I have a friend who said this movie was damn good, at least in terms of style and momentary diversion. You would probably like Logan better, but what do I know?
shareFor what it's worth, I was pleasantly surprised. I appreciate the way he utilizes the background music in his films and the dialog was clever.
shareIt's not as bad as a lot of critics are saying, but it wasn't the best either. I definitely preferred Logan, but they're very different movies, so I'm not even sure how that comparison works.
I didn't really like the style that much, but it did have some good moments in terms of humor and CGI action.
Leia, have you seen Excalibur? If so, how would you say it compares?
shareI haven't seen it, sorry, but I'd like to. If/when I do, I'll let you know.
EDIT: If it helps, this one barely had any of the original myth; pretty much just the Sword in the Stone and a "prince" named Arthur who doesn't know his birthright.
I love Excalibur! It's my favorite Arthurian film and this is now one too! You know why?
I love fantasy/mythical/legendary type films and King Arthur is one ripe for it. And for all the Arthurian films we've seen only Boorman's film captures that ethereal epic, grand, mythical, and legendary quality. Every other Arthur type film tries too hard to be grounded in some sort realism which makes the 2004 film the worst of them all. King Arthur (2017) is different in how it's directed and presented, it's very much a modern styled film but it shares similarities with Excalibur that no other Arthurian film does, it is epic, it is grand, it is legendary, and it is mythical. And yes I love it!
Excalibur is my favorite of the genre too. I love it. What an amazing cast! This new one looks sort of dark and disturbing, which I'm not against but I just want it to be a good movie. Maybe we'll see it this week if it's still around.
shareI don't think it's as dark as Excalibur actually, I wrote a review of it on another thread if you want to check.
I love O Fortuna btw!
I plan on rewatching this new film again. :)
How can you compare this to Logan? They're very different film genres. You should compare it to other Arthurian films or sword/sandals films:
-Camelot
-Excalibur (my favorite)
-First Knight
-King Arthur (2004)
-Mists of Avalon (pretty good actually)
-Tristan & Isolde
-King Arthur (2017) (new favorite)
This will go down as an underrated classic like Boorman's Excalibur, Gibson's Apocalypto, and Mctiernan's The 13th Warrior Imo.
I liked it more than expected. The score is epic and used very well. The dialogue is witty and full of surprises. I find it very stylish and intelligent, adult oriented superhero movie. It is very sad fact that Warner had thrown so much money in it and will never recover that investment.
shareI also loved the Rocky-esque montages!
shareIt wasn't truly bad like critics are saying. It's a big CGI fest though.
I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/AkM3BU5swmg
I love it and just learned critics hate it apparently while a lot of viewers love it. I don't get it. I feel bad as I don't think we will get the next installment unfortunately. :(
shareI know it's late, but I really wanted to get my two cents in.
It has a few moments of Ritchie-esque greatness in the first act (with well-incorporated music). As the movie progresses, it becomes less like a Guy Ritchie criminal comedy and more like a generic Huntsman mess when the magical element of the universe is developed. This development isn't particularly interesting. An abundance of dark CGI visuals replace the clever dialogue from the beginning.
Overall, I thought it was okay. But you could do better with most of Arthurian adaptations (especially Excalibur) or Logan (though it also falters in the third act).
It's a bad movie. I went in thinking it couldn't be as bad as people say, but it is.
It's a total disregard for the original stories about Arthur and Camelot. They could just as well have made the movie with another name, but they wanted to use the name recognition of Arthur and Camelot, and to hell with respect for the original stories. Which pissed me off because those are the tales about Arthur.
Then there's the one-dimensional characters, why is the evil king even evil?
Why do the people rebel against him?
Who is the female mage, besides Merlins protege?
And what about that the story of the movie was just boring and tried to hard to be modern. If you want to make a movie about knights and magic, make a movie about knights and magic but think about how they talked and behaved in old times.