#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – An alternative version of the King Arthur legend. As a boy, Arthur is left orphaned after his father, King Uther Pendragon, and mother are killed in a war waged against them by Vortigern, who then assumes the throne. Arthur flees and is raised in a brothel, knowing very little of his birthright. Vortigern wants Arthur dead, to ensure there is no claimant to the throne. The legends foretell that only the next king will be able to draw Excalibur, Uther’s sword, from the rock where it is lodged. So, in an effort to identify Arthur, Vortigern forces all the young men of Arthur’s age to attempt to draw out the sword. Now it is Arthur’s turn.
Plot: When the child Arthur’s father is murdered, Vortigern, Arthur’s uncle, seizes the crown. Robbed of his birthright and with no idea who he truly is, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword Excalibur from the stone, his life is turned upside down and he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy… whether he likes it or not.
Smart Tags: #folklore #excalibur #tyrant #knights_of_the_round_table #historical_fiction #king_arthur #arthurian_legend #camelot #prophecy #fictional_war #sword_and_sorcery #based_on_book #medieval_times #revisionist_history #origin_of_hero #swordsman #round_table #father_daughter_relationship #lake #rebellion #royalty
|6.7/10 Votes: 203,096|
|6.5 Votes: 4661 Popularity: 36.663|
These days have been a bit of a movie marathon with the kids being here since the 24th so we have made quite a dent in the to-watch shelf of my movie collection.
Yesterday it was time for some rehashing of the Pendragonian legends in the form of King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword. Usually I find it dangerous business to mess with classical and well proven stories. Do not fix what is not broken and all that. I did, however, find this rehash quite entertaining.
The base of the story is of course, and thankfully, the same: Uther is killed, Excalibur ends up in a stone, Arthur pulls Excalibur out of the stone, lots of swordfights, Arthur becomes king. The details of that story is rehashed quite a lot though.
The movie opens up with some fairly cool action where Uther combats Mordred (yes Mordred already in the opening scenes, as I said, rehash…) who attacks Camelot with black magic and king-sized (pun intended) combat elephants. I cannot say too much about what happens without spoiling a lot but the sword ends up in the stone and Arthur ends up…somewhere else.
So already from the start the movie asserted two things, that it is a different take on the Pendragon saga and that it is fairly heavy on action, black magic and special effects. I was a bit worried about the rehashing of the saga bit at this point but, as you have already deduced from the above, overall I quite enjoyed the movie.
The movie proceeds by showing us Arthur growing up in a bit more misery than the traditional stories do but it does so in more or less fast forward mode and we arrive rather quickly to the point were Arthur pulls out the sword from the stone.
This is were I have a bit of a gripe with the movie. This moment felt a bit anticlimactic and even disappointing. There was not big moment of awe just confusion. As the movie blurb hints at, Arthur is neither ready nor willing to become a king. So at this point everyone has to go through the hassle of convincing him. I rarely like this reluctant hero concept. Boring!
Luckily Arthur has a merry band of friends to help him chose the right path and this is were the movie spends quite a bit of time. With Arthur as a bit of a Robin Hood in the woods and him and his compadres nibbling at Vortigern’s heels. Of course every so often Arthur is nudged towards his destiny and the action when he decides, well is forced is perhaps more correct, to pick up Excalibur it becomes a bit of an FX feast.
In terms of acting and characters I would say that they all made a fairly good job of it. Arthur himself is stuck with the reluctant hero role, which I am not too found of as I wrote before, but he is doing a decent enough job of it. Vortigern is not bad as the chief bad guy. I did like the mage although most of the time she was looking into the distance and flapping her eyelids. That is when things were happening though. You do NOT want this gal to flip her eyelids at you!
Naturally everything was slowly building up towards the big bada boum between Arthur and Vortigern and, again, I think this was fairly well done. Lots of action, lots of magic and lots of FX. I really enjoyed how things played out at the end and all the visuals. One thing that I did like more with this version of the story, okay bit of a spoiler ahead, is that it did not end as tragically as the usual King Arthur story.
Bottom line, if you are set in stone as to what the Pendragon saga should be then watch another movie. If not and you’re up for some nice fantasy action adventure in the Pendragon universe you might like this movie. I did!
When this movie came up last year, I didn’t know Guy Ritchie so I thought like why would people do such stupid movies. Then I learned about Guy Ritchie and his wonderful movies but my thoughts still continued; why would Guy Ritchie make a movie that looks so different from his style. Today, I’ve finally watched the movie and I regret everything I’ve thought.
At first 10 minutes you get bored a little bit and wonder why did he left his style. THEN the real action starts and we see typical Ritchie diaologs, camera angles, cuts, music and everything! Again, it is a movie with high energy without excessive action. Plus, this time we get to see England in a different world and a different time.
Also, Jude Law as the devil king…. It was everything.
But if you’d like to see King Arthur in a more traditional, old and a classic way, I don’t think you’d like the movie.
The Elephant in the Room… King Arthur?
The elephant in the room is… well, there are lots of elephants in the room; let’s be honest.
Before I expound further, let me say this: if you like the movie’s trailers, like a fair bit of action but don’t particularly care about how every bit of it fits into a story, don’t particularly care about the traditional legend(s) of King Arthur, like a bunch of fantasy mixed in, and plenty of (now run-of-the-mill) CGI, you might like this movie. Reading further may unnecessarily dissuade you from watching it.
Of course, if you’ve seen the trailers, you know that there really are (ridiculously large, CGI) elephants in the film. The other, proverbial, elephants in the room are how far the movie strays from the legendary King Arthur story.
Now, in fairness, legends (King Arthur, in this case) being what they are, it is difficult to know where reality ends and fantasy begins. Nonetheless, even though the legend has changed somewhat over the years (as legends are wont to do), this movie bears little resemblance to the story that moviegoers familiar with Arthur will expect.
Merlin? Rendered unimportant and replaced by a (gender-PC?) beautiful female mage, who remains nameless. (I suppose the lack of a name was supposed to lend some air of irresistible mystery to her. It failed, miserably.) (sigh)
Bedivere, the handsomest of Arthur’s knights (almost in the entire land), one-handed, he of the muscular build? Well, at least he had the build. Some, including Bedivere, were obviously cast in a fit of PC multiculturalism. Please. Save it for where it makes sense.
Guinevere? Lancelot? Missing. David Beckham managed to land a spot, though. Go figure.
I read Ritchie’s bio here on IMDb. It’s stated there that Ritchie thought film school graduates made “boring and unwatchable” films. His disdain for the work of others seems to go beyond those who’ve studied film art. Huh. That doesn’t stop Ritchie from leaning on the creations of others to sell a flick.
Ritchie has a flashy — often manic — presentation style. I’ll give him some benefit of doubt in presuming that he does so in an effort to create a sense of action. Unfortunately, it often serves more to make stories incoherent.
In watching Richie’s Sherlock Holmes re-imaginings, I couldn’t shake a feeling of Ritchie’s lack of respect for Doyles’ Holmes. I get the same sense of lack of respect for traditional tales of King Arthur.
I could go on and on, picking the film apart, but all of it boils down to the simple appearance that Ritchie is simply capitalizing on the popularity of someone else’ story — King Arthur and the legend of Excalibur — by using the name in the title, then remaking the entire story to suit a flight of his fancy.
Ritchie might as well have just left the sword out of the story and dropped the name of Arthur from the story — and title. Then he could have gone anywhere he wanted with the story without disappointing moviegoers drawn in by the title. It might have stood on its own as a fair (by no means great) action/fantasy film. As a retelling of the King Arthur legend, it is a disappointment.
On second thought, considering Richie sold the idea to the movie studio as King-Arthur-meets-The-Lord-of-the-Rings, perhaps he should have just named the movie accordingly. Then the Tolkien influence (and the use of Tolkien’s oliphants) would make much more sense. Then, too, moviegoers would know better than to expect a movie simply about the King Arthur legend, which the current title implies.
Not as good as some of the bits which make it up
King Uther Pendragon, betrayed and usurped by his brother Vortigern, saves his son who is brought up in a brothel. Years later, Arthur pulls the newly revealed magical sword Excalibur from a stone, which puts him in Vortigern’s sights. Battle is joined between Arthur and assorted rebel factions, and the magically-assisted Vortigern’s army. But Arthur has some magic on his side, too.
I like knights in armour, magic, swords and sorcery. And, like Batman, Arthurian legend is robust enough to withstand multiple interpretations. It is interesting to see Guy Ritchie run it through a Lord Of The Rings / Game Of Thrones filter. That is perfectly fitting, and it is an element of the film which works well.
If only the rest worked as well. This film has achieved significant box office disaster in the USA, and it is easy to see why.
There are two main reasons. One is the storytelling, which is muddled. Action sequences, well staged, often lose their impact because of too much shakycam, rapid cutting, and excess closeup. There are too many characters for the plot. Many are unnecessary, and not given enough attention for them to register. So we don’t care about them, which means it doesn’t matter when they are in danger, or when they die.
Apart from Jude Law’s Vortigen, Aidan Gillen’s Goosefat Bill, and Eric Bana’s Uther, most of the cast simply don’t make a mark. “Oh, look – there is an oriental king-fu master in mythical mediaeval England, how weird!” Yes, but so what? We never get to spend enough time to feel anything about him.
Charlie Hunnam is Arthur. The character is written so as to be an unsympathetic smart-arse who comes good in the last act. Unfortunately, this means that the actor playing him needs a sympathetic, powerful screen presence in order to carry him through the early part of the film. Think Harrison Ford as Han Solo in A New Hope. Charlie Hunnam is no Harrison Ford, and Arthur irritates rather than inspires. Also, his accent is horribly unhelpful and, I suspect, a bit impenetrable for international audiences.
The story itself is fine – albeit chaotically told – and the tweaks to the legend work. I particularly liked Vortigern’s magic coming at a terrible cost. Also the modern-day flavour to the dialogue is often amusing, and works well. The effects and action are good, and the production design is terrific. So there are elements to be enjoyed.
But, as someone who really likes this type of film, and also Guy Ritchie’s offerings in general, this was a disappointment to me.
Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 6 min (126 min)
Genre Action, Adventure, Drama
Director Guy Ritchie
Writer Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram
Actors Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Jude Law
Country United Kingdom, United States, Australia
Awards 10 nominations
Production Company N/A
Sound Mix Dolby Surround 7.1, Dolby Atmos
Aspect Ratio 2.39 : 1, 270° Screening (ScreenX Version: some scenes)
Camera Arri Alexa XT, Panavision Primo, PCZ, E-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Film Length N/A
Negative Format Codex
Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format), Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format), Dolby Vision, Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)
Printed Film Format D-Cinema (also 3-D version)