Come anticipate "King Arthur" with me

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/fox-updating-king-arthur-as-924730

The drama, which landed at Fox in a competitive situation with a script plus penalty commitment, reimagines the legendary stories of King Arthur in a police procedural. When an ancient magic reawakens in modern-day Manhattan, a graffiti artist named Art must team with his best friend Lance and his ex, Gwen — an idealistic cop — in order to realize his destiny and fight back against the evil forces that threaten the city.

so this Guy Ritchie film is DOA at the box office.

I saw James Gray last month at a Q&A, and he said he asked Charlie Hunnam if he was happy with Gray's direction of him during the Lost City of Z shoot. Hunnam replied, "My last movie was King Arthur, and after every take the director just said, 'Again, but less cunty.'"

I saw a preview a couple of weeks ago (hasten to add i did not pay money to see this) and yes it is entirely terrible, I was delighted

Ritchie fans will be relieved to learn that his trademark "diablo cody gets fall-down drunk & takes a first pass at a sequel to the sweeney remake" dialogue is intact and witty as ever, the lead is so bad that I genuinely thought it was harking back to the Conan days of esl actors learning to speak on the job (but apparently he's a geordie?) and - yes - so much slo-mo

This weekend I saw Z and was amazed to see this hunnam guy turn in a dece performance

turns out faith is the peakiest blinder of all

would there even be space for a *good* king arthur blockbuster movie? seems so anachronistic. like do people in china or teenagers give a shit about camelot?

don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot...

This King Arthur is a wideboy from the streets tho

Also I think the thinking was that ppl like dumbshit bullet time dragon movies, they just hitched it to a character they don't have to pay for - on that score this will prob be better than that dark tower movie, Ritchie is a worse writer than Akiva Goldman but also more distinctively bad

every 10 years or so someone makes a king arthur movie and it's always shit, glad to see the pattern remains unbroken

the sword in the stone is the only good one

Boorman and Bresson did ace King Arthur movies.

I think GR is practically from landed gentry, so the cockney barrow boy act is a very good look for a 50 yr old posh bloke.

Uh I'll have you know that he was expelled from boarding school for being a bad boy which makes him an honorary commoner in anyone's book

(iirc he always claimed in interviews that it was due to smoking spliff but his stepfather revealed it was just poor attendance lol)

yeah Excalibur and Lancelot du Lac are both totally excellent.

i think the problem w/King Arthur movies is that Arthur as a character has never been particularly compelling imo. i don't know why that is, bc it's all there. in most adaptations i've seen he's a cipher to an extent, or a bore. The knights get all the good lines and scenes.

Monty python & the holy grail is a good film imho

xp
and yeah monty python's entry is a classic.

I heard GR was such a rebel he never even won a Duke of Edinburgh's Award in the scouts.