andythinkpad
Member
It's shot by gopro with Arthur in GAP pants and shirts, what do you expect?
Guy Richie has gone full Ridley Scott.
Guy Richie has gone full Ridley Scott.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (really) Rottenwatch - Currently 5% RT / 44 MC
- Thread starter kswiston
- Start date
Good lawd. I didn't think it'd bomb this badly. I didn't think it would be critically panned this badly either.
Who fucking asked for another King Arthur movie anyway.
The same people that asked for a King Arthur Cinematic Universe, I guess. Which are located entirely inside WB's executive offices/insane asylum.
If they gave Ritchie a $50 million budget to make his weird King Arthur movie, I'd understand it, but the fact that they gave him almost $200 million makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't know who they thought they'd appeal to but it was apparent early on that this wasn't going to be a great idea.
Glass Rebel
Member
After The Man from UNCLE lost $50 to $80 million on a $75 million budget, the natural conclusion was to give him $100 million more.
Violence Jack
Member
You gotta be kidding me. This is about as bad a decision as Sony spending $150 million on Ghostbusters.
I thought bomb of the year would be between this and Valerian, but I'm wondering if Valerian even has a budget close to $175 million.
The last report on Valerian's budget was $180M
They were clearly going for the Thrones audience (even hired Aidan Gillen) but didn't realize that people like Thrones because of the character work.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
They thought Guy Ritchie could turn another public domain character into a wise-cracking blockbuster because Robert Downey Jr. made the Sherlock movies in a cave with a pile of scraps.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I refuse to believe that a movie with Charlie Hunnam in the lead is terrible.
Did you ever watch Green Street?
GabeTheGrouch76
Member
Kinda amazing how Hollywood financing accountants can't seem to properly budget blatantly risky films accordingly. If you're going to give a truckload of money to a director who's last film underperformed, and allow him to make a incoherent project with an indecisive target audience of this caliber, you totally deserve whatever inevitable box office Ls that are coming your way.
I think Paramount already has already claimed that medal of dishonor with Monster Trucks. You'd have to balls up pretty badly for your film to be written off as a $100M+ loss months before it was even released....
SomeRandomWeirdGuy
Member
I just don't get why we can't have a (decently) big budged King Arthur movie that PLAYS IT STRAIGHT. Don't put your own crazy fucking twist on it, just have Camelot, Knights of the Round Table, Excalibur, Merlin, Mordred, and all that good shit. There was that version in the early 2000s that played it like it was real history by making Arthur a roman general, and then there's this thing with it's weird psuedo-LOTR vibe.
Fuck, I'd kill for a more or less straight adaptation of TH White's The Once and Future King.
There's so much crazy shit in the Arthurian mythos by itself, there's no damn reason to be all original with everything. Merlin is the son of an incubus (if not the Devil himself). Sir Kay (I believe it's him, could be Bedivere though) sometimes is a practioner of dark magic, but is still held in esteem by Arthur. Lancelot v Gawain. The presence of (depending on variations) of a Saracen in the round table (Sir Palamedes), and even at times an actual black Moorish black knight (Sir Morien). Hell, Arthur even fights the Roman Empire in some stories.
Like, there's fuel for a whole franchise for Arthurian legend. Percival, Bedivere, Gawain and his brothers, Lancelot and Galahad, and so on. SO MUCH.
Damn this movie makes me angry
Fuck, I'd kill for a more or less straight adaptation of TH White's The Once and Future King.
There's so much crazy shit in the Arthurian mythos by itself, there's no damn reason to be all original with everything. Merlin is the son of an incubus (if not the Devil himself). Sir Kay (I believe it's him, could be Bedivere though) sometimes is a practioner of dark magic, but is still held in esteem by Arthur. Lancelot v Gawain. The presence of (depending on variations) of a Saracen in the round table (Sir Palamedes), and even at times an actual black Moorish black knight (Sir Morien). Hell, Arthur even fights the Roman Empire in some stories.
Like, there's fuel for a whole franchise for Arthurian legend. Percival, Bedivere, Gawain and his brothers, Lancelot and Galahad, and so on. SO MUCH.
Damn this movie makes me angry
NealMcCauley
Member
I don't even know if Ritchie could make another small crime film. I remember rumblings that Mathew Vaughn (produced Lock Stock and Snatch) was the reason the early movies were good, not Guy.
starchild excalibur
Member
Guy Ritchie remains best at doing British gangster films. Rock'n'rolla was the last film he made that I unequivocally enjoyed. And yes, I saw Sherlock Holmes.
Can't wait to see how he fucks up Aladdin. Although at least I'm sure Disney's involvement will guarantee some level quality control.
Can't wait to see how he fucks up Aladdin. Although at least I'm sure Disney's involvement will guarantee some level quality control.
You gotta be kidding me. We're gonna be robbed of Ser Galahad: The Dark Weald?
Its Guy Ritchie remaking Snatch, but with dragons and Jude Law with a 150 million at least bigger budget.
I love Hollywood.
Course, part of me thinks they're sacrificing this film to make WW look amazing box office wise in comparison.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I don't know why anyone is surprised on this bombing. Then again, this isn't something that should have a 175m budget to begin with and kind of screams tax write-off.
Dash_Riprock
Member
I've been wanting a decent King Arthur epic for years.
Instead we get Hollywood always ruining it with their bullshit.
TheJollyCorner
Member
Exactly.
Boorman's EXCALIBUR is inching close to 40 years old and nothing's even come close since.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
Wait is this a secret Tattoo Assassins movie? I gotta see it now
Nah, there are these thug characters in tank tops with fucking sleeve tattoos that couldn't possibly be in this period. I spotted a couple of gun tats on them.
Depths of Orion
Member
Saw this movie tonight. There were things I liked and things I didn't. The action sequences with Excalibur were really great. I actually thought the first 10mins were the best. I just really hated the bland colours. Everything is very dark and grey. The 3D glasses didn't help because they dimmed the movie to a point where I couldn't make out certain scenes. I'll give it another watch on blurry. Maybe it'll be better the second time.
VenomousCoffee
Member
I'd love to see Charlie Hunnam in a low budget crime caper directed by Guy Ritchie.
Like a smarter, light-hearted, British Sons of Anarchy.
Like a smarter, light-hearted, British Sons of Anarchy.
Masterspeed
Member
Judging by the trailers and the reception, I'll see this movie via dvd or streaming when it's out, but it'll be a movie me and my gf slightly watches in between turns on CIV V.
mediocre movies are perfect for Civ play because you don't need to fully pay attention and if there's a pretty good action scene or hot sex scene, it's enough to get our attention while we wait for another turn.
mediocre movies are perfect for Civ play because you don't need to fully pay attention and if there's a pretty good action scene or hot sex scene, it's enough to get our attention while we wait for another turn.
I don't see how that makes their decision-making any better.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Because Baz Luhrman would have costed too much.
Guy Ritchie's style is basically Baz Light.
Trailers looked alright to me. I want to see what those creatures are about.
Will be seeing this film next week when it opens in Australia. Reviews hardly ever matter to me. I would have stayed away from the Lord of The Rings films if I had followed that 1 and half star review I saw in the newspaper for FOTR.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Nah, Ritchie is Luhrman if he was dropped on his head as a baby.
I know, I made this same joke regarding Zack Snyder and James Cameron. It still applies to both.
I appreciate what you tried to do here even if it didn't quite land.
Messofanego
Banned
The Lost City Of Z is great, though.
I really hope people see that movie to see Charlie Hunnam has the acting chops.
Monocle
Member
I can say this for the movie: the action is spectacular. I think it would look amazing in 3D. Might even see it again just for that. I also loved the design of the Death Dealer-ish baddie. Classic fantasy badassery, hell yeah.
Story was meh. Serviceable. Game of Thrones alumni were cool to see but very distracting.
Also: Charlie Hunnam is hot. If there's ever an extended cut with more shirtless scenes, I will definitely buy it.
Story was meh. Serviceable. Game of Thrones alumni were cool to see but very distracting.
Also: Charlie Hunnam is hot. If there's ever an extended cut with more shirtless scenes, I will definitely buy it.
Yeah, he was good in that one.The Lost City Of Z is great, though.
I really hope people see that movie to see Charlie Hunnam has the acting chops.
Into the Light
Banned
If by that you mean reshoots and extra directors being brought in to fix his work then yes.
Aztechnology
Member
Basically scenario discussion flashforwards that break the fourth wall (Meta-reference?, I'm not sure what to call it) are the only thing guy Ritchie brought to this and it just felt out of place. That movie was all over the place. There was very little sense of good plot development. There wasn't a significant low, or climax. It all just kind of blended in, and it left the climactic moments feeling quite... inane.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Just saw it. I stand by my first post in the thread. Fuck the critics. This was a hyper stylised version of king Arthur only guy ritche can make. At times it felt like snatch in medieval times and i say that as a compliment. It's energetic from start to finish. It made Charlie hunman likeable and charming. The action is great and the finale is simply brilliant.
Great soundtrack too.
I really don't get it. 9%? I don't care if 9% means only 9% of the critics liked it or if they gave ot an average 9% rating.... It's a death sentence for this movie either way. I can understand people who wanted a traditional king Arthur movie but the trailers weren't misleading and everyone should've known it was guy ritches version of king Arthur and man did he deliver.
Great soundtrack too.
I really don't get it. 9%? I don't care if 9% means only 9% of the critics liked it or if they gave ot an average 9% rating.... It's a death sentence for this movie either way. I can understand people who wanted a traditional king Arthur movie but the trailers weren't misleading and everyone should've known it was guy ritches version of king Arthur and man did he deliver.
2002whitegt
Member
To those who have seen the movie.
If I enjoyed Ritchie's past movies and really liked The man from uncle, it seems this would be something in that same vein right?
Going to watch it tonight critics be damned.
If I enjoyed Ritchie's past movies and really liked The man from uncle, it seems this would be something in that same vein right?
Going to watch it tonight critics be damned.
I loved UNCLE and quite liked this. I think you'll be very satisfied.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
i liked Uncle and loved this. Uncle was made by a very neutered guy ritchie. this is guy ritchie going full guy ritchie on a $175 million budget.
Man from UNCLE was pretty much a perfect movie - this wasn't quite as good, but it was still enjoyable. My biggest problem was that there wasn't enough Ritchie - it started off very strong and then the middle turned very much into a more conventional fantasy epic before a strong conclusion.
This is the first time I've seen that comparison and it's not totally off. It's been while since any guy ritchie movie has been super exciting though. That's exactly what lock stock and snatch were though.
Beginning with the elephants is so, so good.