Directed by Guy Ritchie, "King Arthur: Battle of the Beasts" (hereinafter referred to as "King Arthur") will land in mainland theaters this Friday.
Classic historical themes, 126 minutes of time, action, fantasy, adventure classification, famous performances, a long list of actors, which also surprised the name of star David Beckham, how to see is the configuration of the blockbuster.
Screenshot of Douban information, pay attention to the red box
So far (May 10), the praise rate on Rotten Tomatoes is only 18%, and only 6 of the 34 film critics who have seen the film in advance and written down the film reviews have given it a positive review.
Among them, the top film critics (Top Critics, Rotten Tomatoes based on seniority, article quality, etc.) all gave bad reviews, and the editor turned it over and found that this was a more poisonous spit conference than anyone else.
For the director who once made the classic crime films "Two Big Smoking Guns" and "Kidnapping and Robbery", everyone still remembers his good, even if he later switched to the "Sherlock Holmes" series, he also got good reviews for various reasons.
Guy Ritchie
But this time he subversively changes the traditional plot – turning King Arthur into a child who grew up as a city prostitute (played as an adult by Pacific Rim actor Charlie Hannham), pulls out the sword in the stone and discovers his true identity, and although he has no intention of becoming king, he has to confront his uncle (Jude Lowe), who killed his father and usurped the throne, but falls thankless.
The Voice of the Village says:
King Arthur is neither Guy Ritchie's worst film nor the best, but it's quite possibly the most frustrating.
To be fair, we probably shouldn't even call it an 'adaptation' of the King Arthurian saga, on the contrary,
This plot is more like one
12
Elementary school students did not complete their reading assignments and made up stories when they were called up by the teacher in class.
Variety shows:
In Guy Ritchie's hyperbourine rock "King Arthur,"
The less you know about the original legend, the better
。
The arrogant British director left almost all existing ideas about King Arthur behind him and made up a whole new story of the sword in the stone that would make Monty Python and the Holy Grail (a 1975 British comedy spoofing King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table) look like a serious academic work of history.
The Python and the Holy Grail
Indiewire commented:
Part like Game of Thrones, part like Kidnapping, almost the whole thing sucks, and Guy Ritchie's King Arthur is the kind of ordinary blockbuster that has nothing to say and doesn't know what to say.
USA Today says:
This sword should not have been pulled out. The idea of adapting the legend is good, but the story that is adapted is scattered. King Arthur offers a little bit of pretense fun, but it's just a very banal taste.
In the film, Arthur is hunted down and killed by his uncle Vodigeng for pulling out his sword in the stone, so he organizes a group of friends to fight back with him, and these people are undoubtedly the future Knights of the Round Table.
Guy Richie also tries to get creative here, and one of his friends is called Kung Fu George, played by Asian actor Tom Wu, who teaches young Arthur martial arts. But this setting is not fully utilized.
Voice of the Village:
Seriously, since you only give the supporting roles so much drama, why do you want to be faithful to the original to create all kinds of characters and give up those fancy names? (Do you think there's a guy in the movie called 'Kung Fu George' who really has Kung Fu?) ）
Indiewire：
Yes, it was clear that Arthur was going to rise up against Voldemort and overthrow his evil kingdom, but to figure out exactly what they were going to do
Good luck.
Yes, we know the result of these two hours of team building is that the heroes' friends become Knights of the Round Table, but to remember their names, or their faces, or anything about them, is to be
Good luck
finish.
Yes, we know what it means when the moat of Vudzeum Castle recedes, revealing the sword in the stone, but to find out what the sword means for these characters, or why the soldier guarding this legendary weapon is
Beckham
And his hairstyle is meticulously groomed, just to be
King Arthur: Battle of the Beasts is the screen debut of David Beckham (the first).
This paragraph is also a common rhetorical device in English - fog.
Now when making movies, how can you say that you are a blockbuster without CG animation? Similarly, Guy Ritchie didn't skimp on throwing money into the special effects.
Entertainment Weekly put it this way:
There are too many fake special effects clips in the movie, giant elephants hunting around and magical eel-shaped creatures. They don't help the plot at all
It doesn't matter; what matters is that Ritchie has enough money to summon the Divine Beast, so why not spend it?
Hannum and his playful teammates
Get lost in the ocean of pixels
It's a shame, because King Arthur could have been a joyous blockbuster, but it became yet another pseudo-blockbuster with fast editing but no soul.
The film's elaborate CG backdrops are packed with thousands of virtual group performances, and in that respect it's epic and quite extravagant.
Warner Bros. made such a flashy and ugly movie
But in the end, "King Arthur" is just a huge set parade, so that the action scenes covered with visual effects flash by quickly one after another, one by one is meaningless, but all to shock the audience.
……
This time, this approach has been very counterproductive, and the film's attempt to use giant elephants, the exaggerated Jude Lowe, and the occasionally naked macho king (Charlie Hannum, good casting, but a bit of a waste) to dazzle the audience, only to confuse us, not marvel.
Jude Lowe plays the villain, and the hairline is still stealing the camera
After reading these reviews, think back to the various elements of the film: subversive historical themes, action, fantasy, adventure classifications, famous directors, long cast lists, flashy special effects, aggressive giant creatures, characters lost in the sea of pixels that cannot be played... How to listen to how familiar.
Do you feel the same way?
Finally, let's conclude with a passage from the Newark Star Chronicle film review:
Hollywood has already provided us with a whole set of heroes in Guardians of the Galaxy, and they will come back this summer. If you're looking for fanciful entertainment, watch these movies for release. If you want to see the great King Arthur, there are more serious and faithful versions of the original than this movie with a worse narrative.