Amph Guy Ritchie's King Arthur

The trailer is out:

My initial impression is that there is more Guy Ritchie here than King Arthur. Apparently the film pitch was Lord of the Rings meets Snatch.

I have my doubts that this will be a success, and from this trailer the chances of it ousting Boorman's Excalibur as the definitive Arthurian film are nil, imo. Making Arthur a city rat I find just too jarring with any version of the story I know.

 

I liked his take on Sherlock Holmes. This sort of looks like what would happen if Arthur were dropped into Westeros. It looks like could be really good.

 

Sorry, my definitive King Arthur is...

 

Is there going to be any British people who speak so unintelligibly they'll need their dialogue to be subtitled?

 

I am always up for a King Arthur story,looks like it'd be a fun watch.

 

Looks fun to me.

 

Meh, unimpressed

 

I think of Boorman's Excalibur as a flawed masterpiece of sorts, but I've been waiting for someone to come along and do this myth justice for years now. Looks like I'm still going to be waiting .

 

it's a masterpiece of cheese, but really, really good cheese. A fine, aged stinky cheese.

 

Excalibur is the greatest film of 1981. Yes, even better than Raiders.

And when will Guy Ritchie stop making the same ****ing film every single time? LSaTSB was his only masterpiece.

 

Which is funny because I think I saw Littlefinger in there at some point among the various times Jax Teller was doing.... something....

 

Roose Bolton near the start, too.

 

Damn, you're right.

 

I don't need it to be whatever Excalibur is supposed to be, I just need a well done film that's entertaining as a different take.

 

Looks fun and entertaining. I'll be looking forward to it.

 

Did anyone else enjoy the Sherlock Holmes sequel, Game of Shadows? Ritchie ditched Rachel McAdams, replaced a dull villain with a fantastic Moriarty, added a memorable henchman, and by gum, it mostly succeeded.

 

I loved both Ritchie/Holmes movies. Not sure what they could do for a third despite all the material.

 

By the way, why is Excalibur so praised? My memory of it was of a cocktail consisting of 1/3 brilliance (the Morgan/Mordred material) with 2/3 mediocrity.

The three-hour Merlin 90s miniseries is still the most effective Arthurian adaptation I've seen.

 

I guess each of us is entitled to their memories.

 

One lil detail in Excalibur I loved; a knight in full armor was the ultimate weapon. You are not going to cut through that with a sword. Excalibur does of course. So the best way to beat someone in armor was to bash them. Hence, Lancelot shows up and uses a mace and beats the hell out of everyone.

 

Speaking of deeply flawed yet powerfully moving adaptations of the Arthurian legend, where's the love for Camelot?