MovieChat Forums > King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) Discussion > historical film for stupid teenagers

historical film for stupid teenagers

posted 7 years ago by ronnie215 (103)
12 replies | jump to latest

fast cuts, quick action and editing that causes headache.
thats what you get with guy richie films. looks like he was thinking of shooting mtv video song.
and add to that a lead who is wooden and seems more like a surfer than a actor.
jude law was unconvincing as a menacing ruthless king.
also there was bullshit political correctness by adding a brown friend, black general and small eyed chinese karate master.
its a perfect for some stupid new age teenager.

adults should strictly avoid this garbage.
i wasted my time and money.
please watch something else .

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

guy ritchie is truly one of the worst directors of all time.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 5 years ago

Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels contradict this.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

It's a history/fantasy film, made by a goddamn douchebag who hates history and fantasy.

One of the worst movies I've seen in recent years, and enough to keep me from ever seeing any of Ritchie's films again.

[–] samoanjoes (58587) 5 years ago

Geez, Otter. You were only one sentence away from criticizing the filmmakers families.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

No, dear, I think I covered all the necessary insults with just two sentences.

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

I generally avoid action movies, particularly those as poorly-reviewed as this, but as something of a sucker for all things Arthurian I cautiously watched this.

Just dreadful. Anachronistic dialogue (I wanted to throw something at the screen whenever the ‘lads’ called each other ‘pal’), dreadful editing, multiple flashbacks and jump cuts in every conversation, confusing fights where I couldn’t tell who was who... turkey time.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yeah, I cringed at the word "incentivized."

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Though of course, "pal" was first used in English in the 18th century. So it's not exactly some newfangled slang.

The fact that they are speaking English *at all* in this movie is in itself anachronistic, and should just be treated as an artistic convention for the sake of audience understanding. Arthur's people would of course have been speaking a Celtic language of the Brythonic branch, and the "Vikings" should actually be Angles and Saxons speaking a Germanic language that English developed from, but would be utterly incomprehensible to speakers of modern English. Some suspension of disbelief is required here.

[–] chilone (18316) 5 years ago

You mean stupid teenagers that don't have a clue how to write?

[–] chrcoluk (70) 3 years ago

agree with you on the cuts and editing and funny enough I felt like it was aimed at kids with short attention spans.

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 3 years ago

I thought it was better than the average crap I see. Excalibur it ain't, but it's worth a watch.

[–] [email protected] (2042) a year ago

This is not pc. It's not even meant to be hysterically accurate. It's a film similar to Richard Armitage's series Robin Hood from 2006 or a Knight's Tale, it is not meant to capture medieval life. It is a ve r y fantasy driven depiction of an alternate reality where modern elements are infused into an ancient setting. Their language and speak should be a big give away, as well as the colossal elephants in the intro. Having minority characters of even modern elements is expected. It is self aware in what type of film it is.

As for it being true to the Legend of King Arthur, this is a mythical tale that has been developed for hundreds of years. It is not like Beowulf which came forth fully realized and finished. The Tale of King Arthur and Camelot was never finished nor was it ever set.

Last, Guy Ritchie became popular internationally in the 90s. Teens back then are all late 30s to early 40s now.