f13.net

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rbPTQIdjmY

Had no clue what this was going in, identified it as Guy Ritchie nearly immediately. Actually pretty stoked for this.

This is the first movie since Deadpool that I'm looking forward to. I watch quite a few movies in the theater, but this is the first one since Deadpool that I won't be going to just because it's the best one that happens to be in theaters when I have the time to go. I probably should have felt this way about Civil War, but Avengers 2 made me wonder if Marvel was on the decline.

That camera on the shoulder pointed at the head with crappy CGI blur in the background so everyone knows you're running fast... Back to the drawing board.

Speedy doesn't like it, probably means it'll be good. The music in that trailer sounded like Jethro Tull, which is impossible I thought, so I had to look it up. Someone called Sam Lee apparently.

I dunno, I'm sort of with him on the Go-Pro view being used in cinema.

I mean, I get that I'm an old-man and kids are used to seeing that viewpoint because of Go-Pro, but it's a lousy angle and method for seeing things. It's a narcissistic viewpoint that's shit for telling a visual story.

Hm.. as I type that, MAYBE if Arthur is as totally into himself as he's coming across it can work from the storytelling angle, but it's still bad visuals.

I was ready to hate this thread because nobody has topped Excalibur (or the Holy Grail, heh).

But yeah. This looks awesome.

I like to see innovative camerawork and action scene aesthetics. I loved the recent and new (to me anyway) Jon Snow 3rd person camera in the game of thrones episode 9 battle scene. But that shoulder to face angle is just a poor visual that brings nothing, not even very good at conveying a sense of speed which I assume is what they were trying to do.

Hell, maybe this is going to be a really great film, I don't know, it does look pretty cool and I love Excalibur, just saying Guy Ritchie misfired on his attempt to bring some new camera perspective on that scene.

This felt more like a Guy Ritchie movie to me than a King Arthur movie. It felt all sorts of disjointed with really strange mish-mash of modern, medieval and dark ages aesthetics and vibe. I'm actually with Speedy on the shoulder cam running gag - not a fan of its use and it was all over this trailer.

But it's Guy Ritchie and a lot of actors I like so I'll give it some leeway.

I'm hoping the witty banter and characterizations save it from the gimmicks.

Launcelot fucking Four Fingers.

I like Guy Ritchie's movies in general but the trend on them has been a downward spiral (the difference between say Snatch and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows being huge).
I'm sure I'll watch this on dvd/stream some day but the slogan "see it in Real 3D" at the end of trailer is somewhat worrying.  :oh_i_see:

I think you mean Sir Not Appearing In This Film.

This is so over the top it could work.  So yeah.

The camera work makes this almost unwatchable for me.  Shame, I love Arthurian stuff.

Guys, seriously.  That camera view was shown for one small part of the entire trailer, all happening in what was obviously the same scene.  All cut together, there is a decent chance that camera view has 1-2 minutes total screen time for the whole movie.

What did you guys think about it other than that one tiny part of the trailer?  Looks pretty fun actually.

That's what I thought of it, and I said so. My first reaction was buhhhh-wuuuuuuuuuuuuuttt?

I'm surprised you all seem excited for this. I've enjoyed some Guy Ritchie stuff in the past but I've watched this trailer twice and my only reaction has been "my god that looks awful, what happened to Guy Ritchie?"

Ritchie is a bit hit or miss. I loved Snatch and Lock, but if you haven't watched Revolver... just don't. It is pretentious, nonsensical wank that at first glance looks like a triumphant return to the Ritchie formula of the first two movies. It isn't.

I've seen those first two and his Sherlock movies. The fist Sherlock was pretty good. The second felt overdone and off in tone. This movie to me looks like they're trying to hard to make a punk version of Arthurian legend and I don't want to see that. I'll stick with Excalibur.

Second Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIM4-HLtUM0)

Now that's more like it. Sure, it looks like great big fantasy epic 101, but this gives me a bit more of an explanation than the first one did.

It's been all down hill since Lock Stock

Snob mode engaged!

"The man from UNCLE" was terrible.  I will set my expectations low.

ok that looks better, in a somewhat strange british way. cheesy but poignant special effects.

This is taking a beating from reviewers. Choppy CGI crapfest, dumb/boring plot.

Yeah, even the trailers have left me somewhat conflicted. It's not something I plan to see in theaters, especially after hearing the reviews.

It's a Guy Ritchie movie. All of his plots are stupid. The few bits of CGI he had before weren't great.

You either like his writing or you don't.

Edit: As shown by the disparity here:
(http://i.imgur.com/6MkuLGx.png)

Guy Ritchie has been hit or miss for me. Lock, Stock and Snatch? Brilliant. Revolver and that Madonna movie (Swept Away?). Pretentious, awful shit. I liked the first Sherlock movie (haven't seen the second). This one just looked... puzzling.

Eh.

RDJ makes almost anything watchable.

Revolver was godawful. Ugh.

The hot take at the heart of this might be interesting--in someone else's hands. Basically, what I gather from the reviews is that this is Arthur-as-medieval-gangster who gets lucky and picks up a badass sword at a desperately lucky moment.

It sounds less like an interesting concept and more like Guy Ritchie having a very limited range of character types he's comfortable writing.

I watched this as it came on one of my movie channels. It wasn't bad.

It wasn't good, mind you. Rather, if it had been a generic fantasy world where noble orphan becomes head of the local Thieves Guild then discovers he's the heir to the throne occupied by the usurper uncle, it would still have been fairly mediocre, but at least it wouldn't have made you continually stop and go "WUT?" every 5 minutes. From "KUNG FU George" (literally a guy called Kung Fu George who runs a kung fu dojo in the middle of London) to King Arthur and his Knights as a modern-day gang to giant goddamn armored elephants animated by mages to no Merlin, there are so many weird choices in this one that it feels disjointed. Costuming is all over the place. It really feels like someone got a script for a generic fantasy action movie, Guy Ritchie said "I'll do that but we'll make him King Arthur!" and the studio bought it because at least King Arthur is a known property and not a huge risk. Lots of Guy Ritchie's most endearing and annoying traits in this one, including quick-cut montages with narration that gloss over really important story points. The whole thing feels rushed despite being 2:10.

Yup, agree with Hamish.  Just saw it on a plane and from the opening scene with 50 foot tall war elephants, just urg terrible rubbish.  Not even good in a brainless sense. 

This is currently the Sky Movie Premier.

Oh My God.

It's got 30 mins to go and I just can't.  This is truly terrible.

What if, hypothetically speaking mind you, someone was quite intoxicated at the time of viewing?

Alcohol or something else?

Tuff Turf for example?

I ain't no hippy.

I don't think you'd be able to tell one way or the other, because the movie would have a sober man thinking he was drunk and a drunk man thinking he isn't drunk enough.

That sounds like a challenge.

This was, in fact, the case.  Not me, but someone.  She was also of the view that this was the worst movie we've both seen in quite some time.

If you're hoping for Excalibur (but actually good, by today's standards) I can see how you'd be disappointed.  If you're flicking through channels and this just happens to be on, I don't understand how it's generating so much hate.  It's not terrible, it's not great.  Just pretend that it's not King Arthur (because it really isn't).  Maybe it's Art's cousin, in another big city in England. 

There is much, much worse on virtually any channel, at any time of day.  It definitely does have a 80's MTV vibe to it, and since I watched a lot of MTV and Miami Vice I wasn't put off by that, but I could see how if you wanted Morte D'Arthur and no-MTV IN your Arthur, how that would be disappointing.

It IS terrible !

I thought it was fun enough and I liked the design of the Final Boss.  It's a little cliche how all these video games teleport the player to a tiny arena for the last fight, though.