Come anticipate "King Arthur" with me

Joe and I went to it last night, after our Big Talk.

I twitched annoyedly at many of the historical inaccuracies. (Saxons? Invading from the *North*?!?!? The Saxons invaded from the *South* you utter dolts!) I mean, just about the only thing they got right was the time period.

But still, it was silly swashbuckling fun. I wasn't expecting anything serious or deep, but it was entertaining. Reviews say that Arthur was wooden - nah, he was just trying to be Shakespearian. Bors was hillarious. And Tristram (Goth Knight) was lovely. Skinny little Keira was totally implausible as an action hero. But you know... special guest appearances by Julian Cope and his hair band of woad-smeared nutters!

((Though, I mean, honestly not knowing where the Anglo-Saxons invaded, considering they left their very NAMES on the landscape, i.e. Essex and Sussex and Anglia, is just beyond stupid.))

I mean, you wouldn't want to get very close to those Saxons, beastliness aside. They really looked like they stank.

The plot was baffling and incomprehensible, and the dialogue blew. The action scenes were drawn out and samey, the lake gag played like a level from Myth 2, and KK was hot. So, you know, it was fun!

Still, the bit at the end, when there's the shitty voiceover talking about history and memory and names not forgotten and fallen heroes and then CUE THREE HORSES RUNNING FREE BECAUSE LIKE THEY'RE THE KNIGHTS THAT GOT KILLED RIGHT AND THE WHITE ONE IS LANCELOT BECAUSE HE WAS MORE SPECIAL THAN THE REST AND ALSO TOTALLY FUCKING GAY FOR ARTHUR

"...they turned into...horses?"

This bit is also totally left out of every Arthurian adaptation except perhaps... errrmmmm... which one was it? Mists of Avalon, perhaps.

haha. I love doing this; spotting game bits in movies.

Can we talk about this for a second? Someone page anthony. Because this movie, more than any other I've seen recently, totally trotted out that old "band of misfits that FIGHT" movie trope: Behind Every Great Man There's...Another Great Man, Wishing They Were Having Sex.

Lance: dashing, rakish, effeminate, elaborate fighting style (two swords!) with a lot of "flair," neatly trimmed facial hair, VERY clean, a little jealous of Guin, but also pals with her, blasphemes in a way that Arthur can't, made uncomfortable by the sight of a naked woman.

etc.

then there's the Big and Lovable Guy (family man), the Intense Berzerker (ice-breaker), the Soft-Spoken Man of Nature (the falconer), and the Other Bros, Just Happy To Be Here (always the first to shrug and smile "here we go again!")

yeah, but this has been a trope of "fighting men"(i.e. military) movies for like half-a-century or more.

Also, it's used again in The Three Amigos

One of the things that annoyed me was the way that a lot of the minor Knights were written out of the story completely when they had just as interesting (if not more interesting) adventures in the myth cycle.

Possibly because the original hero was clearly Arthur - but as he got too... holy/father figure/too important to go out and chase monsters, he was supplanted by his hero/champion Lancelot for the fighting bits.

And then every knight who came along was somehow... not better, but somehow purer or nobler or something. (Gawain, followed by Gaheris and Agravaine and Gareth.) Until you had Parsifal/Galahad, who was so pure and noble he was no longer a human being but a living personification of the Grail myth.

Think my favorite at the time was the Stephen Donaldson Pendragon Cycle, although I suspect if I re-read now I'd be a little miffed at the religious push. Now I think maybe the Guy Gavriel Kay interweaving is for me, although it really only uses the legendary elements to hang/turn the plot on, rather than following the whole story. I think I prefer that creative license to any other approach.

Lawhead.

Laugh? Cry? Pretty much a toss-up.

this is the first i'm hearing about this, sounds like the worst idea on the planet tbh

http://www.avclub.com/article/warner-bros-may-bequeath-guy-ritchie-six-king-arth-107315

http://www.avclub.com/article/idris-elba-might-play-merlin-esque-figure-guy-ritc-207229

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.