UKC

Well I only saw one film at the cinema last week. Popcorn rubbish at Wednesday teatime, the same excuse I used for seeing "Unlocked" during the previous week.

Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur and the Legend of the Sword". Now, his first Sherlock Holmes film, and his The Man From U.N.C.L.E., were both very good (the latter extremely underrated).
Therefore I was sort of interested in his version of Arthur despite the dubious trailers, and Charlie Hunnam modelling his Arthur on Conor McPherson.

Keeping it brief - a generous 6 or 6.5/10. My heart tells me I should score it lower but to be fair it did sort of achieve what I think it was supposed to achieve. Ritchie applies the same approach as he did to Sherlock Holmes, i.e. totally shake up the character and the classic expectations from such a film. However, for some reason they seemed to think it would be a good idea to remove a lot of the humour that was present in Sherlock Holmes. Sure there are wisecracks and one-liners but on the whole it seems to play as a serious action adventure movie. I wonder if they were aiming for a younger audience who wouldn't be receptive to smart gags but who would engage with a quest movie. It had good performances (Aiden Gillen, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey and a scenery-chewing Jude Law were the standouts) and three standout scenes (the "Arthur growing up" montage at the start is really well done). Plus the worst CGI giant snake I've seen in any film since around 1999 :-o

It's not a film I would particularly recommend anyone to go and spend their time and money on. In one ear and out the other. I am a bit embarrassed at having gone to see it, but hey it didn't cost me any money at least.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I don't get to go to the cinema any more, but I picked up the vengeance trilogy on DVD last week. Planning to watch the "fade to white" cut of Lady Vengeance tonight.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Saw Alien Covenant last night ... a big budget spectacle that delivered exactly what you would expect as a Hollywood sequel, but as a film in itself it added less than I'd hoped (unlike Prometheus and the first few films) the characterisation was particularly disappointing given Scott's reputation. Still, otherwise, its a beautifully constructed cinematic experience that franchise fans will really enjoy and tied up lots of loose ends for those who need such things in neat bows.

In reply to Offwidth:
Does Ridley Scott have a strong reputation for great characterisation?
I'm thinking of the (deliberate?) cold blank expressions in The Duellists, Legend, Black Rain, 1492: Conquest of Paradise, White Squall, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down etc.

Alien, Bladerunner, Someone to Watch Over Me, Thelma and Louise, Matchstick Men. They have decent characterisation. I can't think of other Scott films that have this. I have not seen Kingdom of Heaven, and I am probably forgetting another film or two.

In reply to Offwidth:

Is that supposed to be as patronising as it reads?
I am guessing/hoping not.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Just watched "Lost in the Sun" on Sky.
Despite its mediocre reviews I liked it a lot.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Not that I have seen either film but this sounds similar to "A Perfect World" (Kevin Costner somehow on the run with a kid, Clint Eastwood chasing them)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Someone else made that comparison.

The two lead roles were excellent and the photography beautiful in a bleak sort of way.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sorry about the muddled up thread title, somehow the word "April" has crept in there.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

It's a fact some people like crystal clear narratives in their films and that's fine by me.

On the other point I can't think of any major characterisation problems in those films you list (compared to average big Hollywood director movies). Duellists in particular was about bloody-mindedness as much as anything and I thought the characterisation worked really well. Legend was an exception but that was a fantasy experiment and good in that context.