MovieChat Forums > vicky_lc2001 > Replies
vicky_lc2001's Replies
IDK if it's similar to Excalibur but I love both films!
Just finished it and agree with your OP. And really that's the word isn't it? DRY. LIFELESS. BLAND. This doesn't have the charm and magic the original had. Even the well known actors were bland here and Watson cannot sing nor is she anywhere close to a Belle, but that's the least of it.
I cannot imagine how some prefer this over the original. Maybe they like it only because it's new, some people are like that.
Not sure which Evermore is but I liked the one the Beast sang in the tower, the rest I didn't care for.
If you can't figure that out, then I can't help you.
I can't believe it as well since he has so many health problems. And usually boyish faces age the fastest too. But from an interview, he works out a lot actually which probably explains it.
His fame deteriorated in the 80s as he could no longer work as an actor due to heart problems and it was then everyone found out about it.
He played the beast in Beauty and the Beast. Is One on One a good film?
He has aged really well despite health problems I agree. Very handsome still. I think I read he popularized the 6 pack abs of celebrities, lol!
Lol. I'm watching this film right now for the first time and it really does pale in comparison to the 1991 version. I have that animated film memorized.
I didn't think she looked young though.
I thought she looked old actually, at her age she has lost her facial baby fat/bloom & she had a lot of wrinkles on her forehead.
The Godfather saga? Have you seen the trilogy?
I like this films as well though I never saw TFPTRE and now I want to watch it!
Btw I have no guilt for liking these films!
Love your explanation of the scene, than you!
Millennials were supposed to have been born in the 80s actually.
Wow, that's a nice quote that explains the bird's existence simply.
I just saw it for the second time, so.......
I'm a big Star Trek fan and I like this film.
One of my favorite films is The Godfather trilogy, I watch that yearly, sometimes even 2x a year. & I love rewatching it & discovering new bits I initially overlooked. One of them are the vast characters & certain touches introduced initially that later pay off. & I found all these things in King Arthur (2017).
Another period film/miniseries I love is Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth & yes I have read the book numerous times to count. & I agree it is the most accurate out of all the adaptations & I love it for that & so much more. But I also love Greer Garson & Lawrence Olivier's 40s version which isn't very accurate but spiritually, it is. & this is the very reason I also detest Keira Knightly's version because despite their attempts towards realism & that 'kiss', spiritually the story & characters are not at all what I expected them to be.
Neil Gaiman also said the very same thing in the adaptation of his graphic novel into the film Star Dust. People/fans complained of its authenticity to the original source but Gaiman himself understood that you often cannot expect one medium to translate exactly towards another, what matters is the spirit of the telling. I also love Stardust btw! & the 2003 Peter Pan & that was not completely accurate at all!
King Arthur is a Legend, we have had various versions & interestingly the supposed most accurate one is the least compelling. I admit, I love story telling, I love myths & legends, I love reading this stuff, I eat it! & I am not opposed to someone else (Ritchie & the writers) creating a different take on the Legend, because LEGENDS are meant to have various versions, one grander than the next, one more surreal than the other, & that is what makes them great IMO. Like I said, I eat it up (as long as they're told well)!
I also am a huge Star Trek fan & I grew up watching theatrics from 1987 to 2001 so maybe that explains it, LOL!
One thing you need to know about me Sej is that I love films & by that I mean I will watch a lot of non-American films (I'm not a Westerner btw) & watch a lot of Classic films even as far back as the 20s. & as an extension of this, I will also watch a good series, miniseries, tv film, or anime/animation sometimes too. So I am exposed to story telling in the visual medium through various forms. & the first thing I have learned ever since I was a small child is to not expect a note by note detailed telling but rather, a true telling in its spirit. If you watch anime or earlier films especially, many of them are not accurate at all through various reasons I won't get into. I don't really care if this new King Arthur is accurate by Malory's standard or Excalibur's, I care that the visual grandness & epic legendary spirit is told well. & King Arthur is told really well & has that spirit I've longed for ever since I saw Excalibur as a small child. I also like The Mists of Avalon & it also deviates from Excalibur's plot & characters.
As for the story, I loved it actually & I loved how it was all presented. From the very introduction, I was hit & in love! That entire first segment sequence of Uther & when the mother falls & the credits hit, I was absolutely energized! & I kept waiting for it to get bad but it didn't. I loved many moments in it which I mentioned in the OP, & I also loved how strong & dimensional the villain was here. Initially we all wondered why a certain wife was killed & I enjoyed that they didn't feel the need to inform us immediately, but rather later when it simmered in our heads. I loved that it was also a setup for what was to come & explained why something happened. Also I loved the many characters in it, clearly introduced for future sequels. But you notice you don't see this in many films today?