Guy Ritchie's 'King Arthur' (2016)

[hoodonit00]

It's only Netflix good? I was thinking on seeing this but I guess I'll wait for Netflix too.

I think it's good enough to see on the big screen. I just know it could have been better. It's doing horrible. 25 Million in the US on a 175 Million budget.

 

[marvinmyles]

some of it was actually interesting.

Spoiler

growing up in a brothel,becoming a good thief,then main pimp running the brothel and protecting the girls,and even when he was told who he was he wanted no part of it,just wanted to get back to his whore house

sadly Hunnam can't carry a film like this and GR strikes out.It looks like with the music and some antics he was thinking along the lines of Ledger's A Knight's Tale with big CGI,but just couldn't get it.

 

[Otomofan]

Wow, that was a flaming turd of a film.

I can't imagine how they could spend so much money making something so bad. They must have known nobody would want to see this. It's just awful.

In a movie this bad, it's hard to pick out the worst things, but the biggest offenders would be the main actress who can barely talk (I'm assuming she's not a native English speaker but she just comes off neurologically impaired) and the most fake, phony, giant CGI snake I've ever seen. Insultingly poor.

 

[The Ween]

I wouldn't call it a turd. I enjoyed it and bought it.

 

[Biojex]

Wow, that was a flaming turd of a film.

I can't imagine how they could spend so much money making something so bad. They must have known nobody would want to see this. It's just awful.

In a movie this bad, it's hard to pick out the worst things, but the biggest offenders would be the main actress who can barely talk (I'm assuming she's not a native English speaker but she just comes off neurologically impaired) and the most fake, phony, giant CGI snake I've ever seen. Insultingly poor.

There's a giant snake?

 

[Mr. Green]

Why, Mr. Green haven't seen this movie and he seen the giant snake! What else will he see if he actually see this movie? Hmmm.

 

[The Ween]

I thought the CG snake looked pretty good.

 

[Otomofan]

Really? Part of your brain was willing to suspend disbelief just enough to buy that there really was a scaly slinking giant snake in the same physical space as the actors, and not the single most blatant rubbery cartoony cheap CGI you've ever seen?

 

[screamingmetal]

Really? Part of your brain was willing to suspend disbelief just enough to buy that there really was a scaly slinking giant snake in the same physical space as the actors, and not the single most blatant rubbery cartoony cheap CGI you've ever seen?

You must be too young to have grown up with Harryhausen special effects, you'd learn to put up with crappy CGI if you did.

I actually liked Guy Ritchie's King Arthur, I thought it was fun and the CGI was fine.

 

[Otomofan]

Harryhausen's effects look better because they were real physical objects, and there was an insane amount of blood sweat and tears that went into everything he did to try to make it look realistic and cool.

When CGI is done well you don't notice it at all or at least as much. When it's as poorly done and lazy as this giant snake, it can ruin a movie.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I think this was around barely 2 weeks here

 

[screamingmetal]

Harryhausen's effects look better because they were real physical objects, and there was an insane amount of blood sweat and tears that went into everything he did to try to make it look realistic and cool.

When CGI is done well you don't notice it at all or at least as much. When it's as poorly done and lazy as this giant snake, it can ruin a movie.

Well, let's try a little experiment:

Really? Part of your brain was willing to suspend disbelief just enough to buy that there really was a scaly slinking creepy Medusa in the same physical space as the actors, and not the single most blatant rubbery cartoony cheap stop motion you've ever seen?

See how that fits?
Yeah there's a physical artistry to Harryhausen's work and I can accept the limits of the technology at the time, but I didn't believe the stop motion ever looked real. Bad CGI can have the same aesthetic, though it is cheaper, easier, and more commonplace to do than stop motion now a days, but I do not think the KA:LOTS giant snake was a poor, lazy, or cheap CGI effect.
I do understand how people didn't like the movie.

 

[Spartan Rex]

Enjoyed some of the f/x like the Gi-normous warphants at the beginning, the fiery demonic Death Dealer alter ego of Jude Laws character was pretty cool.
Liked Excaliburs super power and the fact that Arthur couldn't handle it and was overwhelmed. But the good elements were over shadowed by the bad.
Charlie Hunnam wasn't charismatic enough or frankly likable enough to pull off the lead. Script was also to blame. The trend of trying to fill as many roles as possible to cover as many demographics as possible continues. Hate that attaching the camera to the actor technique on display while they run.
Anyone want to explain why the Jude Law/ Death Dealer character had Arthur beat at the end but decided to walk away and wait for him to regain consciousness?

1981's Excalibur is still the reigning champ.