Tanto tempo fa, in un Regno lontano, lontano, un bravo regista, chiamato GR, assorbita la lezione tarantiniana, creava la propria leggenda. Il suo stile, impeccabile quanto iperbolico, era costruito sul sapiente uso della tecnica cinematografica. Film come questo servono a farci rimpiangere il passato, quando il nostro, invece che una spada, metteva in mano ai suoi protagonisti splendide carabine... Per i+piccoli.
I found nothing to commend this film. It's almost as if someone bent over backwards to strip out everything epic in the Arthurian legend and replace it with a bland urban crime/Lord of the Rings mashup. The film has a dark, murky look and stale CGI and, most shamefully of all, wastes the talents of actors like Hunnam, Law, and Hounsou on a drivel plot and poor dialog.
Definitely uneven and stuck trying to be too many things, but closer to being something great than I expected. It's oddest choices are it's best choices. It needed more insanity and less gloss. Love the hammy politics, love the bold on-the-surface symbolism, love him getting high for the finale. Lord save us from slo-mo shots of things nearly missing other things.
It's not horrible, I guess. Guy Ritchie just Guy Ritchied all over a classic story that didn't need to be Guy Ritchied; and as a result we get this tonal nightmare of a film with boring conflict, video game CGI, infuriating use of montage, and immemorable characters.
Ritchie's auteurism is admirable. With many directors aspiring to become anonymous journeymen, there to safeguard the 'brand', here is a work suffused with its filmmaker's creative DNA. This is Arthurian myth by way of Lock, Stock; where the Knights become a gang of tooled-up lads "havin' it large my son!" It doesn't really work, descending into generic set pieces & poor CGI, but at least it has a sense of character.
KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD is a very entertaining movie. From start to finish, it succeed to excite me. Every scene in this movie is a pure entertainment. Thanks to Guy Ritchie's energetic direction. Not to mention, its fantastic soundtrack. KING ARTHUR has interesting start. It's loud and full with a good humor. Unfortunately, it became too serious. It made this movie lost its charms. It's worth watching...
There's certainly something to the film's Frazetta and Tolkien-channeling prologue, and Guy Ritchie's canny way of breezily editing through exposition. But this "King Arthur" is eventually sunk by the dreary slog of its second half, and some of Warner Brothers' least convincing CGI - when Arthur finally deploys Excalibur, it should inspire awe, not remind viewers of the 'Burly Brawl' from "The Matrix Reloaded."
I didn't love this, but I didn't hate it. I expected a disaster from all the hip, modern aesthetics and fast-paced modern dialogue – it was rather endearing. I started to expect more by the end, and was disappointed Ritchie didn't push the genre and era-bending further. Non-essential entertainment. Biggest cringe - the bird's eye view during battle sequences was the worst. It just looks like a bad iPhone game.
O que mais gostei deste filme foi a adrenalina que me transmitiu desde as sequências muito rápidas e os saltos entre cenas ou os close-ups que nunca tinha visto serem explorados desta forma. Para além disto, acaba por dar um lado mais fantasioso que faltava às outras adaptações mais interessadas na história.