King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword

Ein düsteres Fantasy-Märchen von einem talentierten Regie-Verrückten, welches sich von allen Ketten losgerissen hat. Es ist nicht einfach, auf seine Spielregeln einzugehen, aber wenn es Ihnen gelingt, wartet auf Sie ein delikat anarchistisches Erlebnis. Laut, wütend, mit Testosteron. Ich habe mich erst in der zweiten Hälfte voll akklimatisiert. Das Finale konnte ich dann aber perfekt genießen. Deshalb möchte ich mir den Film noch einmal ansehen – vorbereitet und mit einer richtiger "Einstellung“. Positive Aspekte: Charlie Hunnam ist gut, aber der König ist hier Jude Law! Ritchies Mut und Grobheit, die Erfüllung seines Kindertraums auf seine Art und Weise (und falls es Ihnen nicht gefällt – Pech gehabt). Ein brutal effektvoller Soundtrack – die größte Actionszene der Verfolgung durch die Stadt erinnert (auch im Kontext der Handlung) an "Mombasa" aus Inception. Und paradoxerweise alle langsamen, zügig und cool aufgenommenen Szenen. Negative Aspekte: Oft wird die Geschichte zu schnell erzählt, obwohl sie ein Drama mit einer fast Shakespeare-Dimension sein sollte. Das gibt dann dem Publikum nicht die Möglichkeit, in sie ganz einzutauchen. Es bleibt mehr eine Clip-Attraktion. Manche Szenen, welche die Geschichte stark beeinflussen konnten, wurden sehr abgekürzt. Ein schwächeres CGI, für WETA oder ILM stand bei diesem schon so riskanten Produzent-Vorhaben kein Budget mehr zur Verfügung. (11.05.2017)

I emphatically recommend that this film not be seen by people suffering from ophidiophobia (because there are a lot of snakes in it, including an incredibly big one) or by video-game designer Dan Vávra (because he might not be able to handle such a politically correct version of medieval England with black and Chinese people and strong female characters). Other gamers, however, might be satisfied with the film, as the hyperkinetic (in other words, terribly chaotic) and almost entirely CGI action scenes, especially the last one, look like an in-game video cut out of an action movie. King Arthur is generally reminiscent of a number of pop-culture products: a music video for an English folk song, a kung-fu movie, a bad 1980s fantasy flick, a good fantasy flick from the aughts, a Monty Python sketch (“This is a table. You sit at it.”), and so on. Due to the many sources of inspiration, the unfocused narrative (even when that lack of focus is not justified by the narrating character’s poor memory), and the constant flitting between ridiculing Arthurian legends and their ultracool, self-absorbed and humourless modernisation for today’s nerds, the film is a terrible, eclectic mess. It doesn’t help much that Guy Ritchie attempted to give it some sort of order by approaching the film as another one of his London gangster flicks. Though the story is not set in the present, but in an alternate Middle Ages with wizards, giant rats and a sword that performs as a weapon of mass destruction, it is otherwise a tediously manneristic variation on something that’s been seen before. We have here a group of nobodies speaking cockney English who act first and think later, whose plan to outwit their opponents goes fatally wrong, a fidgety narrative with a timeline that’s all over the map, a psychopathic villain who does very nasty things to his victims (which, however, will please fans of Reservoir Dogs), and a chase scene filmed partly with GoPro cameras. Ritchie was able to use all of these things more effectively in his previous films, which also managed to get by with a pathos-ridden origin story based on the protagonist frequently having nightmares and fainting. Whereas Tarantino is maturing, Ritchie refuses to grow up, making the same movie again and again, and despite occasional flashes of refreshing creative invention, it mostly feels rather forced in this case. 50% (12.05.2017)

My Lord in heaven! A dark fantasy in a ball-busting visual barrage, where everything is so horribly over the top that I fully understand the viewers who sent it down the drain. This film takes all sorts of genre motifs and glues them onto a gritty story with the amount of gusto the director last had seventeen years ago. I was still a little hesitant at the intro with the gigantic elephants, but then in a brilliant cut Arthur grows up and I knew it was home run. This was because we got Ritchie's beloved staircase run with Pemberton's punchy underscore, and it doesn't lag during the special effects orgy when everyone knew they could break free from their chains, including the actors. Jude Law plays the villain in the same style as in The Young Pope, and it's an absolutely decadent blockbuster. And Charlie Hunnam? Even in Pacific Rim, I thought he had suspicious charisma for a sweet 20-something girl idol, and here he's taking advantage of it in the best possible way. I was pretty hesitant about going to the movie theater because the trailer campaign was very bland, but seeing that with a budget of 175 million, it has grossed (2 months after the premiere) about 145 million worldwide, it's clear to me that someone at Warner had cardinally screwed up. The best fantasy since The Lord of the Rings. (22.07.2017)

I have to give it to Guy Ritchie – his movies have style. Whatever he films ends up fantastic. But I can’t shake the feeling that some of the scenes tend to go over the top. The beginning was amazing. The very first scene was gripping, it tells Arthur’s story since early childhood until the age where the rest of the story begins. It’s original, quick, entertaining… for about an hour. Then the ideas thin out and the whole thing gets repetitive. That’s when it loses its magic and becomes a classic Guy Ritchie movie. I can’t say he’s not being inventive, but my initial excitement has quickly grown cold. And even though I admire the effort to shoot a King Arthur fantasy from a different angle, I still couldn’t piece the story together and all I could do was to watch some CGI hocus pocus. (02.08.2018)

A properly physical experience with all of Guy Ritchie's trademarks. Wild conversations at an uncatchable cadence, London ever-present, even our buddy David Beckham doesn't go missing. However, until the very end, I couldn't decide whether such likable wildernesses are somewhat harmed by the fact that they are crammed into a classic story that occasionally meets traditional elements very carelessly, occasionally boldly and imaginatively, but sometimes just inevitably classically. This is most prominently evident in the direct comparison between Arthur, who runs his mouth in Charlie Hunnam's confident performance, never far from a wisecrack and grumbling about his fate rather frequently, and Vortigern, an archetypal fantasy villain with a desire for power. However, I am very happy with King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, because it handles my favorite material in its own way and with knightly honor reaches an ending from which an excellent saga could continue in some alternative universe. We are left with at least an honest and courageous flash. (30.07.2017)

Ritchie’s Arthur isn’t flawless, but it certainly doesn’t lack confidence. The genre mix of British gangster movie with fantasy adventure works, dripping with originality. The storytelling is like drunken bragging at the pub, about what if and isn’t always linear. Time slips by as required. Hunnam is good, plays his part, but Jude Law in true papal style rules with an iron fist in this movie. Not everybody will be keen on this modern approach, but this is the way ahead, and it must be trampled down a little more. Magic at work. Convincing effects. Pemberton’s music is just fantastic, a great soundtrack. (11.05.2017)

The new King Arthur may have some charisma and flair, but he has absolutely no style or refinement. You'll want to talk about this story with your mates in some seedy "pub" on the outskirts of London, that's about as much character as this film gets. A muddle of rock hits, confusing editing, dull PG13 CGI action scenes and a boring 130 minutes. Ritchie may be his own man again, with a distinctive and very bold style, but this legend doesn't need to be made any other way. (12.05.2017)

Ein großer Fantasy-Knaller, der von der Arthur-Legende zwar ausgeht, aber gleichzeitig mit ihr treibt, wozu er gerade Lust hat. Im Film erscheinen Monster und Arthur wird als Gangster aus London (eigentlich Londinium) dargestellt. Dank Ritchies Regie und Pembertons ausgezeichneter Musik ist der Film sehr inhaltsreich und hat Stil; dank den Schauspieler*innen ist er verdammt sympathisch… Und vor allem auch ziemlich witzig, was in den Trailern leider verschwiegen wird. Sagen Sie nicht, dass Sie von Guy Ritchie einen gewöhnlichen Film erwartet haben. (15.05.2017)

Go have fun, here's 175 million! And Guy Ritchie indeed had his fun. An audiovisual hedonist's paradise. Thirty-five years ago, Boorman was shitting out fabulous processed meals of Orff, double-bladed axes, and a mighty fistful of armor. Now it’s Ritchie shitting them out in his concept of post-modern fantasy (the costumes alone, or the way they talk), helped along by killer editing, unscrupulous and megalomaniacal CGI, complete resignation to the formal standards of the "great glorious epic", and presenting a coked-up ride where anything goes and, except for rare moments, there’s never any time to think about why what's happening is actually happening. It cleverly intersperses prologues to the individual scenes with scenes like ("Let’s take him to the Dark Land." "No way!" – "Welcome to the Dark Land."), for example, so we're not rocking the usual boat of relax-relax-relax-action, but constantly riding the Shikansen to the God of War finish. The soundtrack, the greatest ride since Mad Max, accompanies this perfectly, at times seizing the reins of the entire experience, and there won’t be a shortage of joggers breaking their necks when they pop it into their headphones. Add to that, here we have Arthur running around in sped-up shots from which the frames are cut, characters wearing an Aronofsky-esque first-person steadycam on their bodies, slowing down, stopping, the camera whirls around like its life depended on it, pans, macros, micros, Malá Fatra, Veľká Fatra, you name it. Too bad it doesn't earn its keep, because this is not a film you'll do much relaxing with. PS: Please nominate the protagonist's coming of age montage for the Nobel Prize for editing. (16.05.2017)

Ähnlich wie der Film mit Clive Owen hatte auch dieser König Artus mit der bekannten und von mir sehr geliebten Legende nur sehr wenig gemein - den Namen, Excalibur, Parsival, die Andeutung des runden Tisches... Für mich sind alle oder fast alle Filme von Guy Ritchie mit drei Sternen zu bewerten, und es wird auch in diesem Fall nicht anders sein. Sein Stil liegt mir nicht besonders, manchmal blitzt eine effektvolle Einstellung durch, eine kreative Idee oder ein witziger Spruch, aber das ist auch alles. Der Hauptmangel besteht immer in dem chaotischen, verwirrten und absolut nicht durchgezogenen Drehbuch. Bei Artus gilt das doppelt, insbesondere die zweite Hälfte hat mich schon gelangweilt, und ich wünschte mir, es solle vor allem schnell vorbei sein. Es hat viel gefehlt, in der Artus-Legende kann man von Merlin nicht nur reden, sondern er muss stark in die Handlung einbezogen werden, hier fehlt die Femme fatale Morgan le Fay oder Morgaus - Ritchie hätte sich an der Serie inspirieren und Eva Green ansprechen können, diese hätte der Handlung das gewisse Etwas verliehen, in aller Achtung vor Astrid, aber es reicht nicht aus, die einzige weibliche Figur im Film zu sein. Und dass Lancelot fehlt und statt der übrigen bekannten Ritter oder Gestalten bekannte Fußballer zu sehen sind, ist ein dummes Mischmasch, das nicht funktioniert. Wenn sich doch dieses reichen Stoffes irgendein Topregisseur angenommen hätte, der keine Neuheiten ausgedacht und sich lieber nach der Hauptlegende gerichtet hätte, in die er ab und an seine Idee oder Invention gelegt und vor allem den Film mit geeigneten Schauspielern besetzt hätte, Artus, Merlin, Guinevera, Lancelot, Morgan le Fay, Morgaus und Parsival müssten beim Zuschauer das Herz oder ein anderes Organ berühren und ihm nicht gleichgültig sein oder überhaupt nicht auftreten. (09.09.2017)

I try to avoid movies that have the words Arthur or Excalibur in the title because they traditionally disappoint me. I made an exception this time and I can’t say I’m happy about it. The film stopped being interesting to me before the opening credits when I found out that England was riddled with giant elephants and the defense of Camelot was led by an actual dark knight instead of a king. Although I watched it to the end, I couldn't get over the disgust I felt at the beginning. (31.08.2017)

The plot has a great drive in places, but I was still bothered at times by the way Guy Ritchie shot the scenes. Not only will the viewer get a little lost, but the effect isn't that great. Suddenly I had the feeling that it was really overly embellished, nothing much more. But then came the special effects scenes or some action sequences, and I was amazed. (20.08.2017)

An over-the-top action fantasy in incredibly professional blockbuster clothing. Guy Ritchie sets new rules for what epic fantasy should look like according to the latest trends. Some passages (especially in the first half) are the pure essence of inventive storytelling techniques in orgiastic audiovisual execution. It is regrettable that the originally planned trilogy was eventually abandoned due to a weak box office. On the other hand, this is undoubtedly Ritchie's most progressive and polished directorial effort to date. (04.11.2018)

King Arthur is the most stylish and fun action fantasy movie busting all the myths with such passion that will make the lovers of classic medieval movies feel faint. Those who seek originality among conventional Hollywood movies will rejoice. This fantasy movie full of great lines has everything you expect from a summer movie and more, including David Beckham’s cameo. Plus, it's accompanied by an absolutely perfect soundtrack that will stay stuck in your head long after the ending. This is the most awesome movie you’ll probably see in the theatres this year. (23.07.2017)