Why So Blu?

Well played, sir.

inri222

Defiant1

If Valerian and the blah blah blah wasn't coming out later this summer, I would bet this would be the box office bomb of the season.

Deftones

iO9 gave it a favorable review

mattysemo247

It doubled! Now it's at 18%.

OldBoy

I think that's going to go to Snatched.

Why So Blu?

My friend gave it a 3-star.

http://whysoblu.com/king-arthur-sword-movie-review/

Why So Blu?

Just got back from seeing this and it was a lot of fun. It had plenty of familiars from Ritchies previous gangster flicks and some folks from Game of Thrones along with an unexpected cameo from


It was obviously style over substance, but still had tons of depth. I also applaud the filmmakers for using one of my favorite characters' of all time's likeness -- it was fantastic to see on the big screen.

The score was also great and I will probably scoop up the vinyl of that. I do think the marketing department screwed up the marketing. I would not mind seeing 5 more movies based around this incarnation of the legend, but that seems unlikely now. Maybe one more then.

Anyways, it's definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

Dr. DVD

Caught this today. While I understand why more traditional critics hate this, I was thoroughly entertained. It maybe deserves a 51% RT rating, but not 27% It's basically a the Arthur legend directed in the style of Guy Ritchie with lots of (obviously) Frank Frazetta inspired production design. I see it becoming a cult hit, but not a major hit. Shame, as I really liked Charlie Hunnam in this one.

Q:

Since this probably won't be the franchise starter they hoped, I guess we'll never know.

stingermck

Good afternoon matinee. I enjoyed the cast and the Ritchie style banter he is known for. Would watch a sequel if it happens.

JimRochester

King Arthur flops like a drunk soccer player

MSN is calling King Arthur the first flop of the summer season. With only 14.7 million estimated, GotG 2 at 63 million will hold off King Arthur and Snatched at 17.5 million for the number 1 spot.

TomOpus

Actuals bumped Snatched up to $19 million. And it's budget was $42 million.

Holy crap...what a bomb. Not sure what they were thinking giving Guy Ritchie $175 million for a King Arthur movie. I just think the subject matter wasn't interesting to most people. From what I've heard, it's a fun movie and looks great but that's about it. Even Stuckmann gave it a B.

Why So Blu?

^ They trusted him with the budget, because of the Sherlock Holmes films. Both of those made a shitload. UNCLE was lukewarm, but also didn't cost that much.

TomOpus

The Holmes movies also had RDJ who can headline a movie.

Dr. DVD

I hope this mishap doesn't get him booted from Aladdin. If there's any animated movie that seems like his style would suit a live action version that's the one.

Rob V

I like Charlie Hunnam... but he's not bringing asses to the seats for a big budget flick.

bluetoast

I know it's a little different, but did nobody involved with this movie look at that Kurt Sutter show that got canceled within two seconds and think "Maybe now is not the right time for this"?

RichC2

Bastard Executioner? That actually had a pretty strong debut, it wasn't until people realized it sucked that the ratings drove off a cliff. So if anything was derived from it, it was that there's an audience for a non-shitty version of it.

DJariya

I saw this yesterday. I'd probably give this maybe a B- and between 3 and 3 1/2 stars.

It wasn't as God awful as some made it out to be. But, I can see how there really isn't much interest in the King Arthur story for most. I honestly wan't crazy about the idea either. I thought the Antoine Fuqua and Clive Owen version from 10 years ago was pretty dull. I think it did add a different spin on it. It had some more fantasy/supernatural elements to it. There was some pretty cool special effects. Opening sequence with the giant elephants was pretty crazy.

I thought Jude Law was a pretty good villain. He was arrogant and someone you really wanted to punch in the face. So he did his job. I do agree that Eric Bana (a pretty good actor) was wasted for such a small part. He gets a lot of shit, especially in this forum, but I've never had a problem with Charlie Hunnam as an actor. I always liked his work on the 7 years I watched Sons of Anarchy. Maybe he doesn't have enough star power to carry a $100M+ movie and that's why this bombed. I was surprised that they didn't cast a well known female lead to be a love interest for Arthur. They pretty much stayed away from any kind of romance angle.

I don't think I would want to own or re-watch this anytime soon, but it was worth seeing at least once. For those who are really on the fence about this and you're struggling to find something that draws you to it, maybe wait until you can see it on HBO later in the year.

mattysemo247

Saw this yesterday, and while it was kind of a mess, it was a fun mess most of the time. The soundtrack was awesome (and I streamed it again since then), the action can be jarring at times but overall solid, and the fantasy aspects were a little over the top. It's kinda funny how different this movie and the King Author w/ Clive Owen and Keira Knightley are from each other. It's worth checking out once, but I couldn't see myself buying and watching again. One other thing I noticed, it's very Guy Ritchie for the first 30 mins or so, but after that it seems like it loses his personal touch. It still has his style and influences here and there, but not as much as his other movies.