Search
Search results
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Loved It!!
395. The Gentlemen. Well alright, alright!! The first 5 or so minutes were kind of jumbled, my universal translator wasn't recognizing the cockney language right away. The McConaissance continues, he's usually the stoner but now, he's the big guy in charge of "Bush" game over in the UK. And now he's getting ready to retire and sell his herb empire, and he seems to be good to go, until some other interested buyers, or takers come into play, but when the cool calm and collected Mickey Pearson is pushed into a corner, well, first of all, you only think you pushed him into a corner and two he's gonna push back! Great movie from Guy Ritchie, more along the lines of Snatch than his recent gems like the Aladdin, King Arthur, Man from Uncle, or remember that time Madonna and him were together so he was forced by God to put her in a movie called Swept Away? Ugh... This is the kind of movie he shines, each character explodes on the screen. My favorite had to be Colin Farrell as Coach, and yes he is a basketball coach, and he does jobs for the organization and for fun beats up unruly teens. Hugh Grant was also great as a sleazeball, bribing journalist/wanna be screen writer.. Great flick, go check it out! Filmbufftim on FB
Dean (6921 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 22, 2019 (Updated May 22, 2019)
Very entertaining family film
Well I have to say I was a bit surprised when I saw Guy Ritchie come up as the director at the start, especially after the King Arthur film. Gladly none of his usual editing techniques are on show here. I can only just remember the cartoon version when I was younger. The humour of the genie voiced by Robin Williams made the film for me.
So a tough act to follow. The film is visually dazzling, in the costumes, sets, CGI and SFX in general. It all looks very realistic. I'm not a big fan of the songs, some are better than others. Overall it's a bit unfair to compare it to the original. It's a fun and light hearted film that goes by at a good pace and doesn't feel like a long film. Naomi Scott does look like a Disney princess. Maybe not as funny as the original but it's still a film all ages should enjoy.
So a tough act to follow. The film is visually dazzling, in the costumes, sets, CGI and SFX in general. It all looks very realistic. I'm not a big fan of the songs, some are better than others. Overall it's a bit unfair to compare it to the original. It's a fun and light hearted film that goes by at a good pace and doesn't feel like a long film. Naomi Scott does look like a Disney princess. Maybe not as funny as the original but it's still a film all ages should enjoy.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 3, 2019
Not as bad as expected
I can't lie, when I heard Will Smith was playing the genie in this I pretty much wrote this film off for good. Whilst it isnt quite the car crash I'd expected, it pales in comparison to the original animated version.
Naomi Scott is great as Jasmine and has a fantastic voice, and she outperforms everyone else in this film. Mena Massoud is enjoyable to watch but lacking in a bit of Aladdin's charm. Strangely I didn't hate Will Smith as the genie. Don't get me wrong I didn't love him either but I didn't want to cry everytime he was on screen (although I did cringe a few times). In fact the worst person in this film was Jafar. I really don't know what they were thinking, he isn't sinister or slimy, he's just laughable. Not a villain youd be afraid of.
The film itself follows the original plot fairly well, with a lot of nods and quotes to the original too. I do think the ending and final stand off against Jafar was a little poor. Whilst I wasn't expecting them to completely follow the original, there are some bits that I'm disappointed weren't included. And of course there's the songs. The songs really make this watchable although sadly they don't have quite the magic of the animated version. It also made me laugh that Guy Ritchie couldn't resist throwing in some of his trademark slow motion and camera angles. Not many, admittedly he has toned it down a lot but there's still a few Ritchie moments.
This isnt a bad live action film, but sadly it isnt a great one either. But all things considered it could have been much worse!
Naomi Scott is great as Jasmine and has a fantastic voice, and she outperforms everyone else in this film. Mena Massoud is enjoyable to watch but lacking in a bit of Aladdin's charm. Strangely I didn't hate Will Smith as the genie. Don't get me wrong I didn't love him either but I didn't want to cry everytime he was on screen (although I did cringe a few times). In fact the worst person in this film was Jafar. I really don't know what they were thinking, he isn't sinister or slimy, he's just laughable. Not a villain youd be afraid of.
The film itself follows the original plot fairly well, with a lot of nods and quotes to the original too. I do think the ending and final stand off against Jafar was a little poor. Whilst I wasn't expecting them to completely follow the original, there are some bits that I'm disappointed weren't included. And of course there's the songs. The songs really make this watchable although sadly they don't have quite the magic of the animated version. It also made me laugh that Guy Ritchie couldn't resist throwing in some of his trademark slow motion and camera angles. Not many, admittedly he has toned it down a lot but there's still a few Ritchie moments.
This isnt a bad live action film, but sadly it isnt a great one either. But all things considered it could have been much worse!
Vegas (725 KP) rated Eat Locals (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2018
One of those can't decide good or bad movies
Every now and then a movie comes along that you don't really know what to say or think about it... This is one of those films, a strong cast that wouldn't have been out of place in an early Guy Ritchie film, fills you with promise, but it feels very rushed in its storytelling, not really giving you time to work out who the characters are and what the significance of their meeting in a remote farmhouse is and to that point why and how the "Vampire hunting elite squad" knows where this meeting is yet not how many there are, other than they have one target they are after...
Don't get me wrong I did enjoy it, I'm just not quite sure why! if you like comedy horror Cockneys vs Zombies does it better, but the sight of Victor Meldrew's wife (Annette Crosbie) going from knitting in the kitchen to wielding an automatic weapon does leave you somewhat satisfied...
I think this is one that people would really need to make up their own mind on.
Don't get me wrong I did enjoy it, I'm just not quite sure why! if you like comedy horror Cockneys vs Zombies does it better, but the sight of Victor Meldrew's wife (Annette Crosbie) going from knitting in the kitchen to wielding an automatic weapon does leave you somewhat satisfied...
I think this is one that people would really need to make up their own mind on.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Biff Byford recommended Machine Head by Deep Purple in Music (curated)
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Eleanor & Park in Books
Jun 11, 2019
Eleanor and Park: First Love At Its Finest
Contains spoilers, click to show
I did this book for a reading vlog without knowing anything about it and that turned out to be a mistake. This book was a lot heavier than I anticipated. Trigger warnings for domestic violence and child abuse for those who want to read it.
Together, Eleanor and Park are excellent. They have witty dialogue full of 80’s references and general high school silliness. The two of them together made me nostalgic for high school with their cuteness.
That was definitely needed because the rest of the book was really dark.
From the start, Eleanor isn’t doing well. As the new kid in school, she is an easy target for bullies and has no friends to turn to (at least until Park). But her home life is even worse. After living off a neighbor’s couch for a year, Eleanor was finally allowed to move back into her mom’s house, where her mom and siblings live under the tyrannical rule of Ritchie, a violent and abusive alcoholic.
In Eleanor’s house, the feeling of danger and unease is always there, heightened by nightly fights between Ritchie and the mother and having no bathroom door. Eleanor only really feels safe in the house when Ritchie isn’t there.
Her escape becomes Park, the quiet boy on the bus who let her sit next to him and lets her read comic books over his shoulder. Slowly they develop a reluctant friendship which turns into love.
I really like Eleanor. I think she’s really smart and witty and very relatable. She’s insecure about her body and the abuse definitely took a toll on her emotional state. But in general, she’s just a normal teenager.
Park is a typical teenager as well. He’s frustratingly insecure and angsty, which makes him act like a jerk to Eleanor sometimes, especially in the beginning. But despite that, he’s usually a really nice guy who cares deeply for Eleanor. He’s pretty understanding about her home life and is patient with her, which I really like. He does a lot of things that he thinks are small, like lending Eleanor comics and making her mixtapes, but they mean the world to Eleanor, and it’s really sweet.
The only time I didn’t like him was when he found out someone was writing dirty messages on Eleanor’s textbook and he accused her of writing the messages herself. That was really out-of-character for him and was pretty horrible. Aside from that, though, he was nice. He was, in general, a normal, realistic teenage boy.
My biggest problem with the book was the ending. It wasn’t satisfying for me because it ends abruptly and I didn’t get enough closure about Eleanor’s family. It’s hinted at that they move out of the toxic house but it’s never confirmed. So because of that, it’s only 4 out of 5 stars, but still definitely worth reading.
Together, Eleanor and Park are excellent. They have witty dialogue full of 80’s references and general high school silliness. The two of them together made me nostalgic for high school with their cuteness.
That was definitely needed because the rest of the book was really dark.
From the start, Eleanor isn’t doing well. As the new kid in school, she is an easy target for bullies and has no friends to turn to (at least until Park). But her home life is even worse. After living off a neighbor’s couch for a year, Eleanor was finally allowed to move back into her mom’s house, where her mom and siblings live under the tyrannical rule of Ritchie, a violent and abusive alcoholic.
In Eleanor’s house, the feeling of danger and unease is always there, heightened by nightly fights between Ritchie and the mother and having no bathroom door. Eleanor only really feels safe in the house when Ritchie isn’t there.
Her escape becomes Park, the quiet boy on the bus who let her sit next to him and lets her read comic books over his shoulder. Slowly they develop a reluctant friendship which turns into love.
I really like Eleanor. I think she’s really smart and witty and very relatable. She’s insecure about her body and the abuse definitely took a toll on her emotional state. But in general, she’s just a normal teenager.
Park is a typical teenager as well. He’s frustratingly insecure and angsty, which makes him act like a jerk to Eleanor sometimes, especially in the beginning. But despite that, he’s usually a really nice guy who cares deeply for Eleanor. He’s pretty understanding about her home life and is patient with her, which I really like. He does a lot of things that he thinks are small, like lending Eleanor comics and making her mixtapes, but they mean the world to Eleanor, and it’s really sweet.
The only time I didn’t like him was when he found out someone was writing dirty messages on Eleanor’s textbook and he accused her of writing the messages herself. That was really out-of-character for him and was pretty horrible. Aside from that, though, he was nice. He was, in general, a normal, realistic teenage boy.
My biggest problem with the book was the ending. It wasn’t satisfying for me because it ends abruptly and I didn’t get enough closure about Eleanor’s family. It’s hinted at that they move out of the toxic house but it’s never confirmed. So because of that, it’s only 4 out of 5 stars, but still definitely worth reading.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Well paced (1 more)
Good characters
Third times a charm
I am not terribly well versed in Guy Ritchie films, however "Snatch" is one of my favorite films. I went into this with no expectations, and without even knowing the basic plot, I was greated with a wonderful experience.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Over countless decades the legend of King Arthur has been depicted across a range of mediums. The timeless tale of love, betrayals, action, and adventure has remained a popular and enduring tale ever since it was first introduced.
Director Guy Ritchie has crafted a very different take on the tale as he even contributed to the screenplay for the film. As such “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”, is brimming with many of his signature elements ranging from a caper story and characters who are filled with quirks and issues.
Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur who is orphaned at an early age when his family is betrayed by his Uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Arthur is raised in a London brothel with no knowledge of his true lineage.
Arthur learns combat and life on the streets and quickly learns how to make money through various dealings, some of which are not exactly on the level. This is where Ritchie shows his trademark style as there is a caper element to the early part of the story and a scene of Arthur and his pals walking through the aftermath of an event is complete with his signature, start, stop, and rewind moments that made up his recent “Sherlock Holmes” films.
Naturally events put Arthur and Vortigern against each other when Arthur is able to pull the legendary Excalibur from a stone as part of a test imposed on all young men of a certain age.
With his true identity in place, Arthur is marked by his Uncle as he is the only threat to his power and this forces Arthur into the protection of the resistance where he must embrace his past and find his destiny.
The film does take some liberties with the Arthurian Legend and does go a bit heavy on the FX especially with the inclusion of giant creatures which made me think at times I was watching something from the “Lord of the Rings”. The film does drag in parts but does rebound with a finale that seemed very video game esque, but sets up future films well. The cast is strong and there is plenty to like about the film as long as you are willing to be patient with the pacing of the film.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/king-arthur-legend-sword/
Director Guy Ritchie has crafted a very different take on the tale as he even contributed to the screenplay for the film. As such “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”, is brimming with many of his signature elements ranging from a caper story and characters who are filled with quirks and issues.
Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur who is orphaned at an early age when his family is betrayed by his Uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Arthur is raised in a London brothel with no knowledge of his true lineage.
Arthur learns combat and life on the streets and quickly learns how to make money through various dealings, some of which are not exactly on the level. This is where Ritchie shows his trademark style as there is a caper element to the early part of the story and a scene of Arthur and his pals walking through the aftermath of an event is complete with his signature, start, stop, and rewind moments that made up his recent “Sherlock Holmes” films.
Naturally events put Arthur and Vortigern against each other when Arthur is able to pull the legendary Excalibur from a stone as part of a test imposed on all young men of a certain age.
With his true identity in place, Arthur is marked by his Uncle as he is the only threat to his power and this forces Arthur into the protection of the resistance where he must embrace his past and find his destiny.
The film does take some liberties with the Arthurian Legend and does go a bit heavy on the FX especially with the inclusion of giant creatures which made me think at times I was watching something from the “Lord of the Rings”. The film does drag in parts but does rebound with a finale that seemed very video game esque, but sets up future films well. The cast is strong and there is plenty to like about the film as long as you are willing to be patient with the pacing of the film.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/king-arthur-legend-sword/