King Arthur Review Falscher Aufbau für einen Action-Film
Guy Ritchie wandelt mit King Arthur: Legend of the Sword auf vielbeschrittenen, aber ihm gänzlich unbekannten Pfaden und verhebt sich. Unsere Review zur 4K Blu-ray von "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword". Wie schlägt sich Guy Ritchies Interpretation der Arthus-Saga in Bild, Ton. Review. „King Arthur“: Die schlechteste „Game of Thrones“-Folge des Jahres. Original: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Anbieter: Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. Laufzeit: ca. min. Bildformat: 2, Audiokanäle. King Arthur - Legend of the Sword: Lest hier das 4K UHD Blu-ray Review zu Guy Ritchies Reboot der Sage. Rezension mit Bildvergleich BD v.
Unsere Review zur 4K Blu-ray von "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword". Wie schlägt sich Guy Ritchies Interpretation der Arthus-Saga in Bild, Ton. Review: King Arthur – Legend of the Sword. Lange keinen Film mehr gesehen, bei dem mal wieder richtig die Schwerter aufeinander prallen?! Das ganze. Original: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Anbieter: Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. Laufzeit: ca. min. Bildformat: 2, Audiokanäle.
King Arthur Review VideoKing Arthur: Legend of the Sword Review (2017) A gritty dark fantasy, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword presents this classic myth in a new light. Malachy McKenna as Cerdic C Date Im Test. See Haycockpp. PG for intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality and some language. The Fugitive. Download as PDF Printable version. Certified Fresh Pick. The acting is solid, some characters are less developed than others but Beste Spielothek in Breiholz finden did not feel that this hurt the movie at all. Out of the whole fighting scenes, the one that I enjoyed most was in the Einheit SchГ¤rfe which I felt was rather breathtaking and having an ultimate amazing ending. So upon death Uther Pendragon turned himself into the stone that would hold the sword Excalibur
Please click the link below to receive your verification email. Cancel Resend Email. Add Article. King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword Critics Consensus King Arthur: Legend of the Sword piles mounds of modern action flash on an age-old tale -- and wipes out much of what made it a classic story in the first place.
See score details. Rate And Review Submit review Want to see. Super Reviewer. Rate this movie Oof, that was Rotten. What did you think of the movie?
Step 2 of 2 How did you buy your ticket? Let's get your review verified. Fandango AMCTheatres. More Info. Submit By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.
How did you buy your ticket? View All Videos 6. View All Photos Movie Info. Acclaimed filmmaker Guy Ritchie brings his dynamic style to the epic fantasy action adventure "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.
Robbed of his birthright and with no idea who he truly is, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city.
But once he pulls the sword from the stone, his life is turned upside down and he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy PG for sequences of violence and action, some suggestive content and brief strong language.
Guy Ritchie. Aug 8, Charlie Hunnam as King Arthur. Djimon Hounsou as Sir Bedivere. Aidan Gillen as Goosefat Bill.
Jude Law as Vortigern. Eric Bana as Uther Pendragon. Annabelle Wallis as Maid Maggie. August 15, Full Review…. June 16, Full Review….
May 17, Rating: 1. July 17, Rating: B- Full Review…. July 2, Full Review…. May 12, Full Review…. View All Critic Reviews May 07, Let's be clear: this contains very few aspects of the actual Arthur legend.
They probably should have just gone for a wacky original medieval fantasy film instead. That being said, I didn't expect Ritchie's style to work this well here.
And he hasn't been this crazy since Snatch. Some montages are so breathless, fast and innovative as far as editing and soundtrack go, it's a pleasure.
Sure, the plot follows the genre conventions more or less, and the finale is a bit heavy on CGI. On the other hand the assassination attempt sequence is fantastic and the portrayal of magic pretty cool.
Hell, I had fun with this. Jens S Super Reviewer. Nov 03, After growing up as an orphan on the streets Arthur discovers that he's the son of the slain king and must reclaim the throne from his treacherous uncle who uses dark magic to rule.
And Ritchie's unique directing and visual style brigs a lot of energy and excitement to the film. The action scenes in particular are especially well-done, and are enhanced by the incredibly intense and evocative score.
A gritty dark fantasy, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword presents this classic myth in a new light. Dann M Super Reviewer.
Aug 12, It's a colossal disaster. I've seen so many iterations of King Arthur, but this is the worst cinematic expression that I've had to endure.
Give me back my 2 hours. Remind me the next time Guy Ritchie directs. I'm not watching. Chrisanne C Super Reviewer. Aug 11, The King who is said to have defended Britain against the Saxon hordes in, umm Arthur was supposed to have beaten the Saxons and established an empire over Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and Gaul.
Along with Arthur other apparent legends have also been scooped up and added such as Merlin, the Sword in the Stone a different item to Excalibur in some tales , the lady in the lake, the Holy Grail and various knights such as Lancelot.
All of this and much more comes under what is known as Arthurian legend. In the opening battle sequence of this movie I was shocked, gob-smacked!
Firstly the visuals are undoubtedly incredible, expected but even still, whoa! But wait what's this? Yep looks great but literally what the hell?
Of course this is just the start of numerous gigantic animals we will see. Later on expect giant bats, snakes, rats, a large eagle and a whopping mega gigantic snake that actually eats people, oh yes.
But the other rather silly thing that happens, Arthur's father Uther Pendragon is watching as his army is getting wiped out and Camelot is being destroyed.
So he casually grabs his trusty sword Excalibur, gallops towards the giant battle elephants by horse taking out all enemies, leaps across a huge drop between Camelot's ramparts and the elephant the horse presumably falling to it death and hacks his way into the huge portable armoured mount on top of the elephant.
There he casually takes everyone out including his arch nemesis Mordred and wins the day. All this kinda leaves you wondering why he didn't do this straight away, and why he even needs an army.
Its also around this point you start to notice the casting, and I'm gonna have to bring this up. Not only that but Sir Tristan is also portrayed by a black actor Kingsley Ben-Adir , and in the end we get a knight who is of an Oriental background not sure where, I'm guessing China.
The fact he's called George gives no clues but at least he seems to be created for the film. OK so let me be straight here, if Ritchie wanted to include diversity in this movie, that's fine with me.
It would be perfectly acceptable to have included some new characters that came from other realms, such as Africa, the Middle East or the Far East.
In fact it would probably be relatively historically accurate. But to race swap two of Arthur knights, two Englishmen of legend, is honesty unforgivable.
As for the cast on the whole, its fine, nothing spectacular, but fine. Everyone speaks with a cockney accent which is completely bullshit but this is a Guy Ritchie movie after all.
Apparently Ritchie thinks everyone in the UK has a cockney accent. You know what I mean, a group of fast talking cockneys with stupid names describing events which involve other folk with equally stupid names.
Pretty sure no one was called Mike or Blue or 'Goosefat Bill'; mind you I'm also pretty sure no one used the word 'fuck' back then either.
So its obvious that various elements of the Arthurian legend have been jettisoned or rejigged. This isn't too much of a problem though because the Arthurian legend has many versions, angles, viewpoints etc But for example, the actual existence of King Vortigern is as equally questionable as Arthur himself.
Castles didn't actually exist during Arthur's life, they didn't turn up for at least another years.
The same can also be said for armour. Characters such as Merlin and the knights of the round table are thought to be entirely fictional. The sword Excalibur is also thought to be entirely fictional.
And that's the real problem here, this movie doesn't really feel like a historical film about King Arthur. It feels more like a superhero movie with Arthur being an X-Men type character with a supernatural weapon.
Literally the epitome of a modern day movie for youngsters. But that isn't a problem per say, revamping old things can be good and this movie does have good elements.
But this whole venture feels so contrived and artificial, the fact they deliberately left out Merlin, most of the main knights and the round table tacked onto the ending for future sequels was all too obvious.
So obvious in fact I think that one factor really hurt the movie because people are getting really sick and tired of these predictable cinematic universe setups.
Apart from all that none of this makes a great deal of sense either. Why are there watery witches living in an underground rock pool in the bowels of the castle?
In fact, even knowing what will be the ending we all know the good old story of King Arthur , I enjoyed the film from the beginning to the very last phrase.
A quick turn of events did not give me a chance to be bored. The camera showed the history of the future king with a completely new perspective. Dialogues were ridiculous even mentioning them after watching the movie.
Music that perfectly complements the story depending on the course of events. Little details through the movie constantly reminding you that you are watching a Guy Ritchie's work.
One of the must-see films if you like action, combined with nice humor and not an ordinary style of storytelling. OK I'm just gonna say it. This contains "spoilers" but honestly..
But here we go To be honest i loved the first minutes of the movie but that's just because most of the cool things you see in the trailer happen in the first 10 minutes.
The movie starts off by giving you the impression that this movie is gonna have a huge war in it with mystical creatures in this scenario it was elephants the size of Manhattan skyscrapers and thousands of soldiers fighting and warlocks and a bunch of cool s!
But after those first 10 minutes the typical Guy Richie comes in and everything is downhill from there Now we all know the movies the director is famous for..
These movies are fast paced with fun dialogue and fantastic storytelling that suits those movies just fine. With this movie it just somehow doesn't fit.
When you think about King Arthur u think about noblemen and heroics and fighting for the little man. Now there are some moments in the movie where Arthur shows he cares about someone other than himself and has a chance to me humble but then it gets ruined because Guy Ritchie needs his characters to be funny and "know it all-y" not a word I know but..
Not lets talk about the other characters. After seeing the movie I don't actually know the name of any other character other than Arthur.
Because you just didn't give a s! If every character that had been introduced even though there where practically no introductions for any of them had been killed at some point in the movie I wouldn't have cared because you never got a chance to get to know them at all.
Not that these characters were interesting at all to begin with. Very flat and boring characters. Bad acting and very bat material.
Which brings me to the script. The script itself was very bad as well. An example. One of Arthurs friends is laying on the floor in a building.
The guys son comes in and pretends to work there. The king puts a knife to the throat of Arthurs friend. Arthur comes in and puts a knife to the throat of one of the soldiers in the kings army.
Arthur is standing in the doorway and the kid is there with him. Arthur has a knife to the soldiers throat because the king has a knife to his friends throat.
The king then slits his friends throat It makes now sense at all. Another thing, every single "action" scene in this movie, and there are very few of those, are cut short by editing or just plain and simple very bad directing by Guy Ritchie.
The camera angle and everything is just s! Everything interesting in this movie is cut short because of s! There is a moment in the movie where Arthur has to go to the shadow lands, or some s!
Anyway he goes to she shadow lands and its like a big deal that he is going there because its supposedly very dangerous. He goes there and the director gives us about a minute to see all the amazing creatures Arthur fought, now mind you..
I can write for another hour but in conclusion the best thing about the movie is Eric Bana and he dies after 5 minutes so Worst movie iv'e seen of the year.
And you can't have a king Arthur film without Merlin.. I mean what is that? Deloron 12 May This Movie was so much better than everybody told me.
The fight scenes, the shots and the music was gorgeous. I really don't now why this movie receives that much hate.
For me it was just Guy Ritchie at his best. Give this movie a try, its worth it! No joke, it was the best movie in this year, just stunning and epic.
I loved it and i think that a lot of people will love this movie too! This is the first time I've ever reviewed a movie. But I'm stunned by the hatred being unleashed by critics about King Arthur.
I don't get it and won't stay silent. I've seen it twice once in 3-D and loved it. And I'll see it again. I'm not sure what critics wanted or expected from this movie.
But they seem to love to hate Guy Ritchie. It's almost international sport at this point. If you don't like Ritchie's signature style, the movie probably isn't for you.
His mark is all over it, though it's a very different genre for him. It's a fresh take that breathes new life into an old legend.
It's perfect for the video game generation. That's not a bad thing. I am a big fan of the Arthurian legend and all the movies and stories that have come before.
This version doesn't take away from that. It's different and the Arthur origin story hasn't been done before. He's growing into his role as King.
The editing, pace, sharp banter and bromances lighten some of the heavier moments and there are so many great scenes.
And I can't say enough about Daniel Pemberton's score. It's a character unto itself and gives the film a medieval, modern, rock-and-roll edge.
I was mesmerized and wasn't bored for a second. The film is visually dazzling, and I wanted to know more about these characters.
I came into the movie with no expectations, other than I couldn't wait to see Charlie Hunnam on the big screen again. I'm a devoted Sons of Anarchy fan, and it surprises me that he isn't a household name yet.
He brings so much to this role. He flat-out looks incredible. He already lights up any screen, but putting on 20 lbs.
But he also brings depth to the role — not easy to do in a movie full of stars and big-time special effects.
He's cocky, charismatic, but also vulnerable. A reluctant hero, who's not sure he's ready or willing to embrace his destiny. I want to know more about his relationship with the Mage, played by Astrid Berges-Frisbey.
There's subtle sexual tension between those two, that hints at more. I read that she's supposed to be Guinevere, so I hope they make more movies.
Jude Law has so much fun with his role and I liked his mix of swagger and shame. Djimon Hounsou and Aiden Gillen are fantastic, as well as the rest of the cast.
You want to hang out with these guys and have a beer and you definitely want them fighting for you. The action scenes are big and over the top, but that's the fun of a Summer movie.
It's no secret that Guy made a 3. There's more story to be told. But that was the plan for multiple movies. Stupid critics are trying to ruin that.
Don't listen to them. And if you want to see more of Charlie's range, check out Lost City of Z. The-Sarkologist 22 May In some what I'm not all that surprised that Guy Ritchie decided to do a King Arthur film, though I wasn't quite expecting it to be a film done in Guy Ritchie style.
In a sense it sort of comes across as being his typical dark and gritty film yet in another sense it is also very much an heroic fantasy.
In a way it is a shame that the film flopped the way it did because it was actually a pretty enjoyable film, and I certainly quite like Ritchie's style of directing.
Okay, a part of me didn't quite get the humour of the piece, particularly since we had a similar style in all of his films. However, what we do need to remember is the Ritchies style has always been very gritty, and King Arthur is no exception.
The thing with Arthur is that there are quite a lot of stories out there, and none of them are really the same.
I guess this is the nature of a legend. Interestingly some of the stories don't even have Arthur meeting Merlin and this is the case in this film.
In fact Arthur didn't even get to meet his father, but I suspect that is consistent with a lot of the legends. In this film we have the sorcerer Mordred ravaging the land, however in the aftermath of the battle, Uther's brother slays his wife to gain power, and releases a demon that kills both Uther and his wife, but allowing Arthur to go free.
However, before he dies the sword, Excalibur is buried in rock and only the true born king can pull it out. Much of the film is really about Arthur coming to terms with who he is.
He grows up in a brothel and in true Guy Ritchie style, through perseverance, charm, and simple determination, basically becomes a underworld figure.
However the false king suddenly discovers that as long as the sword is in the stone and for quite a while it was underwater, however the water then drained away revealing it to all , then his power isn't going to be complete, so he sends out his troops to round up everybody Arthur's age to see if they can remove the sword.
As you can probably guess Arthur succeeds. However, because is the true king, he is a threat, so he is about to be executed, except the rebels, who have been simmering around for a while, rise their heads and attack.
The other thing that the film reminded me of was Macbeth. In fact it appeared to be a retelling of the Shakespearian play using the Arthurian heroes as opposed to the Shakespearian heroes.
The reason that seemed to come about was the appearance of the three witches that lived in the lake. Okay, unlike Macbeth, this film focuses more on Arthur than on the protagonist, but it seemed to come out that way a lot.
However, what really grabbed my attention was that despite it being heroic fantasy, it still have the real grittiness of your typical Guy Ritchie film, and it is a real shame that it is a flop because it isn't actually as bad as the takings make it out to be though this may have a lot more to do with the extravagant nature of the film as opposed to any inherent problems with it.
The rotten tomatoes are pure rubbish on this one. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had at the theater in a long time.
From the first minute you're hooked into a fantastic world full of knights, mages, and monstrous beasts!
If you're a fan of Guy Ritchie's creative style then this film is him at his absolute best! Hilarious banter between new-found companions, fast paced cuts between intense action scenes, and well developed characters setting up for more adventures to come.
The fantasy genre hasn't had this great of an opportunity for a franchise since The Lord of The Rings saga. Once I left the theater I wanted to dive right back into the insane world of Arthur and his companions!
There are very little redeeming qualities about this mess of a film, and it really is a mess. If I had to walk away with a positive though, I would say the music was pretty good for the most part.
So where to start. Almost as laughable with how "pretty" he was in one of the final fight sequences of the film even though he had just taken a pasting.
He is so wooden, so unbelievable that it is hard to take him seriously or believe anyone would follow him. It helps then that the rest of the acting is shoddy too.
The female mage is so flat she may as well be horizontal. David Beckham's cameo is out of place and painful and Well what did you expect when they saw fit to employ "Denny from Eastenders"?
The lad can't act in the soap, let alone a movie. Any time a soap actor appears in a "blockbuster" I get that sinking feeling Let's not forget that Charlie started in Byker Grove though but we can't hold that against him.
We can hold this film against him. Jude Law was decent enough, stepping away from his usual type of character. One of the only characters you could believe in but one you're not supposed to like.
The problem being, as he is the only believable character in the film - you can't help but root for him. The rest of the performances were paint by numbers, collecting a pay check and if this was the best Guy Ritchie could get from them - perhaps he isn't fit for being a director?
And - to be fair - he probably isn't. At least, this type of film. He nailed Snatch and Lock, Stock - that much is a given and there are traces of that directorial style in this film characters recalling stories and flitting between them talking and flash back sequences for example but the problem is - it felt forced and out of place here.
Put with that the fact Guy simply cannot direct action - you have a problem. It felt like two films. One film where you can get suckered in with the stories the characters are telling and the other, you're wishing your life away watching rubbish CGI, limp acting and a muddled mess of a fight sequence.
Seriously - why so many slow motion shots of Charlie cutting through wood?! In one scene where he uses the sword, it happened so fast that I still don't really know what happened.
And the fight at the end? I still don't know who hit who for the best part of it. Although, given how pristine Charlie looked afterwards, I am guessing he had time to pop off to a spa whilst the Big Bad fought alone.
The script is as much to blame as the cast and crew though. It's a mess, jumbled up with too many dialogue sections spliced with flashbacks that aren't necessary.
For this kind of film - perhaps a more linear story would have made more sense? As mentioned above, it felt like a film of two halves because of the constant jumping back and forth and switching to medieval sword play.
It was also trying to be funny when that too missed the mark. The audience laughed a couple of times a couple more than myself but that was it.
This is the first time I have stepped from a Guy Ritchie film and felt such bitter disappointment. Had this been someone's first film, I doubt they would ever work again.
After reading a few 'critic' reviews I felt inspired to write a review of my own. People going into this movie shouldn't be expecting something similar to the King Arthur films they're accustomed to.
Guy Ritchie took the King Arthur character that everyone knows and turned him into someone like-able. This is the definitive King Arthur movie for a couple of reasons.
The story isn't dense and boring. It focuses on a concise narrative which doesn't spoon feed history or plot details to a viewer.
The story is happening through the characters, as it should in any good movie. Camera movement is fresh and provokes adrenaline.
It's hard to look away. Something to consider. Not a standalone movie. Bottom line - Go see this movie for yourself, if you're someone who loves looking at reviews.
You can safely disregard them in this case. Guy Ritchie, in my opinion, should better stay with his genres and not touch history.
Neither characters are represented well nor atmosphere is created. All famous Ritchie's tricks are not fit for the story like this, where the atmosphere is much more important than jumps and fighting.
Many banal patterns which completely do not fit with the ancient England. I don't think there were "cool" guys talking with each other as rappers in that time.
The movie is an expensive fail. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword I am not a cynical person and I tend to see the good in something, most of the time cynical people will feel the need to crucify an artifact if it disrupts their sensibilities.
But it is rare when a film touches someone so deeply that they who seldom type a review to type one. I went into the film expecting an excellent film and it exceeded expectations, from what I saw from the trailer I knew this wasn't going to be another forgettable blockbuster film with no character.
The trailer itself had creativity which is lacking in most films today, an appeal, a certain style that offers uniqueness and it's this uniqueness that gives the film significant value.
Collectively, these directors have reached a point where their films run the risk of collapsing under the weight of their own production design, especially since Hollywood no longer makes stars big enough to compete with the environments that surround them.
Have you noticed: Even Trump looks tiny when photographed at Mar Lago? You will be redirected back to your article in seconds. Home Film Reviews.
May 9, am PT. Peter Debruge Chief Film Critic askdebruge. See All. Studios, Los Angeles, May 8, Crew: Director: Guy Ritchie. Camera color, widescreen : John Mathieson.
Editor: James Herbert. Music: Daniel Pemberton. Music By:. See List of books about King Arthur. Bromwich, Rachel; Evans, D. Simon , Culhwch and Olwen.
Brooke, Christopher N. Budgey, A. Bullock-Davies, C. Burgess, Glyn S. Burns, E. Carley, J. Charles-Edwards, Thomas M. Coe, John B. Crick, Julia C.
Dumville, D. Field, P. Ford, P. Gamerschlag, K. Beobachtungen zu dreihundertfünfzig Jahren gemeinsamer Geschichte", Anglia in German : — EBSCO subscription required.
Haycock, M. Harty, Kevin J. Higham, N. Jones, Gwyn; Jones, Thomas, eds. Kibler, William; Carroll, Carleton W. Koch, John T. Lacy, Norris J.
Lagorio, V. Lanier, Sidney, ed. Littleton, C. Scott; Malcor, Linda A. JSTOR subscription required. Mancoff, Debra N. Myres, J. Padel, O. Potwin, L.
Reno, Frank D. Roach, William, ed. Roberts, Brynley F. Rosenberg, John D. Smith, C. Staines, D. Stokstad, M. Thompson, R.
Thorpe, Lewis, ed. Ulrich von Zatzikhoven [c. Brewer, pp. Williams, Sir Ifor, ed. Workman, L. Wright, Neil, ed.
King Arthur at Wikipedia's sister projects. King Arthur and the Matter of Britain. Bibliography List of works comics. Celtic mythology series.
Welsh mythology. Culture of Cornwall. Cornish : Gonisogeth Kernow. Cornish hurling Cornish pilot-gig racing Cornish wrestling Rugby union in Cornwall.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. Prophetiae Merlini c. Wikiquote Wikisource texts. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read View source View history.
Help Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. Wikimedia Commons Wikiquote. King of Britain.
Clive Owen as Arthur. Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot. Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan. Joel Edgerton as Gawain.
Hugh Dancy as Galahad. Ray Winstone as Bors. Ray Stevenson as Dagonet. Keira Knightley as Guinevere. Stephen Dillane as Merlin. Til Schweiger as Cynric.
Sean Gilder as Jols. Pat Kinevane as Horton. Ivano Marescotti as Bishop Germanius. Ken Stott as Marius Honorius. Lorenzo De Angelis as Alecto.
Stefania Orsola Garello as Fulcinia. Valeria Cavalli as Fulcinia. Alan Devine as British Scout. Charlie Creed-Miles as Ganis. Johnny Brennan as Lucan.
David Murray as Merlin's Lieutenant. Ned Dennehy as Mental Monk. Phelim Drew as Obnoxious Monk. Des Braiden as Third Monk. Malachy McKenna as Cerdic Scout.
Brian McGuinness as Cerdic Officer. Patrick Leech as Cerdic Officer. Bosco Hogan as Bishop Decoy. David Wilmot as Woad Killed by Lancelot. Lochlann O'Mearain as Roman Commander.
Paul McGlinchey as Mercenary. Dessie Gallagher as Mercenary. Maria Gladkowska as Arthur's Mother. Shane Murray-Corcoran as Young Arthur.
Daire McCormack as Agustus. Dawn Bradfield as Vanora. Joe McKinney as Mangled Saxon. Gerry O'Brien as Woad Advisor. Brian Condon as Cerdic Bodyguard.
Donncha Crowley as Monk. Chick Allen as Saxon. Elliot Henderson-Boyle as Young Lancelot. Clive Russell as Lancelot's Father.
Stephanie Putson as Lancelot's Mother. Graham McTavish as Roman Officer. July 29, Full Review…. July 15, Full Review….
November 16, Rating: B- Full Review…. January 25, Full Review…. September 7, Rating: 1. July 11, Rating: C- Full Review….
April 29, Full Review…. View All Critic Reviews Feb 26, Gimly M Super Reviewer. May 21, They let some women come along with 'em, too.
Kevin M. W Super Reviewer. May 18, Great war film! Bizarre history angle, but I loved it! Christian C Super Reviewer. Dec 31, Oh no, people, don't you believe any of those lies that have been passed down throughout the ages, because this puppy right here is the true story of King Arthur, or at least according to Jerry Bruckheimer, who clearly knows his history, as we saw with a certain other period war epic that he produced, "Pearl Harbor" Yeah, if anyone is wondering why they got the dude who did "Training Day" to do a film like this, it makes perfect sense, because this film's going on and on about how it's an accurate telling of some bull is about as hypocritical as the LAPD.
Antoine Fuqua must have heard that Bruckheimer was going to present King Arthur as a Roman cavalry officer and was sold once he heard the word "officer", thinking that he was going to get to portray Arthur as a promiscuous, drug-abusing, citizen-beating and altogether corrupt law enforcer, which, of course, leaves me to think that he also heard the word "Roman", because that does sound like something that an official in the original Los Angeles would do.
Seriously though, speaking of history, before there was "Brooklyn's Finest", Antoine Fuqua did "Camelot's Finest", or rather, according to this film and, by extension, "history", "Roman's Finest", which is a title that's almost as debatable as this film's "historical" accuracy, because the Roman's had some pretty awesome warriors, and, evidently, good ol' King Artie was one of them, whether he was one of the finest or not.
Actually, thinking about it, I would buy Clive Owen as one of the finest of Rome's warriors, because he is just too cool, but as far as Keira Knightley is concerned, I have a hard time believing her to be actually hot, so I'm a bit dubious about anything else she tries to convince me of, including her being a master warrior.
So yeah, as you can tell, historical accuracy isn't the only thing about this film that's debatable, with one of the most debatable things pertaining to this production being, well, my actually finding it to be decent.Some, including Bedivere, were obviously cast in a fit of PC multiculturalism. In fact it would probably be relatively historically accurate. Sex Next GewinnklaГџen 6 Aus 49. The Fugitive. Then he could have gone anywhere he wanted with the story without disappointing moviegoers drawn in by the title. Not a standalone movie. brandweeroudeijsselstreek.nl ist eine Seite rund um das Thema Film. Bei uns gibt es Reviews zu den neusten Kino- und Home. Review: King Arthur – Legend of the Sword. Lange keinen Film mehr gesehen, bei dem mal wieder richtig die Schwerter aufeinander prallen?! Das ganze. Blu-ray Disc Review: Doch als Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) dann das legendäre Schwert Excalibur aus dem Stein zieht Das Bild von Guy Ritchies 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' macht auf den ersten Blick einen guten. So Beste Spielothek in Ippensen finden rotbraune Tönungen eben einen Hauch kräftiger, was aber durchaus vor allem an der höheren Bilddynamik HDR10 liegt. Denn das zweite Kapitel leitet er mit einer Sequenz ein, die nur von ihm kommen kann. Witzig, wenn unüberhörbar irische Schauspieler Kommentare abgeben und selbst fürs englische Zielpublikum untertitelt werden. Guy Ritchie bietet nicht den dauerhaften epischen Sound, den man normalerweise von solchen Fantasy-Dramen Roulette Kostenlos Spielen Ohne Anmeldung sondern setzt Musik und Effekte oft nur szenenweise ein. Insgesamt läuft das Extramaterial gute 76 Minuten. Als kleines Kind muss Arthur mitansehen, wie sein Vater Uther Pendragon grausam ermordet wird, kurz nachdem er todesmutig den Angriff eines gemeingefährlichen Magiers abgewendet hat. Bitte dieses Feld leer lassen. Ein Gravatar -Bild neben meinen Kommentaren anzeigen. Details und Kanten geraten schärfer und ohne Abstufungen. Die perkussiven Instrumente gelangen extrem räumlich und sehr griffig Gauselmann Karriere Ohr — klasse. Excalibur, Merlin, Mordred und der berühmte Stein haben die Jahrhunderte auch ohne die Jump Cuts, Online Casino Paydirekt Kampfszenen und gigantischen Elefanten überlebt, die Ritchie der Geschichte nun hinzufügt. Vor allem Charlie Hunnam profitiert sehr von der ihm auf den Leib geschriebenen Rolle. Die klassische Sage wird schon im Prolog dadurch dekonstruiert, dass King Arthur Review älter ist als Arthur. Dann wirken auch die grandiosen Landschaftsaufnahmen der Schauplätze in Wales oder Schottland noch eindrucksvoller. Get help. Filme Review: Knives Out. An der ein oder anderen Stelle eine kurze Pause hätte dem Film nicht geschadet, um die Handlung etwas wirken zu lassen. OK Weitere Casino Venetian. Für Einkäufe bei Amazon. Gerade die anfängliche Kriegssequenz lässt Mitten und Höhen etwas vermissen und wummert ein bisschen undifferenziert aus den Speakern. Tipp Frankreich Argentinien Review: Onward.