Even though this will end up as the 3rd highest grossing Guy Ritchie film, at nearly $150 million world wide box office, given it had a $175 million budget, it will be considered a commercial failure, and unduly judged by the fact, I fear. Regardless, I enjoyed it. And I think fans of his other movies will as well.
If you like Guy Ritchie films in general, such as "Lock, Stock, ....", "Snatch", "RocknRolla", and the Sherlock Holmes movies (I consider "the man from uncle"--something of an outlier) then this movie will have quite a lot for you to like. Gritty London crime world (of some vague yesteryear), badass villains, a somewhat ambivalent hero, and plenty of action.
However, this movie, unlike the Holmes movies, is not going to win Ritchie any converts. It is too far removed from what most non- Ritchie fans will be expecting. Sherlock Holmes gave Ritchie a historical-fiction setting that played into his strengths. The fantasy world presented here, much less so. Arthur as a streetwise 'Turkish' in tights, is going to break the suspension of disbelief for many non-Ritchie fans. I was engrossed, but I can see how others would choke on the story line given their expectations.
In short-I highly recommend this for fans of the director. For those who are unfamiliar with his work, my recommendation would be you need to check your expectations at the door.
**Outside of the context of a review, I did want to note one thing about some of the criticisms of this movie, and the legend of King Arthur in the modern mindset: Given the variety of TV shows and mini-series (Merlin, Young Arthur, Camelot, Merlin (again), Mists of Avalon, etc) as well as video games, novels, pop culture references, as well as the 2004 movie "King Arthur"--the notion that Ritchie's version is somehow taking undue liberties with the story of Arthur is, in my opinion, absurd. There is no canonical tale of Arthur, and never was.
The modern conception of King Arthur, frankly, has very little to do with Malory's once popular tale of the cuckold King, and the allegory embedded therein concerning the loss of Briton to the Anglo-Saxons. If you want something close to that tale, the 1981 "Excalibur" is probably the place to go. I loved it when I saw it as a kid. But that movie is unfortunately dated, with a very early 80s, kind of cheesy feel. And frankly I suspect modern audiences would react with just as much dread to a modern version of it, as some have to Ritchie's. In short, you might not like this movie, but don't pin that on any liberties Ritchie may have taken with the "legend".
There are nothing BUT liberties to be taken with the legend(s) surrounding the last king of the Britons, given the ancient references to him and his victory at the battle of Badon are too sparse and shrouded in the mists of time.
If you like Guy Ritchie films in general, such as "Lock, Stock, ....", "Snatch", "RocknRolla", and the Sherlock Holmes movies (I consider "the man from uncle"--something of an outlier) then this movie will have quite a lot for you to like. Gritty London crime world (of some vague yesteryear), badass villains, a somewhat ambivalent hero, and plenty of action.
However, this movie, unlike the Holmes movies, is not going to win Ritchie any converts. It is too far removed from what most non- Ritchie fans will be expecting. Sherlock Holmes gave Ritchie a historical-fiction setting that played into his strengths. The fantasy world presented here, much less so. Arthur as a streetwise 'Turkish' in tights, is going to break the suspension of disbelief for many non-Ritchie fans. I was engrossed, but I can see how others would choke on the story line given their expectations.
In short-I highly recommend this for fans of the director. For those who are unfamiliar with his work, my recommendation would be you need to check your expectations at the door.
**Outside of the context of a review, I did want to note one thing about some of the criticisms of this movie, and the legend of King Arthur in the modern mindset: Given the variety of TV shows and mini-series (Merlin, Young Arthur, Camelot, Merlin (again), Mists of Avalon, etc) as well as video games, novels, pop culture references, as well as the 2004 movie "King Arthur"--the notion that Ritchie's version is somehow taking undue liberties with the story of Arthur is, in my opinion, absurd. There is no canonical tale of Arthur, and never was.
The modern conception of King Arthur, frankly, has very little to do with Malory's once popular tale of the cuckold King, and the allegory embedded therein concerning the loss of Briton to the Anglo-Saxons. If you want something close to that tale, the 1981 "Excalibur" is probably the place to go. I loved it when I saw it as a kid. But that movie is unfortunately dated, with a very early 80s, kind of cheesy feel. And frankly I suspect modern audiences would react with just as much dread to a modern version of it, as some have to Ritchie's. In short, you might not like this movie, but don't pin that on any liberties Ritchie may have taken with the "legend".
There are nothing BUT liberties to be taken with the legend(s) surrounding the last king of the Britons, given the ancient references to him and his victory at the battle of Badon are too sparse and shrouded in the mists of time.