a worse mistake than Swept Away & Revolver combined.

Edited December 31, 2017 by revbfc

[rmontro]

Watched this movie this morning, I could barely stay awake.  It was so boring, which is about the worst thing a movie can be.

About the only thing that got my attention was it had Littlefinger in it, the poor guy.

Looks like it lost money at the box office so we don't have to worry about any sequels

Sorry guys, it was terrible.

[Hanahope]

Finally watched this on HBO last night.  I had forgotten all about it.  I honestly don't recall seeing any trailers for it in movie theaters.  

Overall, I thought it was ok.  Sure, a Guy Ritchie style, that didn't bother me too much, the chase through Londinium went on a bit long, and Camelot and Londinium were definitely "too big," imo.  the CGI looked kindof cool at times, probably was very impressive on the big screen.   the diversity was nice.  

I definitely agree that some of the big problems was messing too much with the core story.  Call the first evil mage anything but Mordred.  Mordred is Arthur's nemesis, not Uther's. Vortigern as Uther's brother was a big, maybe too much, of a stretch.  The lack of Merlin, other than the throwaway lines in the beginning.  You don't want to call the female mage Guenivere?  Yeah, good choice there.  but why not call her Nimue? Tie it into the core story a bit more.  call the mysterious magic island Avalon maybe.  you want KA fans, you'd better include stuff that they will want to reference.  

No way could this have been 6 films.  Maybe a trilogy.