I enjoy Guy Ritchie's films the same way I enjoy roller coaster rides at the local theme park. Both are extremely fun, momentarily euphoric but easily forgettable.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is no different, and probably that is why I do not want to join the disappointed angry flocks of critics in bashing the adventure-action drama about a celebrated Medieval folktale. The only reason why King Arthur should be attacked is because it is a typical Ritchie film. Maybe repetitive? Let us not forget that Ritchie has built up his reputation as a divergent director with fast-paced action pieces that offer us a fresh, witty look at low-lives, thugs, and gangsters versus impotent authority. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998), Snatch (2000), and RocknRolla (2008) are all great films but they won't go down the history of cinema as aesthetically phenomenal. They have started a trend they are fun to watch – and I highly appreciate them for that – but they would never cross the boundaries of entertainment.
I really do not understand where the frustration is coming from; Ritchie has probably strayed a bit away from his comfort zone (but hasn't he done that already with Sherlock Holmes?). His style remains the same.
King Arthur is another Ritchie-stamped, action-packed drama about low-lives versus authority, only with a mythical twist. The fantasy element may have gone a little off board considering its predecessors but the nonsensical exaggeration is eclipsed by the lavishly piquant editing – a tremendous source of humor in the film.
The script seems too cheeky and modern for the time period of the events, but I thought it was refreshingly funny in an unconventional way.
Great visuals. Eye-candy cast. Lively humor. What else to look for if you are after a mindless fun movie?
P.S. What the hell was David Beckham doing there?
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is no different, and probably that is why I do not want to join the disappointed angry flocks of critics in bashing the adventure-action drama about a celebrated Medieval folktale. The only reason why King Arthur should be attacked is because it is a typical Ritchie film. Maybe repetitive? Let us not forget that Ritchie has built up his reputation as a divergent director with fast-paced action pieces that offer us a fresh, witty look at low-lives, thugs, and gangsters versus impotent authority. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998), Snatch (2000), and RocknRolla (2008) are all great films but they won't go down the history of cinema as aesthetically phenomenal. They have started a trend they are fun to watch – and I highly appreciate them for that – but they would never cross the boundaries of entertainment.
I really do not understand where the frustration is coming from; Ritchie has probably strayed a bit away from his comfort zone (but hasn't he done that already with Sherlock Holmes?). His style remains the same.
King Arthur is another Ritchie-stamped, action-packed drama about low-lives versus authority, only with a mythical twist. The fantasy element may have gone a little off board considering its predecessors but the nonsensical exaggeration is eclipsed by the lavishly piquant editing – a tremendous source of humor in the film.
The script seems too cheeky and modern for the time period of the events, but I thought it was refreshingly funny in an unconventional way.
Great visuals. Eye-candy cast. Lively humor. What else to look for if you are after a mindless fun movie?
P.S. What the hell was David Beckham doing there?