Guy Ritchie's King Arthur
- Thread starter Demi-fiend
- Start date
Something I only just noticed re-watching the trailer again, is that they have the Lady of the Lake with a sword as well, even though they already showed Arthur pulling Excalibur out of the stone?
My only guess is that at one point after taking it from the stone, Excalibur breaks and Arthur has to take it to Nimue to have it fixed.
My only guess is that at one point after taking it from the stone, Excalibur breaks and Arthur has to take it to Nimue to have it fixed.
That's not an uncommon plot thread in Arthurian depictions. Both Tennyson and White's versions of Arthur breaks the Sword in the Stone in a clumsy and prideful duel against Lord Pellinore, and goes seeking Excalibur to replace it.
In the 1981 movie, Excalibur, they're both the same sword, but Arthur proves himself unworthy by striking down Lancelot in a dishonorable fashion, and the sword shatters on impact. He regrets his mistake immediately, and is about to throw both it and his kingship into the lake they're fighting in, because of how disraught he is about breaking the code of chivalry. Nimue is so impressed by Arthur's humility that she surfaces through the lake, and repairs Excalibur for him by magic.
Bottom line, Arthur's sword breaking is a big narrative moment for him as a character...which is why it boggles me that it would be in this first film, during Arthur's youth. The whole point of him breaking the sword and becoming unworthy is that it happens years later when he's an older man, and should be above youthful impulses.
But, hey, what's one more tainting of classic Arthurian motifs, right?
Here t'is folks, the final trailer to the film everybody has been looking forward to...King Arthur.
The giant elephants still get me every time.
The giant elephants still get me every time.
....aaaaaaaaaaaand it sucked EXACTLY like I said it was going to. Guy Ritchie taints yet another literary figure with his lack of vision and desperate desire to be Quentin Tarantino.
We'll have to see how it does financially. You'd be surprised how many terrible films continue to get sequels because of their financial success.
*cough* Transformers *cough*
Also, does going to see this move because I think Charlie Hunnam is handsome make me a bad person? Not that anyone's opinion of me will deter me from seeing it..........
Just..........
You know.....
Curious.
DragonMaster2010
Don't Let the Fall of America be Your Fall
I'll probably still see it. Mostly because I liked the trailers, Rotten Tomatoes is a joke of a criticizing website, and this version of the King Arthur story looks to be a mix of Game of Thrones meets Brutal Legends.
I'd be very curious to hear what your verdict is after you've watched it since I have no plans of seeing it myself.
I'm going to see it because I love action/fantasy films and Guy Ritchie's stuff makes me laugh.
I expect anything he makes concerning history or mythology to be largely iconoclastic so this doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Plus David Beckham attempting to act? Hilarious
I expect anything he makes concerning history or mythology to be largely iconoclastic so this doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Plus David Beckham attempting to act? Hilarious
I saw a news article on it on the BBC news and I immediately recorded it for repeated amusement. :tongue:
I watch the Underworld movies just for Kate Beckinsdale even though I know they aren't very good, so don't feel too guilty.
Of course, Underworld actually does some justice to vampires and lycans, whereas this new King Arthur does...NOTHING for its source material. So that's why I can't justify going to see it myself.
Go with my blessing, though. Make the most of his shirtless scenes and his combat grunts while you're in the theater.
Saw the movie.
Happy to say it was a really fun time! Was it stupid? Yes absolutely, but it was really enjoyable to watch. This is supposed to be the first movie in a series, so hopefully it does well enough to warrant a sequel as I look forward to seeing what kind of spectacle nonsense is in store.
Happy to say it was a really fun time!
Was it stupid? Yes absolutely, but it was really enjoyable to watch. This is supposed to be the first movie in a series, so hopefully it does well enough to warrant a sequel as I look forward to seeing what kind of spectacle nonsense is in store.
You know....something that could make this movie a bit better would be the inclusion of this song. Might raise the metal factor a tad.
Ahhh, he wasn't too bad. Considering his balls have finally dropped, I think he was ok. I've seen worse celebrity cameos.
Really enjoyed the film. Was a proper Guy Ritchie with all the expected nonsense and flash forwards.
Only real complaint was how patchy it was in places but it was fun and a bit silly and I'll get it on dvd when it comes out.
Was hoping Vinnie Jones would be in it but sadly not.
EDIT: Charlie Hunnam cannot do a southern accent at all. I was hoping he'd be able to manage it seeing as he did well with his American one in SOA...unless it was intentional for his native Northern accent to keep coming out during King Arthur? Although as a Geordie his accent is barely there. Can't tell if that's a good thing or not.
Really enjoyed the film. Was a proper Guy Ritchie with all the expected nonsense and flash forwards.
Only real complaint was how patchy it was in places but it was fun and a bit silly and I'll get it on dvd when it comes out.
Was hoping Vinnie Jones would be in it but sadly not.
EDIT: Charlie Hunnam cannot do a southern accent at all. I was hoping he'd be able to manage it seeing as he did well with his American one in SOA...unless it was intentional for his native Northern accent to keep coming out during King Arthur? Although as a Geordie his accent is barely there. Can't tell if that's a good thing or not.
Last edited: