Notice: This review has no connection of storyline review of 2017. Readers discretion is advised.
You know, there's been many of legend tale films out here that we remembered like "Narnia" or even "Lord of the Rings". But the one was considered to be a classic story is "King Arthur". a story about a legendary warrior who lives with a mentor name "Merlin" about the sword is stuck on the stone. As he picked up the sword known as "Excalibur", he become a brave warrior and later on, becoming the king to fight against the war lord. This legend story was so classic that it has been adapted and inspired, from movies, cartoons and more.
But the one that i saw is "King Arthur: legend of the sword", a fantasy epic film that was directed by written (screenplay), produced and directed by Guy Ritchie. Its one of the film that i was curious to see, but i changed my mind that i watched "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2". But i went in activity club to see this movie to give a shot.
For the story, it begins on the flashback that Arthur has been raised by the prostitutes, when his parents was murdered by Mordred. As he grew up, he become a skilled warrior and he pulls an "Excalibur" off from the stone, which he was being imprisoned for that? But not before he was being rescued by his friends and setting up to fight the iron fist with Camelot.
Yeah, the story is rather forgettable, its as if they're trying to follow the main plot for Arthur dealing against the evil army, but then it got slow and wasted with some filler. Another thing thats not good, is that it doesn't have relation of Arthur and Merlin, instead Merlin was replaced by a female nameless mage, which i find it ok, but not that good.
The production of this movie is pretty cool, with nice location (despite some filming location was done in CGI) and an incredible action sequences. But sometimes it got tacky, especially the movie got randomly editing from the past or forward moment, like stop trying to skip or going back, it drove me confused. The most annoying of all of this movie is the overuse of "flashback", like we get it, Arthur's parents is killed, we need to moving on to a war. And finally, they including monsters, which all of them are either average or even ugly design that feels like an old generation of video game.
And the characters are rather average, Arthur (played by Charlie Hunnam) is rather an interesting hero, the mage (played by Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey) seems to be a bit forgettable for little bit of less appearance, but she has a cool ability of possessing animals and the main villain Mordred (played by Rob Knighton) is an average villain. And the rest of the characters are rather forgettable, including "Blue" who's an annoying kid that i wish he'll die.
Although the acting is good, but most of them couldn't saved from this movie.
In the end, its just a poor attempt of adaptation film based on the legendary tale. It was so bad that it became a box-office bomb with less than a hundred million dollars, since they produced the film with 175 million dollars of budget.
So for that, i give it 3/10.
So thanks for reading and im Anthony, signing out.
You know, there's been many of legend tale films out here that we remembered like "Narnia" or even "Lord of the Rings". But the one was considered to be a classic story is "King Arthur". a story about a legendary warrior who lives with a mentor name "Merlin" about the sword is stuck on the stone. As he picked up the sword known as "Excalibur", he become a brave warrior and later on, becoming the king to fight against the war lord. This legend story was so classic that it has been adapted and inspired, from movies, cartoons and more.
But the one that i saw is "King Arthur: legend of the sword", a fantasy epic film that was directed by written (screenplay), produced and directed by Guy Ritchie. Its one of the film that i was curious to see, but i changed my mind that i watched "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2". But i went in activity club to see this movie to give a shot.
For the story, it begins on the flashback that Arthur has been raised by the prostitutes, when his parents was murdered by Mordred. As he grew up, he become a skilled warrior and he pulls an "Excalibur" off from the stone, which he was being imprisoned for that? But not before he was being rescued by his friends and setting up to fight the iron fist with Camelot.
Yeah, the story is rather forgettable, its as if they're trying to follow the main plot for Arthur dealing against the evil army, but then it got slow and wasted with some filler. Another thing thats not good, is that it doesn't have relation of Arthur and Merlin, instead Merlin was replaced by a female nameless mage, which i find it ok, but not that good.
The production of this movie is pretty cool, with nice location (despite some filming location was done in CGI) and an incredible action sequences. But sometimes it got tacky, especially the movie got randomly editing from the past or forward moment, like stop trying to skip or going back, it drove me confused. The most annoying of all of this movie is the overuse of "flashback", like we get it, Arthur's parents is killed, we need to moving on to a war. And finally, they including monsters, which all of them are either average or even ugly design that feels like an old generation of video game.
And the characters are rather average, Arthur (played by Charlie Hunnam) is rather an interesting hero, the mage (played by Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey) seems to be a bit forgettable for little bit of less appearance, but she has a cool ability of possessing animals and the main villain Mordred (played by Rob Knighton) is an average villain. And the rest of the characters are rather forgettable, including "Blue" who's an annoying kid that i wish he'll die.
Although the acting is good, but most of them couldn't saved from this movie.
In the end, its just a poor attempt of adaptation film based on the legendary tale. It was so bad that it became a box-office bomb with less than a hundred million dollars, since they produced the film with 175 million dollars of budget.
So for that, i give it 3/10.
So thanks for reading and im Anthony, signing out.
No comments:
Post a Comment