Sunday, July 30, 2017

Apparently, I know nothing about movies, Jon Snow

King Arthur. The Legend of the Sword.  Saw the trailers for this months ago and couldn't wait to see it.  A different take on the old King Arthur legend, we were told.  Fine.  I like some 'different' interpretations of old stories.

When it came out I hurried off and sat in the theater and watched ever second of it.  Loved it.  I mean . . . I really loved it. 

It had snappy dialogue.  Smart dialogue.  It had a riveting cast.  I thought Jude Law's performance as Vortigen, was absolutely marvelous.  Especially those scenes where he tortured himself killing those he loved, his wife and daughter, in order to acquire supernatural power in finding and destroying Arthur.  I mean, baby, to me, that was some set of chops when it came to acting!

And Charles Hunnam as the grown King Arthur.  He made Arthur human.  One smart, tough cookie.  A guy raised in the back streets of a mythological London who grew up to be a natural born leader.

And when he had to be mean, baby . . . he was extremely capable of knocking the teeth out of anyone.  Loved his interpretation of the King Arthur character.

So the movie had an excellent cast. It had excellent writers.  It had, I thought, a visionary directory who wanted to paint . . . and did in my opinion . . . a different look for the Arthur legend. It had academy-award winning cinematographers and academy-ward winning set designers.  It seemed to have all the tools and components for a stunning box-office success.

It flopped big time at the box-office.

Apparently it cost something like $175,000,000 to make the movie.  It earned, at the box-office, only $140,000,000,

And my question is;  How was this possible?

Critics have come forward and said the editing of the movie was terrible.  Somewhere in the middle of the film it broke down.  Where . . . I don't know.  I thought it flowed wonderfully.  Others have said the director's image of Arthur was all wrong.  It was against the traditional cannon of all the previous Arthur movies.  In other words, it didn't fit the accepted mold, or type-casting, an Arthur movie should be in.

I thought the idea for this movie was to do something different? Apparently not.

Okay, okay . . . I get it.  The critics said the movie was terrible.  And we peons should accept their more experienced, more considered, decrees as gospel.


I thought it was a very good movie.  So good I'm going out to by the DVD and watch it again.  If you didn't like it, that's fine with me.  I loved it.  And in the end, that's all that counts.

Cheers, baby!  We're human.  We're not supposed to be clones nodding in rhythm to the same drummer.  Some of us actually like bass guitars instead.

No comments:

Post a Comment