MovieChat Forums > King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) Discussion > A great Arthurian film since Boorman's E...

A great Arthurian film since Boorman's Excalibur!!!!!

posted 8 years ago by vicky_lc2001 (1907)
15 replies | jump to latest

I just saw King Arthur and I have to say I loved it! I'm into a lot of Arthurian themed films or sword/sandals films and since Boorman's Excalibur, I have never felt that grand epic mythical legendary film/story until this new film. And that is what I love about Excalibur, and I use the same descriptive words - grand, epic, badass, legend, & myth - these are all the things I loved about the underrated Excalibur. And since that film, every other Arthurian film was made in a more realistic manner, which THE 2004 version is the biggest culprit. It seems people today unless it's straight out fictional, want every single film to be grounded in reality to the point where you make no room for magic, for myths or legends, or for fantasy/fairy tales. The legend of King Arthur is more than a love story - First Knight - or some bland realistically themed Roman General - the 2004 version, - and of course there's the musical Camelot with the great Richard Harris which was the very first Arthurian film I ever saw but never really cared for (especially Lancelot - ech!). The story of King Arthur is an epic legend from some far away distant ancient land of how a boy rose to become a great King and died in the same mythical tragic yet grand manner. It's reminiscent of the many fables and myths in every cultural past/traditions, it's almost biblical even, like Samson, Solomon, or King David. Myths and legends are not realistic stories, they are stories meant to move the mind, the passions, & your imagination, they are there to entertain, to have a moral lesson, to be an example of masculine integrity & honor despite human frailties & faults, and it's sad that people dismiss such vital integral things which made the myth & legend of Arthur endure & flourish to have that bland, tasteless, corpse of the 2004 version. Boorman's Excalibur remains the best because it embraces our inner childhood, our ancient longings & superstitions, & our wild & expansive imagination that every other version discards until the 2017 version.

I honestly was never going to see this 2017 film until it came out on bluray or until it appeared on Netflix. Why? Well, the marketing & ads for this film were not as persistent or as good as many of the other Disney flicks. It seemed like another generic action film. The trailer itself did not recommend the film though there have been other films I loved that had abysmal trailers - The 13th Warrior - another underrated McTiernan film. I saw the film simply because Chris Stuckman gave it a good review and you know what? I loved it far more than he did and unlike Chris, I see no fault in the plot or the script. In fact, I found it to be quite tight. I loved how the Mage referenced or asked Arthur "if he turned away (in one of his visions)" & that "we all turn away but that is what separates a man from a king." - and we get this catharsis, this closing of the circle when he realizes what that meant in that vital moment and it's one of the most exhilarating things I have felt in a film. Jude Law was fantastic in this and I loved him as a villain. A hero is only as good as its villain & many films have weak villains, look at the new Star Trek films. Questions on the killings he does but is heart broken to do, the defeat/loss of Excalibur are all answered at the right moment, when it is the most satisfying. The use of the musical score is so effective and used so well & so precisely that it gets your blood pumping, I have never felt that in any ANY other Arthurian film except in Excalibur when O FORTUNA plays. And this film is different enough from Excalibur in style, plot, & telling while remaining true to the spirit & epic grandness of Excalibur that it is fresh, new, & exciting! And let's not forget the montages, the MONTAGES! I absolutely loved them! Anyone who says they don't love them in the Rocky films is lying. These montages used in the Rocky series gets your blood fuelled, it makes you want to imitate the protagonist, & it remains in our collective consciousness because it is effective & blood inducing. Unfortunately montages today are remnants of the past, of the 80s galore (Rocky films, even Scarface), & are avoided like the plague because it was seen as excessive and quintessentially an 80s style. But Ritchie has brought it back here and I revel in it! REVEL! I was grinning stupidly watching this film, especially in those montages. It takes a lot of guts to do something people have dismissed for almost 30 years and to bring it back & do it effectively. I firmly believe that King Arthur (2017) will be considered one of the underrated classics, trashed on its release but will be a beloved film as time goes on. An underrated classic amongst - The Thing (1980), Excalibur, Apocalypto, The 13th Warrior, Dark City, Unbreakable, Empire of the Sun, Scarface (1983).

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

It is a pity though that this was to be the first installment of a 6 series film, one I would love to have but I don't think we will ever get that, & like Unbreakable upon it's release & planned trilogy, it is heartbreaking.

If anyone wants to have a taste of a good, a great Arthurian film, I highly recommend this new film & Excalibur, Mists of Avalon is also a very good miniseries which focuses more on Morgana (Arthur's sister) and where Arthur is but some side character.

[–] Sej (17) 8 years ago

Vicky, after reading your comments here and on other sites, I can tell that you and I actually agree on most things and generally have the same king Arthur film favorites. However, this one, I did not like much - I have nothing against the fresh new take, and it wasnt all bad, I just thought the story was a dull, generic Hero's Journey with Refusal of the Call endlessly drawn out.
But I don't mean to criticise your opinion, my question is just: are you, as a person who know and love the old story, not bothered by the virtually total absence of that story in this movie. Come on, they might as well have called it "Hamlet", it had just as much in common with that story as with King Arthur. I am not a purist who can tolerate no changes, but as a King Arthur lover, dont you miss something that at least vaguely resembles the King Arthur story?
I am asking you because you and I mostly seem to agree, and you obviously do love the old story.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

One thing you need to know about me Sej is that I love films & by that I mean I will watch a lot of non-American films (I'm not a Westerner btw) & watch a lot of Classic films even as far back as the 20s. & as an extension of this, I will also watch a good series, miniseries, tv film, or anime/animation sometimes too. So I am exposed to story telling in the visual medium through various forms. & the first thing I have learned ever since I was a small child is to not expect a note by note detailed telling but rather, a true telling in its spirit. If you watch anime or earlier films especially, many of them are not accurate at all through various reasons I won't get into. I don't really care if this new King Arthur is accurate by Malory's standard or Excalibur's, I care that the visual grandness & epic legendary spirit is told well. & King Arthur is told really well & has that spirit I've longed for ever since I saw Excalibur as a small child. I also like The Mists of Avalon & it also deviates from Excalibur's plot & characters.

As for the story, I loved it actually & I loved how it was all presented. From the very introduction, I was hit & in love! That entire first segment sequence of Uther & when the mother falls & the credits hit, I was absolutely energized! & I kept waiting for it to get bad but it didn't. I loved many moments in it which I mentioned in the OP, & I also loved how strong & dimensional the villain was here. Initially we all wondered why a certain wife was killed & I enjoyed that they didn't feel the need to inform us immediately, but rather later when it simmered in our heads. I loved that it was also a setup for what was to come & explained why something happened. Also I loved the many characters in it, clearly introduced for future sequels. But you notice you don't see this in many films today?

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

One of my favorite films is The Godfather trilogy, I watch that yearly, sometimes even 2x a year. & I love rewatching it & discovering new bits I initially overlooked. One of them are the vast characters & certain touches introduced initially that later pay off. & I found all these things in King Arthur (2017).

Another period film/miniseries I love is Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth & yes I have read the book numerous times to count. & I agree it is the most accurate out of all the adaptations & I love it for that & so much more. But I also love Greer Garson & Lawrence Olivier's 40s version which isn't very accurate but spiritually, it is. & this is the very reason I also detest Keira Knightly's version because despite their attempts towards realism & that 'kiss', spiritually the story & characters are not at all what I expected them to be.

Neil Gaiman also said the very same thing in the adaptation of his graphic novel into the film Star Dust. People/fans complained of its authenticity to the original source but Gaiman himself understood that you often cannot expect one medium to translate exactly towards another, what matters is the spirit of the telling. I also love Stardust btw! & the 2003 Peter Pan & that was not completely accurate at all!

King Arthur is a Legend, we have had various versions & interestingly the supposed most accurate one is the least compelling. I admit, I love story telling, I love myths & legends, I love reading this stuff, I eat it! & I am not opposed to someone else (Ritchie & the writers) creating a different take on the Legend, because LEGENDS are meant to have various versions, one grander than the next, one more surreal than the other, & that is what makes them great IMO. Like I said, I eat it up (as long as they're told well)!

I also am a huge Star Trek fan & I grew up watching theatrics from 1987 to 2001 so maybe that explains it, LOL!

[–] Sej (17) 8 years ago

Thanks for the reply, Vicky. Its funny, because I agree with virtually everything you are saying, Boormans Excalibur is infinitely the best so far, love the Colin Firth P&P, the Keira Knightly one not so much, Gaiman is my god of Fantasy, and no, adaptions dont have to be exact, I love Mists of Avalon.
Practically the only thing we dont agree on is wether this movie is in the spirit of the old Arthur tales, to me it isnt, to you it is. So just proves again that people sometimes see something totally different, but lets respectfully agree to disagree :) Thanks, I enjoyed your viewpoint.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

Are you a girl? You know the first Austen fans were men? But now it seems to be associated only with the female gender, funny how times changes one's preferences huh?

Another nice film I found underrated but amazing is Beowulf (2007). It was co-written by Gaiman as well & directed by Zemeckis. It too was trashed upon release, have you seen it? If you have, what do you think of it? I love it btw & I just rewatched it recently.

The thing about myths & legends is they're never constant, they are ever expanding & a legend that doesn't grow in fiction dies IMO. Beowulf & his grand stories are great examples of it I thought.

[–] Sej (17) 8 years ago

Woman, born 1969, yes :) Yes, the odds for Austen fan gender is pretty clear these days :)
No, I did not know about early Austen men fans, feel free to elaborate if you care to?
I do not LOVE Gaimans Beowulf, but I definitely like it more than most people, thought the "this is what really happened" take was interesting.
Yes, I am fully aware of the changing nature of traditional tales, but I don´t like all new re-interpretations, though I respect others´right to differing opinions.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

Oh, really? Sorry to hear that, I love history so I have a different view on things I guess. :)

[–] Sej (17) 8 years ago

Sorry about what? That I don´t love Beowulf? I do like many things about it.

I also love history, I don´t quite understand your meaning?

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

Sorry that you didn't like Beowulf so we can't share that moment together, a love for a film. And sorry you don't like re-interpretations because I don't mind those. We clearly don't see eye to eye on many things which is unfortunate too as I was hoping for a kindred soul on this site.

[–] Sej (17) 8 years ago

I understand. Well, I did like many things about Beowulf, and I am sure we do agree on many things. If we discussed Boormans Excallibur, f.ex.
The thing about me is that I find it more interesting to discuss differing opinions than to talk about agreements, sorry about that :)
And if you say I don´t like reinterpretations, you have misunderstood me. I love them, just not all of them. Mists of Avalon was one that I loved (have only read the book, not seen the series).
And I regard "American Gods" as a reinterpretation of mythology, the finest and most interesting one ever made, in my opinion.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

I don't mind discussing different opinions but sometimes it gets testy and in the end, it can't go much farther than that. Whereas talking about a love/passion for a film for example, you can discuss the music, the characters, the actors, plot, certain elements, the theme, possible sequel/s, questions, etc. And they all come from a place where things will less likely be misconstrued you know?

When I watch somethin, I like going to the boards to read/reply to certain topics, whether I like a film or not. But when I don't like the film, I visit the board just once & leave unless someone replies to me. I prefer hanging out in boards of films I like, discussing what I like rather than discussing why I hate something.

I have seen the miniseries of TMOA btw & read it too but tbh I prefer the mini.

[–] Sej (17) 8 years ago

I completely respect your pow, but it is funny that I could have used those exact same words in the opposite meaning: "it is nice enough to agree, but in the end it can't go much farther than that". Again: your approach is completely valid, just different.
We clearly have very different temperaments. But like you I also hate when people just keep hating on things just to spite the people who like it. What I find fascinating is to try to understand other people's pow (not that you don't also try to :) And yes, disagreement does require great care not to descend into conflict.
I realise that this conversation now bends more towards my taste than yours, discussing differences that is, so I won't hold it against you if have grown tired of it : )

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

LOL, I guess but perhaps we do have different temperaments.

Don't get me wrong I don't consider you either a hater or a troll.

But how much can someone who hates a film talk about that hatred to someone who loves it? & how much can someone who loves a film talk about that love to someone who hates it?

Also, written conversations are apt to miscommunication too, so perhaps such disagreements serve actual oral conversation much better? Because tone is as much important as what you say/write isn't it?

Besides I guess I do get tired dwelling on something I hate, it saps me of energy though I like the idea of talking about one's differences.

Thing is some of the haters on this site or IMDB, I don't think all of them just hate to spite others who love it. I believe that there are people who get revitalized from talking about what they hate, the opposite of me I guess. That's not you btw, I hope you don't think I'm accusing you of that.

As for discussing differences, I don't mind really but earlier I had misconstrued this:

-------
So just proves again that people sometimes see something totally different,

" but lets respectfully agree to disagree :) Thanks, I enjoyed your viewpoint."
----------

^^^....as a dismissal of the conversation as perhaps I was too passionate about my love of a film you didn't care for.

I admittedly can get passionate when I really like or love something btw. LOL!

[–] Sej (17) 8 years ago

You are completely right about written and oral conversation and I do infinitely prefer oral, but I do not have the option to discuss Arthur movies with anyone in my acquaintance.
And again, I largely agree with you, I would not want to discuss something I hate with someone who loves it, that is not fruitful. I like to discuss where there are nuances of opinion.

In the case of this Arthur movie, I directed a question to you because you were clearly informed, knowledgeable and a lover of the true spirit of Arthur and also well versed in movies and with a rare understanding and passion for narratives in general.
In short, an example of someone whose opinion and perspective I would clearly have to respect, but whose opinion I yet could not quite understand. When I see such people I like to ask them to explain their perspective, in the hope that they can make me understand and I can broaden my own perspective.
When I seemed to dismiss the discussion, it was because I unfortunately could still not understand your viewpoint, and then I felt that to press on with the question would only have led to the kind of pointless negativity, which we both agree is depressing and futile.
Let me finally add, I love the passion you show for movies and narratives in your OP, I am too lazy to type it out, but I could have said pretty much the same. That was what intrigued me, it seemed strange that we could disagree at all :)