Much better than Guy Ritchie's film - Merlin (1998) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Agreed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I agree too.

I also liked Excalibur.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 6 years ago

I haven't seen Excalibur in forever. Probably been a solid 20 years since I last watched it.

I should give it another look. I know a lot of people hold it up as the best Arthur movie ever made.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Actually I need to rewatch it as well.

I watched it when I was a kid, so it was ages ago. But remember I was fascinated by it, certain scenes stayed with me and also the music.

And few years back, it was on TV but I fell asleep half way through.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18110) 4 years ago

It's one of the best miniseries ever. I wouldn't mind a gritty King Arthur flick;Excalibur is good but I don't think it's the classic everyone else praises it as. What the 2004 movie and Guy Ritchie's movie forgot was the story and interesting characters.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

Ritchie's movie sucked terribly. I wanted to like it but ended up actively disliking it and hating my life until the credits rolled. It was just so bad. As you say, the incoherent script just didn't work, and the tone of the film was dreadful.

The 2004 rendition was certainly better, but the "realistic/historical" approach is lame. Fuck that. I don't watch a King Arthur movie to see a run-of-the-mill medieval story, I want magic and high fantasy.

The '98 miniseries nailed it. It's really very good: well-written, well-cast and -acted, and well-directed. I really like it.

As an aside, since we're talking about late-90s miniseries set in medieval times, if you have any interest in Joan of Arc, I would recommend the '99 Joan of Arc miniseries with Leelee Sobieski.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I think that's because Arthurian Legend doesn't work with full-out "gritty mode". It needs some of the bright and shiny. If Camelot isn't Utopian, then what are they fighting for? If the Holy Grail isn't awe-inspiring, what's desirable about it? The ideal must be upheld, even as it is eroded and fought over.

Arthur needs the perfect blend of history, fantasy, truth, fiction, grit, and sheen to work. That formula is hard to hit. You have to show the depths of darkness so Arthur can pull England together from Chaos, yet you also need that Summer King to shine out in glory.

Merlin, this series, manages that balance. Lately, people just seem to want to make everything gritty and nasty, and to expose the seediness of things.

It all comes down to this: knowing the story, doing it justice, and telling it well. All movies (or TV shows, books, plays - narratives) are only as good as the core story, the characters, and in short, the storytelling. How it's told needs to match the property, and you can't make Arthur "gritty" without losing sight of what makes it Arthur.

I had a similar conversation about Superman recently...

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

That is an excellent post.

I agree with everything you said. I'll also say that I feel like Arthur should ultimately be a fun story. There's magic and romance and knights and heroic feats. This should not be a depressing slog. It should be the kind of tale that makes you want to step into the screen or onto the page and live in its fantasy world.

I totally understand what you mean when you say that "lately, people just seem to want to make everything gritty and nasty, and to expose the seediness of things." I often miss the films of the 80s and 90s because they didn't embrace the cynicism of the modern era. Writers then weren't afraid to write happy endings or to create heroes who strove to be virtuous for virtue's sake. Today apparently every writer thinks their movie or show has to be gritty and sexed up to be appealing to today's audiences. I'm glad Steven Spielberg didn't feel that way when he was making E.T. and Indy and Catch Me If You Can.

BTW, since we're talking late-90s miniseries, if you never saw the '99 Joan of Arc miniseries with Leelee Sobieski I would recommend it. It does not seem to be readily available but if you can track it down, you may like it.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Yes, it should inspire. There is a "he shall return from Avalon one day and rule with grace and wisdom," thing to the end of the myth, too. So, at its darkest is the part of the Arthurian legends where Guenivere and Lancelot flee Arthur's wrath and he (Arthur) rifts the kingdom to reclaim his bride and revenge himself on his best friend, and lays siege to Lancelot's castle. They get interrupted by Mordred, Arthur's incestuous bastard (so...there is quite a bit of uncomfortable "grittiness", too, naturally...) and in a climactic battle, Arthur is mortally wounded, Mordred is defeated and killed, Arthur is taken to Avalon, Excalibur returns to the Lady of the Lake, and Lancelot and Guenivere separate themselves and go monk/nun. But... some day Arthur will return. It has to get super dark, sure, but then there must be hope. And that darkness has to come *after* Camelot, the ideal kingdom, because otherwise the tragedy of what follows isn't tragedy it's just, "Oh, look, it's still gloomy and violent..." Then it's...I dunno...Game of Thrones? (I haven't seen it). We need the knights in shining armour just as much as we need the tumult and horror of it. Otherwise what are they fighting against? What are they striving for?

Arthur is about seeking the ideal. Unite England (from chaos), build Camelot, find the Grail, sail to Avalon, return the Summer King again. That's what it's about.

Gritty has its place. Blade Runner needs that diseased look. But some stuff needs optimism. You rightly point to ET and other Spielberg films. In fact, even while making a thriller like Jurassic Park, Spielberg remembered that it's also about the majestic awe of these resurrected creatures. Hayao Miyazaki makes worlds torn by war, filled with blood and tears, like in Princess Mononoke, or worlds of horrible, evil witches, and all-consuming spirits of greed and hunger (Spirited Away), but then he thrills us with the exhilaration of flight, or gives us the pure heart of a hero who strives for peace and love. Corny? Maybe. But it suits the fairy tales he's working with.

I have seen that miniseries! Almost forgot about it! I thank you for the reminder. Sobieski was great in that! Love that one!

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

Indeed. I would say that you have a keen mind for storytelling, thoughtful and insightful. Yes, we should see a period of happy normality, and then see disruption of the regular order, and finally a restoration of this order or at least a hope for it. Our heroes can be flawed--in fact they should be--but on the balance they should be good and inspiring, and demonstrate the strength to battle against antagonists both externally and internally.

You've never seen Game of Thrones? It's a great show, at least until the final season. Even knowing that it ends poorly, it's still worth the ride. I'd say give it a look.

I agree that some films need grittiness. It does depend on the story. As you say, a light and cheery Blade Runner doesn't work. Or imagine trying to execute the Terminator script under the restrictions of a PG rating. That doesn't work either. But many stories don't need that, and in fact they're harmed if you try to impose that tone on them. I think we've seen a lot of stories ruined this way. The most recent examples, for me, are the BBC's adaptations of some of Agatha Christie's novels. I'm not sure if you've read any Agatha Christie, but the tone is light, there's not a lot of sexual content, and the violence is kept to a minimum (despite being stories about murder). The BBC, however, decided they needed to change all this and make them dour, sexy, violent tales and the results just suck.

Glad to hear you saw the Joan or Arc series! I have it on DVD. And I'm glad that I do, because I looked and it's not available to stream anywhere, and the DVD is now $35 on Amazon. It is probably the best Joan of Arc production we have to date--it's far, far better than that shitty Luc Besson version from '99--and, as you say, Leelee was great in it.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Thank you for saying so. I'm fascinated by plot structure, ever since somebody told me about Lucas' Star Wars and its relationship with The Hero with a Thousand Faces. "What? Stories have structure?" I was intrigued. So, since that time long ago (far, far away...) I've been interested in that mathematical, almost geometric, building-block level of story.

Yeah, when GoT first came out, I didn't hear about it right away. By the time I had heard about it there were two or three seasons, plus the books, and it looked like a HUGE time investment, so I haven't yet taken the plunge. I plan to read the books and watch the show at some point.

I just chuckled imagining a light, cheery Blade Runner. Terminator would suck PG. They don't figure this out, either, 'cause they keep doing stuff like making PG-13 Die Hard. It's not that you can't have a PG movie about time travel and killer robots, but then it probably won't be Terminator. Cracked.com once criticized Michael Bay's Transformers robot designs (altered to "look cooler on the big screen") saying, basically, if you make a movie without the Transformers, you didn't really want to make a Transformers movie.

Have I read Christie? Indeed! A great author of fine entertainments, and an under-appreciated playwright, almost especially amongst theatre people. Ever talk to theatre people about her plays? They're weirdly dismissive, like plays aren't valuable when they're fun. But Christie has great depth to her in addition to her charm and fun!

Those BBC adaptations sound dreadful. It might be possible to make Christie slightly darker or something, but sooner or later it wouldn't work. BBC's upcoming Discworld The Watch adaptation also looks like they took one look at the source material and decided to fire all shots in the complete opposite direction.

It's a great miniseries! Maybe I should order the DVDs before they hit $100 or more...

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

Interesting. I've gone through a bit of screenwriting instruction myself. I am far from an expert on the subject, but I've learned a few things. I hope to write a feature screenplay eventually.

Speaking of the story structure in Star Wars, have you ever heard of Ring Theory? There's a segment about it in the documentary The Prequels Strike Back. If you're not familiar with that doc, I would recommend it. Here's a trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyv85zitYg

More on Ring Theory here:

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/

It really is strange, and I think also unfortunate, that so often when a studio gains the rights to a property, they quickly set to work making something that betrays the spirit of that property. I'm not the sort that feels like there can't ever be changes--it's called an adaptation for a reason--but the final result should be faithful to the original despite the changes.

Regarding Christie, I've read a handful of her novels, have seen a few different film adaptations, and have watched several episodes of the Poirot TV series. Hers are cozy mysteries. They're supposed to be light and cheerful, despite the element of murder and occasionally touching on important social themes. For the most part, filmmakers have realized this in adapting her work. But not the BBC in their recent endeavors. A few of these adaptations are currently on Prime, if you're a subscriber and want to check them out. I think the most recent ones were The ABC Murders, Ordeal by Innocence and The Pale Horse.

I have never read any of Agatha's plays, though interestingly, right after I read your comment, I ran across a book that was a novelization of one of her plays. Apparently she wrote the play and then later, presumably after her death, a writer was hired to novelize it. That's unfortunate that her plays don't get a lot of respect. I believe there is one--The Mousetrap--that's been running continuously in London for years and years.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the subject either; I've read about it a lot and studied it quite a bit, but I don't want to pretend I'm some kind of authority.

I have heard of Ring Theory, and I have seen/read the stuff that talks about it in context of Star Wars, and I found it to be self-contradictory. It sets up mirror moments that should balance each other on the "ring" story line, but it doesn't match. It will, for instance, compare the beginning of Return of the Jedi with the beginning of The Phantom Menace, but if it were really a "ring", then the ending of ROTJ should be melding with the beginning of TPM. It also shows how there are moments of TPM that echo beats in A New Hope. So which is the ring bending in on? ROTJ or ANH?

It seems to me that the prequels share aspects of the OT, but more of a "cycle" or spiral than a ring, if they must connect in some geometric way. The cycle starts over. It also starts over in Episode VII.

But that's just original hero's journey stuff, because we're looking at "first steps" in the first episodes of each journey.

If story structure must be a circle, I'm far more interested in Dan Harmon's story circle.

I've read fewer of Christie's novels, but I have read a bunch of her plays and seen a few. The Mousetrap is, I think, one of the longest running plays of all-time, yes. Don't mistake me: *audiences* love Christie, but artists often get snotty about work that isn't "important". My favourite play she's done is An Appointment with Death, which started as a Poirot mystery. You've probably read it or seen a film of the novel. My first reading was the play; I think that version has the advantage. She took out Poirot. Which on paper doesn't work (where's the main character got to!?) but has the effect of creating an ensemble feel. Plus the analogy of a villainous character to fascism is quite philosophically satisfying and gives the play a good message without getting preachy. Highly recommended.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

It seems like you know more about Ring Theory than I do. I have only read about it in passing and haven't given it nearly the same level of thought that you have. It's more something that I have been meaning to read more on when I get the chance.

I believe I saw the Poirot episode on Appointment With Death. It seems very weird that she would take Poirot out of the Poirot story. I hope one day I'm able to see a Christie story play out on stage.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

It's an interesting theory. Definitely do read about it, because the idea of a plot structure in that vein is cool, I just don't think it was used (or applies by accident) to the prequels. Frankly, I think it was invented by somebody who was trying to justify their love of the prequels in the face of a tremendous amount of criticism (particularly Red Letter Media). I've had a few conversations with people over the years about the Ring Theory.

The play is excellent. I picked up a copy in a treasury of Christie's stage play; that's where I know it from. Yeah, removing the protagonist shouldn't work, but Christie made it work just fine, and it really is a fine ensemble piece as a result. Some characters get more emphasis, but all those parts are so good...

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

Just came across this discussion. It's both wonderful & insightful. :)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Thanks!

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

You know, in recent years I've come to appreciate the 1954 Knights of the Round Table. Despite some flaws & miscasting, I think it works as the film equivalent of one of those lavishly illustrated children's books from the early 20th Century, playing down the darker elements but still conveying the tragedy of Camelot's end. And if it's a more genteel & Christian version of Arthur than one with one foot in the pagan world & one foot in the Christian world, I like that it takes its religion seriously as a natural part of the story. The little heartfelt gestures of devotion on the part of the knights, especially Lancelot, add a great deal to the tone of the film. Its old-fashioned aspects are actually a plus to my mind.

I do think Excalibur really catches the mythic/legendary aspect of Arthur, and may well be the finest film version. And Merlin is indeed an underrated retelling of the story. But there's room for something like Knights of the Round Table as well.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I'll have to check out Knights of the Round Table. I've always been a big fan of Arthur and I don't mind when films or books or other stories tell their tales in a light, fun, or chivalrous way.

There's a lot of mythology that has happy adventure the whole way, yet still comes 'round to tragedy in the end. Jason of the Argonauts, for instance, or Siegfried. I mean, you and I went off like mad about Lord of the Rings on this - that deceptive story that appears to be nothing more than a children's fable of good vs. evil, but in fact has all these bittersweet truths and tragic parts strewn about.

Maybe it's Mary Poppins? A spoonful of sugar, and all that sort of thing? We remember these lighthearted tales fondly, but we can get more out of them for the tragic endings.

There is an echo of life here, too, where it can be flowers and sunlight for a long, long time (can be, anyway, if one is lucky), but it's still going to end in a certain, sad way. That's not bad, but it must be understood, and stories like Arthur give us that taste.

I remember as a child hearing those stories and loving them to death. The Romance and high adventure was thrilling. But I was uncomfortable with the nastier stuff. The weird relationship with Morgan LeFay that produces this bastard son who winds up annihilating the dream of Camelot, and the wedge that Lancelot and Guenivere drive in to the whole thing.

Incidentally, in that love triangle I have always favoured Arthur and I always struggle to understand the love of Lancelot amongst other fans of the romance; still, a love triangle must always have three very strong points. The musical Camelot does this quite well, I think, showing Guenivere being torn between two people, loving Arthur for his soul and his mind, but Lancelot for his glamour, heroism, and chivalry.

I think for any version to truly come out on top, they would have to master all aspects of the tale. Adventure, Romance, tragedy, myth, legend, and truth/history. Those things might be self-contradictory. Pulling it off would require a careful and judicious hand. But, perhaps, it might be done.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

"Chivalrous" is the precise & exact word for Knights of the Round Table. :)

And I agree with you that these mythic tales & legends are loved because they do indeed incorporate the entire cycle of life, both joyful & tragic. They say that it's not the worst thing in the world to fight & perhaps die for a good cause, and that a well-lived life & a reasonably good death are ample rewards in themselves for having been born into this world. Also that there is a transcendent dimension to life, and that we can glimpse it at times, participate in it ... which is something that such tales & legends enable us to do, even in this desacralized world. Perhaps even more so because of that.

I enjoy cynical noir films & even relentlessly dark stories at times as well. But emphasizing those to the degree that the joyful & heroic are crowded out, dismissed as childish nonsense, is going too far in one direction, and is just as out of balance as a worldview that sees only happy little clouds in an endlessly blue sky. Both are ever-present in life. The mythic & the legendary is about cherishing & striving to preserve the joyful while never forgetting the tragic.

One of my favorite moments in Excalibur is a very quiet one: when Arthur sees Guinevere for the last time, and she speaks of having loved him as a king, and sometimes as a man, but one cannot gaze too long at the sun. And Arthur then replying that in the hereafter of life, he hopes to come to her simply as a man, and that she will know him to be her husband. Lovely, human, and heartbreaking.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Everything you say is truthful and well-put. We need the dark and the light. Life is chiaroscuro?

That's a great moment; I should re-watch Excalibur.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

You know, I may be going a little far afield here, but this discussion puts me in mind of another film often dismissed as sweet sentimental fluff: the original Miracle on 34th Street. Sweetly sentimental fluff? Yet nearly everyone in the film wants something from Kris Kringle, even those who genuinely like him. That's definitely a realistic, even cynical look at life. Those who gravitate to Kris are marginalized in one way or another, their fragile & precious dreams in danger of being crushed by the realistic world. The "lovely intangible" that Doris says aren't worth very much in this world, because they don't help you get get ahead.

And of course that's the question ultimately asked by the movie, whether imagination, fantasy, ideals, have any place or use today. Fred's response: "That depends on what you call getting ahead. Look, Doris, someday you're going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn't work. And when you do, don't overlook those lovely intangibles. You'll discover those are the only things that are worthwhile."

Not unlike Puddleglum's defiance of the witch in The Silver Chair, when she tries to convince him & the children that the World Above is an illusion. He responds that even if there isn't really a Narnia, he'll continue to live as if there is, because it's still a better way of living than what the witch is offering as reality.

This is what the mythic really is, isn't it? Not a scientific or physical reality, but a moral & spiritual reality; not an actual place so much as a state of mind & perspective; not facts & metrics, but immediate & rapturous personal experience. Hence the words of the Native American Black Elk, saying that one must stand upon a peak at the center of the world to commune with the Spirit ... and adding, but wherever you are standing is the center of the world.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Puddleglum's rebuttal to the Green Lady is one of the finest moments in Narnia, maybe even Lewis' fine writing.

Myths are one of the ways we give ourselves goals and ideals. We aspire to myths, we learn life from myths. We need stories to catch us up. We arrive so late to the game (how many years of human civilization? how many years before that!?) and we need to know so much. Stories do that. "Don't talk to strangers", here's a story about Little Red Riding Hood (the original where it's a real warning). You need to know how to live life? Here's Superman. You need to know that life is composed of aspiration and tragedy? Arthur.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

I agree with Carl Jung on this: myth is innate to our nature & to our essence as human beings. They express & embody psychological, emotional, spiritual truths about our experience of life & of the Universe, from the quietly intimate to the vast & the majestic.

He also said that a culture that loses sight of & connection with the symbolic universe of mythos is adrift & lost, and will struggle to fill that emptiness with any number of lesser things that ultimately can't satisfy its need for the deeply grounded & felt meaning that only comes from the experience of living myth. And I think this is true. It's definitely why mythic works of art easily outlast the cultures & religions that originally created them. I may not believe in the Greek or Norse gods, but those stories still speak to something eternally true about being human. King Arthur doesn't have to have been historically real to embody very real meaning & purpose at this very moment. There are no actual supernatural demons, but we still wrestle with them.

Bill Moyers asked Joseph Campbell about being heroic in today's world, and Campbell offered the example of a man who said, "Every day that I go down into that subway & go to work, I die a little. But I know that I am doing it for my family." Campbell didn't hesitate to call that heroic. We may not face anything as fantastic as dragons, but we must make difficult, even sacrificial choices every day as well. We might not be tempted by the One Ring, but we may have to do the right thing even if it makes life more difficult for us. Myths give us guidance & models, as well as reminding us that our "ordinary" lives can be rich & meaningful.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

That Jung fellah might be onto something...

Absolutely, this is true. I think we're at a place right now where we're losing sight of our myths and we're thrashing around looking for a place to connect, spiritually, and we can't find it on social media, and we can't find it in superhero movies, and these places are replacements or annihilations of myth.

I also see these cultural touchstones as a battleground for some people. I think this is why some people are fighting about whether or not there can be a female James Bond. Bond is a male/masculine icon, and to keep the icon male, to alter it to female, to make a statement one way or another is to control the stories that are being told about fundamental essences of humanity.

"There are no actual supernatural demons, but we still wrestle with them." What are great phrase... I'm a religious person myself, but I still like that.

I should read Campbell.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

I don't currently practice a specific religion, but I come from a Catholic background that was a positive experience for me, and I do still experience a very strong sense of the Sacred, define it as you will. Not in a vague New Age "I'll just select what makes me feel good" sort of way, but rather in engaging with the Psyche & the Transcendent as best I can. Thomas Merton is still an important mentor & guide for me, and I would never belittle or dismiss anyone's deeply lived faith.

Campbell once said that during his many years teaching religion & myth, none of his religious students lost their faith, but rather understood, appreciated & embraced it all the more because of their studies. :)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

As Ali G would say, "Respec'."

Yeah, I think it's good to approach religion from different angles. As stories and as folklore is one of those angles. Analyzing truth from a fictional perspective doesn't make it less true. We find stories in history all the time, that doesn't make them "just" stories, it just means we see patterns in it. C.S. Lewis said that Christianity was a myth, it just happened to be a true myth (his estimation, anyways), and I think that's a healthy approach to the study of whatever religion one happens to be (or not be) a part of.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

Oh, and if you have the money to spare, then I actually WOULD recommend spending the money on the Joan of Arc DVD. I think it's worth it, and it's looking like it's just going to get harder and harder to find, and the streaming services don't seem interested in it.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Yeah.

That's what worries me about streaming, is that we might wind up losing a lot of great stuff because they'll just wipe it out if it hurts the subscription. I suppose physical media has that problem, too...

I guess I can only hope that, sooner or later, everything is just available to stream.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

I know that not everything that was on VHS made the jump to DVD and a lot that is available on DVD is not on Blu-Ray. Likewise, some things just cannot be found available on streaming either. The best thing to do, especially for more rare titles, is to pick them up on the latest physical format and then, as a backup, rip them so that you also have a digital file.

By the way, it looks like there's actually a second listing for Joan of Arc on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Joan-Arc-Leelee-Sobieski/dp/B01AKYIPLG

That's certainly not the packaging that I have so apparently it was re-issued at some point with sleek new cover art. I would snatch that up.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Thanks for the link!

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (21593) 4 years ago

Guess I can't make a comparison. I had to look up Guy Ritchie to see what film you were talking about. I've never heard of it before.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

It might be worth watching just to see how fucking awful it is.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 4 years ago

I remember going to see it in the theaters and I never really watched anything Author related so I can't say if that was a good thing or a bad thing. I think it just came out in the time of LotR and Pirates of the Caribbean and I liked the fantasy genre and I went to see/support Kiera Knightly in it. To this day I couldn't tell you what the plot was about. it was an ugly movie and was just a waste of money, sadly.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

Oh, you're talking about the 2004 film directed by Antoine Fuqua. I don't love it, but it's OK.

However, we're talking about the Guy Ritchie film from a few years ago. This one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIM4-HLtUM0

It sucks.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 4 years ago

ah, ok. my apologies. I thought this was all apart of the same topic above. I read "What the 2004 movie and Guy Ritchie's movie forgot was the story and interesting characters." and read it as the same movie. I had no idea who directed the one I saw :)

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

Give the Guy Ritchie movie a look one day just to witness the shit show. That is, if you're into that kind of thing.

reply