King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

[Brian in Mesa]

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Release date: May 12, 2017
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Guy Ritchie
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of violence and action, some suggestive content and brief strong language)
Screenwriters: Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram
Genre: Action, Fantasy, Adventure
Website: KingArthurmovie.com| Facebook| Twitter| Instagram

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Jude Law, Eric Bana

Plot Summary: Acclaimed filmmaker Guy Ritchie brings his dynamic style to the epic fantasy action adventure "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword." Starring Charlie Hunnam in the title role, the film is an iconoclastic take on the classic Excalibur myth, tracing Arthur’s journey from the streets to the throne. When the child Arthur’s father is murdered, Vortigern (Jude Law), Arthur’s uncle, seizes the crown. Robbed of his birthright and with no idea who he truly is, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, his life is turned upside down and he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy…whether he likes it or not.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Stout]

I was gifted two free tickets to see this, which I had absolutely no plans to see. As it turns out, I still paid far, far too much

 

[cardfaninfl]

Guy Ritchie is the new Ridley Scott.

I can not believe the Arthurian tale reached it's cinematic peak with "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" in 1975, and "Excalibur" in 1981.

 

[BillsCarnage]

Love Ritchie's movies, but have zero interest in this.

 

[BillsCarnage]

I can not believe the Arthurian tale reached it's cinematic peak with "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" in 1975, and "Excalibur" in 1981.

The Clive Owen version was solid. Excalibur was a fantasy, but King Authur was more accurate based on historical accounts.

 

[cardfaninfl]

The Excalibur version was solid. King Arthur was a fantasy, but Clive Owen was more accurate based on historical accounts.

Fixed that for you so it now makes sense.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I've promised myself that I will never again see anything even remotely connected to either the King Arthur legend or the Robin Hood tales. Both stories have been told far more often than warranted IMO.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

I was gifted two free tickets to see this, which I had absolutely no plans to see. As it turns out, I still paid far, far too much

So it was pretty good eh? lol

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I've promised myself that I will never again see anything even remotely connected to either the King Arthur legend or the Robin Hood tales. Both stories have been told far more often than warranted IMO.

Yeah I can't understand how these stories get greenlit over and over again. Do they make good money? Doesn't seem so.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

Yeah I can't understand how these stories get greenlit over and over again. Do they make good money? Doesn't seem so.

It was a Warner Bros film, so that should tell you it was absolutely horrible. WB is projected to lose $100M off this movie.

 

[Bada0Bing]

So nobody actually saw it? Guy Ritchie gives me hope.

 

[Chaplin]

I saw it and for what it was, it was ok. Very stylized, which I was hoping for, but very glad that it didn't use modern music, which I fully expected it would. Acting was ok across the board--Jude Law just doesn't sit with me in a movie like this, so that took me out of it.

A lot of special effects and fairly well done.

Spoiler

One big problem I had with it was all the mentions of Merlin, yet he makes no appearance in the entire movie. A "mage" is in the movie--but if felt more like the requisite female actress that was there to broaden appeal. I certainly hope that wasn't the reason Merlin wasn't in it.

 

[Stout]

So nobody actually saw it? Guy Ritchie gives me hope.

It was hot garbage that's losing a metric crap-ton of money.

 

[AzStevenCal]

It was hot garbage that's losing a metric crap-ton of money.

I'm a Ritchie fan but if this has even a chance of souring the big movie industry on re-visiting the same old story time and again, I'm all for it. Not that I think that will actually happen.

 

[UncleChris]

I saw it and for what it was, it was ok. Very stylized, which I was hoping for, but very glad that it didn't use modern music, which I fully expected it would. Acting was ok across the board--Jude Law just doesn't sit with me in a movie like this, so that took me out of it.

A lot of special effects and fairly well done.

Spoiler

One big problem I had with it was all the mentions of Merlin, yet he makes no appearance in the entire movie. A "mage" is in the movie--but if felt more like the requisite female actress that was there to broaden appeal. I certainly hope that wasn't the reason Merlin wasn't in it.

This was my take, as well

The tower crumbling at the end was rather fakey looking to me.....

 

[Shaggy]

Just finished watching it on HBO. I liked it. Loved the back and forth time lines. Good effects. I was surprised on how many well known actors were in it.

 

[oaken1]

Just finished watching it on HBO. I liked it. Loved the back and forth time lines. Good effects. I was surprised on how many well known actors were in it.

was nice to see one done in which Excalibur was actually a real magic sword... that sword was bad ass

 

[BillsCarnage]

Just finished watching it on HBO. I liked it. Loved the back and forth time lines. Good effects. I was surprised on how many well known actors were in it.

Overall, I liked it too. Definitely a Ritchie movie, but probably the bottom of his list.

I was hoping for a Vinnie Jones cameo.

 

[Shaggy]

Overall, I liked it too. Definitely a Ritchie movie, but probably the bottom of his list.

I was hoping for a Vinnie Jones cameo.

I don't feel like looking it up, but other movies has Ritchie directed that were big movies?

 

[Chaplin]

I don't feel like looking it up, but other movies has Ritchie directed that were big movies?

Sherlock Holmes was probably the biggest.

 

[Bert]

Shall we rank Guy Ritchie films? Has that already happened on ASFN?

Snatch is still my favorite.... (man you could have a field day with that sentence.)

 

[Chaplin]

Shall we rank Guy Ritchie films? Has that already happened on ASFN?

Snatch is still my favorite.... (man you could have a field day with that sentence.)

Snatch is definitely #1 for me. I believe it was one of the first Movie-A-Days that we did years ago.

 

[BillsCarnage]

Snatch is definitely #1 for me. I believe it was one of the first Movie-A-Days that we did years ago.

Yeah, no doubt Snatch is his best. They're all good, all the non-Madonna ones.

 

[Shaggy]

I haven't seen Snatch in years! Need to watch it again soon.

 

[Stout]

Yeah, no doubt Snatch is his best. They're all good, all the non-Madonna ones.

Yeah, King Arthur deserved about a 10%/rotten score. Not at all good.