King Arthur Reviewed
Good God—another King Arthur movie? Are we really doing this again? It feels like we get one of these every few years, even if the last adaptation was the 2004 Clive Owen movie. But studio executives know that Game of Thrones is the hottest property in all of TV right now. So why not strike while the dragons and swords are hot and roll out a movie with the most famous knight of all time? (With the possible exception of the Knights who say "Ni!")
About midway through King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, it became apparent that director Guy Ritchie didn't care too much about the story. I think he went into this project knowing that everyone has the basic gist of the Arthurian legend; he just wanted to do all his cool camera tricks. So he traded Lancelot for giant, magic elephants and sleek masked warriors wearing impractical armor.
No matter what you think of Guy Ritchie as a director, most people will agree it is fun watching his movies. There are lots of fast edits, cool camera tricks, solid fight cinematography, and did I mention the fast edits? Richie uses as many effects as his budget will allow, and for his effort, the movie looks good and is fun to watch, especially the scenes that are set to music.
The CGI doesn't come off as incredibly realistic; the monsters and giant beasts look more cartoonish than anything. But were you really not going to be able to tell that the giant smoke monster isn't real? This type of animation matches the fantastical epic feel Richie is trying to create, so it makes sense as long as you’ve already accepted the previous silliness.
About midway through King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, it became apparent that director Guy Ritchie didn't care too much about the story. I think he went into this project knowing that everyone has the basic gist of the Arthurian legend; he just wanted to do all his cool camera tricks. So he traded Lancelot for giant, magic elephants and sleek masked warriors wearing impractical armor.
No matter what you think of Guy Ritchie as a director, most people will agree it is fun watching his movies. There are lots of fast edits, cool camera tricks, solid fight cinematography, and did I mention the fast edits? Richie uses as many effects as his budget will allow, and for his effort, the movie looks good and is fun to watch, especially the scenes that are set to music.
The CGI doesn't come off as incredibly realistic; the monsters and giant beasts look more cartoonish than anything. But were you really not going to be able to tell that the giant smoke monster isn't real? This type of animation matches the fantastical epic feel Richie is trying to create, so it makes sense as long as you’ve already accepted the previous silliness.
What every King Arthur movie needs - ninja fighting.
I like Charlie Hunnam as a lead–I liked him and Sons of Anarchy and I liked him in Pacific Rim. At the very least Hunnam seemed properly cast; he can tough-guy banter with the best of them, which is exactly what a Guy Richie movie needs. I just can’t figure out why his characters are never more engaging or memorable. He’s a good actor, if not a little vanilla. But does it get any more vanilla than Arthur?
To that end, it's hard to for me to believe I've made it this far without talking about Jude Law, but really he’s there for his trademark sneer more than anything else. The evil magic king he plays is more of a prop than a character.
The movie felt a lot longer than it actually is. I found myself checking my watch in the middle of the movie, which is unfortunate because I liked what I saw in the beginning and the end. If you like slo-mo fighting sequences and can't get enough of knights and magic you could do worse than King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. The effort is in the effects, but after hearing about the round table for the umpteenth time, I need a break, and maybe a little more character definition. It’s comforting to know we are less than ten weeks away from the winds of winter, so you may be better off watching the Battle of Hardhome again while you wait for this one to come to HBO. D
To that end, it's hard to for me to believe I've made it this far without talking about Jude Law, but really he’s there for his trademark sneer more than anything else. The evil magic king he plays is more of a prop than a character.
The movie felt a lot longer than it actually is. I found myself checking my watch in the middle of the movie, which is unfortunate because I liked what I saw in the beginning and the end. If you like slo-mo fighting sequences and can't get enough of knights and magic you could do worse than King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. The effort is in the effects, but after hearing about the round table for the umpteenth time, I need a break, and maybe a little more character definition. It’s comforting to know we are less than ten weeks away from the winds of winter, so you may be better off watching the Battle of Hardhome again while you wait for this one to come to HBO. D
RSS Feed
