I guess Im asking randomly but does anyone know a way to get back into an Instagram account..? I was dumb lost the login password. I love any tips you can offer me.
"All it does is remind you of all the other fantasy franchises you'd rather be watching" I expect that one isn't going on the DVD case, but I did laugh hardheartedly at it lol
@@rory7590It follows that part really closely. There was one other one worth seeing called Merlin a TV special with Sam Neil, part 2 was okay. It had a couple of GOT actors in, a good cast anyway but Excalibur was much better more emotional and cinematic. I'm still waiting for a Geoffrey of Monmouth version.
I LOVED Excalibur &, on the strength of this review, I'm shocked at how often I've heard the makers of King Arthur & Hunnan himself cite it as a film they loved too.
Hudson hawk taught me a very valuable life lesson the very first time I saw it, barely a kid, I will never forget: "Don't laugh when you're lying, don't sneeze when you're hiding."
I was one of the tiny tiny TINY percentage of people who really liked this film because of the editing the CGI the fight scenes and especially the soundtrack. I admit the story wasn't great and some scenes were pointless, the constuming was appalling etc.. BUT I've never seen a film with the pacing and editing quite like this one, AND it's a modern take on the Medieval Fantasy genre which isn't sluggishly paced and brooding. The way I'd describe it is a film take on the Witcher games (2 & 3) and really if there were more movies like it I would be far more judgemental but for now I will consider it severely underrated
In this review, Mark Kermode states that he liked Lock, Stock. It seems odd because in his Revolver review, he states "I never liked Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, I never liked Snatch, there was something really funny about seeing him just foul up that badly."
Opinions can change, Kermode is quite open about changing his mind over a movie, Blue Velvet is one he's talked about before. You don't think it's possible he could've changed his mind in the 12 years since reviewing that movie?
+Paul Dennett I have been an avid fan of Mark Kermode for many years. Of course I believe that anyone can change their opinion on a film after rewatching; however, Kermode's statement of Guy Ritchie's past career in his Revolver review appears to be so bold and sincere.
Mark liked Assassin's Creed but not this... OK. This is by no means a good film. But it's perfectly fine entertaining popcorn fun. Critics are being way too hard on it. I actually like it better than that second Sherlock Holmes film Ritchie did.
Lessons on how to be a critic: 1) Have an opinion. 2) Either be insightful enough, or entertaining enough to get people to listen to your opinion. Critics are not these nebulous beings that stand apart from other mortals, stop trying to justify your opinion by grouping other opinions into a singular cultural taste bracket.
Oh, and can somebody pass on a message to the RadioTimes to tell them to stop giving it 5 stars in their listings magazine. Nobody believed them with Eddie The Eagle, nobody believes them regarding a Guy Ritchie film either.
In the same way that any Robin Hood-related adaptation is doomed because I just wind up thinking 'this is nowhere near as good as Maid Marian and Her Merry Men', any King Arthur-related adaptation is doomed because I just wind up thinking 'this is nowhere near as good as Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. It certainly makes it impossible to take any other King Arthur film seriously.
But Monty Python s humour is so dated. It's just so 70s. Maybe having a Roman called Biggus Dickus was edgy and boundary pushing 40 years ago but now even Adam Sandler would blush at it.
I read that the studio planned this film to launch a six film series. Have the economics of film making changed so much that every film has to become a mega franchise. I'd love to know what the cast and crew contracts were like. So much of our society is consumed with making MEGA money.
I think if it was released now, Hudson Hawk would be praised as a refreshing change of pace from the cookie-cutter blockbusters glutting the marketplace these days.
I normaly agree with Kermode but for me, I thought it was a reasonable enough and I didn't get board. Game of Thrones Lite meets Lock stock/Sherlock, but for a mature family audience. It's not high brow, but as a popcorn movie it was a blast. Dark at times. funny at others. Great set pieces and some quirky direction. What more could you want from a mainstream movie. Just badly marketed and folk watch what they are told these day, so if a few critics snubbed it then...... Ps: I predict it'll make a mint selling dvd's, once people get the word out.
A lot of people told me that the sherlock Holmes movies were great, and now hearing that Mark liked them I must give them a watch. This movie had a bit of enjoyment but it does not make it great, worth mentioning that the score was good, I also like what Guy Ritchie does with his signature story telling fast paced character switching. I had problems understanding the accent used sometimes, the CGI in 1 fight scene in the 3rd act was pretty bad, and I'm not sure why GR choose to shoot it that way, because it was handled just fine in the middle, so I completely agree with Mark this was a disappointing film from GR.
Could Mark Kermode talk to the RadioTimes film reviewers (maybe Andrew Collins?) about why exactly they insist on keeping giving this the five star 'masterpiece' rating in their listings magazine?
I heard a few years ago that this film was a bit poop and a misfire from Guy Ritchie. Then a work colleague recently said that it is good.. however, the same guy didn't like Oppenheimer because it was basically just lots of talking for 3 hours in his words and nothing happened. Secretly, I think he was wishing that Jason Statham would pop in that film and kick Nazi butt in a top secret mission impossible. Anyway, I digress. I recently tried watching the first 10 mins of King Arthur and something just felt off.. it felt like a rehash of a Lord of the Rings film but just didn't seem to have the same magic or hold my interest at all... Then I remembered Mark Kermode's trusty reviews and thought I'd check this out before I potentially waste another 2 hours of my life. Still, I'm kind of curious to see if there are any redeeming features but I find my tastes often allign with Kermode's.
the trailers for this flick were the worst. i wasnt gonna see it because of it. but then i was bored and i am always curious as to what guy ritchie comes up with. so i saw it and was really entertained, from the start. and i have no patience for rehashed and cliched movies anymore. but this one i really dug.
UlrichUlrich I enjoyed the Warcraft movie a lot, but I've been a fan of Arthurian Legend much longer, so I will have to say that of the two, I liked King Arthur better. And Guy Ritchie's version is a BILLION times better than Once Upon A Time's attempt at Arthurian Legend!
+Gabriel Drake Arthas' storyline from the warcraft lore (games) is a dark spin on the Arthurian tale. I highly suggest you check it out, its one of my favorite stories of all time. th-cam.com/video/_Ih-GVjv9n0/w-d-xo.html
i think he was referring to rammstein, the german industrial metal band, probably one of the only bands to have massive international success singing in their native german language.
I highly enjoyed it. And have even watched it multiple times. It even had an i'd say a perfect with some problems, an representation of the 17 points of a narrative. It was also a highly fun, and great looking film. Yeah the CGI was a bit heavy at some points but personally i'd rather have exposition done in a way which it's edited and affect by the characters. Then a dialogue heavy exposition boredom session.
Saw this on Wednesday. It's pretty much everything you'd expect It to be. If you want to see King Arthur and other characters spout Guy Ritchie dialogue with some of the worst mainstream film editing since Batman V Superman this is the film for you. The money spent is definitely on screen but I questioned why Warner Brothers spent $175 million on this in first place 4.5/ 10
It's a shame there aren't more sword and sorcery movies any more. Even China's output of wu xia swordplay films have sadly crumpled under gritty CG heavy bore-fests.
I thought this an excellent and imaginative retelling, using but not abusing the characters and elements from the true canon. I loved the CGI, and even the Beckham cameo.
Mark didn't like Excalibur? Wow, it's not often we hugely disagree. Literally my (joint) favourite movie. I've seen First Knight, Clive Owen's King Arthur, and now this all fail to come even close to that film. Seriously, everyone needs to see Excalibur, it's the one true heir to the Arthurian legend.
Yeah. Because I seem to remember Mark not really being impressed with it, saying it was all people pretending to be cockneys and geezers, or something like that.
i watch this movie in this week it feel really great for me ^_^ .... .....only the history fantasy fans are like this movie ... this not some comic book fun-fact story this is mistress of history
I don't think it's a secret that with 'King Arthur' Guy Ritchie has created a miss. The film is so all over the place that I just kept losing the thread: it never engaged me; I didn't care for the characters; and ultimately I was bored ridged. A lot of the humour fell flat too. There really is nothing to see here. 1/5
The trailer was only good for telling the viewer to avoid like the plague. It's a shame that all the expense has gone to waste on a less than mediocre experience. Pass me my sword Terry'
im looking forward to this movie being on channel 5 eighteen times a month in 2 years
That time has almost passed and now we’re waiting.
Now it's on Netflix, folks can rewatch the horror as many times as they like.
It’s taken another 2 years, but the film will be shown on Channel 5 on December 27th!
And Sky😂
Kermode-Mayo dynamic here is just glorious, love seeing them like this
I guess Im asking randomly but does anyone know a way to get back into an Instagram account..?
I was dumb lost the login password. I love any tips you can offer me.
@Edward Bronson Instablaster ;)
I believe that General Spectacular Whiffle commanded the Trumpets of Posideon at the Battle of the Bing of the Bong
"I was waiting for Tim The Enchanter" spat some water at that line.
I took a line of coke and still fell asleep during this.
Druggy druggy druggy druggy
Could not have been the good stuff then.....
I actually liked the film. Although I can understand why so many don't like it. I just found it really fun.
"There's the sword attempting to look like a lightsaber....."
Hudson Hawk is, was, and will always be a funny movie. Kudos to you Mark.
The Sherlock Holmes movies were so good. I know Guy will do it again with another story just gotta find the right one.
"All it does is remind you of all the other fantasy franchises you'd rather be watching"
I expect that one isn't going on the DVD case, but I did laugh hardheartedly at it lol
Should have made Sherlock Holmes 3 instead.
Excalibur was one of my favourite films growing up. Don't ruin my childhood Mark.
I grew up with it - but it's daft
"I never like Excalibur very much..."
That's you off the Christmas card list, Mark!
He's right, though. Excalibur is terrible.
@@TimeandMonotony you get coal too!
Excalibur - the once and future Arthurian legend film.
Excalibur was the best King Arthur movie ever!
It was true in tone to it's source though. Unlike most King Arthur movies that preceded it, Excalibur tried to do an authentic Morte D'Arthur movie.
@@rory7590It follows that part really closely. There was one other one worth seeing called Merlin a TV special with Sam Neil, part 2 was okay. It had a couple of GOT actors in, a good cast anyway but Excalibur was much better more emotional and cinematic.
I'm still waiting for a Geoffrey of Monmouth version.
King Arthur Daley. Stick it on the slate.
Dave
I LOVED Excalibur &, on the strength of this review, I'm shocked at how often I've heard the makers of King Arthur & Hunnan himself cite it as a film they loved too.
I don't think I'm going to bother. The Beckham cameo seals it.
Hudson hawk taught me a very valuable life lesson the very first time I saw it, barely a kid, I will never forget: "Don't laugh when you're lying, don't sneeze when you're hiding."
He said Mufasa wrong tho
I love Kermode's taste and analysis so much, it breaks my heart that he likes the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movies.
I hope you can recover. Must be truly devastating he doesn’t agree with your refined sensibilities
Its dumb, but enjoyably dumb. Its an entertaining enough film.
Did Mark like Man From UNCLE? I found that film to completely delightful.
Ersatz Person Me too! I really enjoyed The Man From Uncle. I'd hoped there'd be a sequel. Sadly, it wasn't to be.
Ersatz Person I loved the man from uncle too - amazing chemistry from the three leads
Ersatz Person I love that film a lot too. Saw it four times in the theater and then bought the DVD.
I love a good oxymoronic descriptor like 'stunningly dull'
I was one of the tiny tiny TINY percentage of people who really liked this film because of the editing the CGI the fight scenes and especially the soundtrack. I admit the story wasn't great and some scenes were pointless, the constuming was appalling etc.. BUT I've never seen a film with the pacing and editing quite like this one, AND it's a modern take on the Medieval Fantasy genre which isn't sluggishly paced and brooding. The way I'd describe it is a film take on the Witcher games (2 & 3) and really if there were more movies like it I would be far more judgemental but for now I will consider it severely underrated
Yeah I really liked how Guy Ritchie's style actually helps make this medieval film feel unique
I loved the movie. Everyone has their own opinion.
In this review, Mark Kermode states that he liked Lock, Stock. It seems odd because in his Revolver review, he states "I never liked Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, I never liked Snatch, there was something really funny about seeing him just foul up that badly."
Opinions can change, Kermode is quite open about changing his mind over a movie, Blue Velvet is one he's talked about before. You don't think it's possible he could've changed his mind in the 12 years since reviewing that movie?
+Paul Dennett I have been an avid fan of Mark Kermode for many years. Of course I believe that anyone can change their opinion on a film after rewatching; however, Kermode's statement of Guy Ritchie's past career in his Revolver review appears to be so bold and sincere.
Did Mark like the Clive Owen and Ikea Knightley version from 2004?
The most hilarious review of a film.
How do they keep messing this up? Just stick to Excalibur.
It's such a shame that he didn't make a good movie !!! He had the best cast and a good budget! Just do it man !!!!!
Scott Pilgrim example of a failure that was pretty good
Nah, it's better than pretty good.
emceewhiterabbit I haven't met anyone who doesn't like it!
emceewhiterabbit Mind you, I'm pushing 50. And all those people are too...oh no, hang on, one of my 16 year old pupils says it's his fave film too.
Mark liked Assassin's Creed but not this... OK.
This is by no means a good film. But it's perfectly fine entertaining popcorn fun. Critics are being way too hard on it. I actually like it better than that second Sherlock Holmes film Ritchie did.
I've been waiting for this review since I watched the movie. It didn't disappoint
Did you expect the MST3K lot to launch into 'Another Suitcase, Another Hall' when he said 'so what happens now?'
I think the critics got this one wrong. i thought king Arthur was pretty good.
Lessons on how to be a critic:
1) Have an opinion.
2) Either be insightful enough, or entertaining enough to get people to listen to your opinion.
Critics are not these nebulous beings that stand apart from other mortals, stop trying to justify your opinion by grouping other opinions into a singular cultural taste bracket.
Agreed
It was a box office bomb.
"Rammsteen"
"Musafa"
Oh, and can somebody pass on a message to the RadioTimes to tell them to stop giving it 5 stars in their listings magazine. Nobody believed them with Eddie The Eagle, nobody believes them regarding a Guy Ritchie film either.
In the same way that any Robin Hood-related adaptation is doomed because I just wind up thinking 'this is nowhere near as good as Maid Marian and Her Merry Men', any King Arthur-related adaptation is doomed because I just wind up thinking 'this is nowhere near as good as Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. It certainly makes it impossible to take any other King Arthur film seriously.
But Monty Python s humour is so dated. It's just so 70s. Maybe having a Roman called Biggus Dickus was edgy and boundary pushing 40 years ago but now even Adam Sandler would blush at it.
Personally found Sherlock Holmes very boring, having really enjoyed Lock Stock and Snatch and Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes for that matter.
I read that the studio planned this film to launch a six film series. Have the economics of film making changed so much that every film has to become a mega franchise. I'd love to know what the cast and crew contracts were like. So much of our society is consumed with making MEGA money.
I just watched Excalibur on Blu-ray and it really stands out as the only worthy retelling on film.
I think if it was released now, Hudson Hawk would be praised as a refreshing change of pace from the cookie-cutter blockbusters glutting the marketplace these days.
thanks for reading out my review today, I'm Joel
Is there a reason that the camera focus is on the wall behind him?
The Excalibur music was AMAZING & FLAWLESS.
I normaly agree with Kermode but for me, I thought it was a reasonable enough and I didn't get board. Game of Thrones Lite meets Lock stock/Sherlock, but for a mature family audience. It's not high brow, but as a popcorn movie it was a blast. Dark at times. funny at others. Great set pieces and some quirky direction. What more could you want from a mainstream movie. Just badly marketed and folk watch what they are told these day, so if a few critics snubbed it then...... Ps: I predict it'll make a mint selling dvd's, once people get the word out.
'Stunningly dull'
I loved the Sherlock Holmes movies he did but can't warm up to his other recent work! 😊👍🏼
Wish I'd seen this before getting to the cinema.
A lot of people told me that the sherlock Holmes movies were great, and now hearing that Mark liked them I must give them a watch. This movie had a bit of enjoyment but it does not make it great, worth mentioning that the score was good, I also like what Guy Ritchie does with his signature story telling fast paced character switching. I had problems understanding the accent used sometimes, the CGI in 1 fight scene in the 3rd act was pretty bad, and I'm not sure why GR choose to shoot it that way, because it was handled just fine in the middle, so I completely agree with Mark this was a disappointing film from GR.
"Goosefat John" hahahaha
Could Mark Kermode talk to the RadioTimes film reviewers (maybe Andrew Collins?) about why exactly they insist on keeping giving this the five star 'masterpiece' rating in their listings magazine?
I heard a few years ago that this film was a bit poop and a misfire from Guy Ritchie. Then a work colleague recently said that it is good.. however, the same guy didn't like Oppenheimer because it was basically just lots of talking for 3 hours in his words and nothing happened. Secretly, I think he was wishing that Jason Statham would pop in that film and kick Nazi butt in a top secret mission impossible.
Anyway, I digress. I recently tried watching the first 10 mins of King Arthur and something just felt off.. it felt like a rehash of a Lord of the Rings film but just didn't seem to have the same magic or hold my interest at all... Then I remembered Mark Kermode's trusty reviews and thought I'd check this out before I potentially waste another 2 hours of my life. Still, I'm kind of curious to see if there are any redeeming features but I find my tastes often allign with Kermode's.
the trailers for this flick were the worst. i wasnt gonna see it because of it. but then i was bored and i am always curious as to what guy ritchie comes up with. so i saw it and was really entertained, from the start. and i have no patience for rehashed and cliched movies anymore. but this one i really dug.
lock stock and rocknrolla were his best films in my opinion.
however I wonder who will be the geezer in this film.
King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is a helluva lot better than that terrible Warcraft movie you liked so much, Mark.
UlrichUlrich he's not buddies with Guy Ritchie though
No. It's not.
No
UlrichUlrich I enjoyed the Warcraft movie a lot, but I've been a fan of Arthurian Legend much longer, so I will have to say that of the two, I liked King Arthur better. And Guy Ritchie's version is a BILLION times better than Once Upon A Time's attempt at Arthurian Legend!
+Gabriel Drake Arthas' storyline from the warcraft lore (games) is a dark spin on the Arthurian tale. I highly suggest you check it out, its one of my favorite stories of all time. th-cam.com/video/_Ih-GVjv9n0/w-d-xo.html
Only slightly interested in this because it has the french girl from 'I Origins' init.
I wasn't expecting to laugh at "Charlie Humdrum" but god damn it, Mark Kermode.
I thought Mark hated Lock Stock and Two Smocking Barrels... he's always said so
He’s going to say Arthur Dayle he’s such a mate. King Arthur Dayle
I thought he hated lock stock
i loved the film
Lock stock and two smoking barrels of pestilence
what is "Ramshteen"?
i think he was referring to rammstein, the german industrial metal band, probably one of the only bands to have massive international success singing in their native german language.
Scar is the uncle in Lion King……
I highly enjoyed it. And have even watched it multiple times. It even had an i'd say a perfect with some problems, an representation of the 17 points of a narrative. It was also a highly fun, and great looking film. Yeah the CGI was a bit heavy at some points but personally i'd rather have exposition done in a way which it's edited and affect by the characters. Then a dialogue heavy exposition boredom session.
I thought it was fine mostly because the music is so gooooooood
Offcut of a Raamstein video... LOOOOOOLLLLLL ... Never thought that the good doctor would make such a reference...
King Arfur Daiy' Gold! '
Charlie Hunnam really took a step down from the brilliance which was Sons of Anarchy.
The "slow-fast-slow" thing is called ramping. It was used extensively in 300 (and nowadays by ISIS propaganda films incidentally).
mr kemode .. what's your review of the new transformers film ?? i'm sure you've already written it......
roblex63 *Ten minutes of Mark Kermode smashing his head into a wall, live, in 4D.*
Saw this on Wednesday. It's pretty much everything you'd expect It to be. If you want to see King Arthur and other characters spout Guy Ritchie dialogue with some of the worst mainstream film editing since Batman V Superman this is the film for you. The money spent is definitely on screen but I questioned why Warner Brothers spent $175 million on this in first place
4.5/ 10
Noice lil' earner!
Seems like we got this year's Gods of Egypt.
It's a shame there aren't more sword and sorcery movies any more. Even China's output of wu xia swordplay films have sadly crumpled under gritty CG heavy bore-fests.
What WARNER BROS was thinking they should have used that money for a DC movie or a Monster movie one.
The real legend was about Blacksmith/sword making skills . You pull the sword from rock as thats where the iron minerals are .Anyway ......
I thought this an excellent and imaginative retelling, using but not abusing the characters and elements from the true canon. I loved the CGI, and even the Beckham cameo.
Mark didn't like Excalibur? Wow, it's not often we hugely disagree. Literally my (joint) favourite movie. I've seen First Knight, Clive Owen's King Arthur, and now this all fail to come even close to that film. Seriously, everyone needs to see Excalibur, it's the one true heir to the Arthurian legend.
is this a new classic rant?
3:44 more like Bored of the rings, because the Hobbits aren't having any fun.
Lol the geezer Arthur brought up in the backstreets of ol' Blighty. Lol.
Hey Mark, what's wrong with a film looking like a Hammer film?
“I do like *Lock Stock*!”
Since when?
Yeah. Because I seem to remember Mark not really being impressed with it, saying it was all people pretending to be cockneys and geezers, or something like that.
In his Revolver review he said he's never liked Lock Stock 😂
I have only seen one good Arthurian movie, and that was Excalibur.
Are they really allowed to say that David Beckham quote on the BBC!?!?! o_O :P
Well I was never going to see the film anyway
i watch this movie in this week it feel really great for me ^_^ .... .....only the history fantasy fans are like this movie ... this not some comic book fun-fact story this is mistress of history
Jude Law: Bang Out Of Order
Fantastic fun. This review i mean. Phew i wuz finkin o' goin ta see this today, looks like a lucky escape and no mistake geeza
Strange, I expected you to like the Revolver.
It's Mufasa!
Hipster hairdo for King Arthur says it all on the poster. That's enough for me
The King from UNCLE
This, assassins creed, and venom are *all* epic
:3
I don't think it's a secret that with 'King Arthur' Guy Ritchie has created a miss. The film is so all over the place that I just kept losing the thread: it never engaged me; I didn't care for the characters; and ultimately I was bored ridged. A lot of the humour fell flat too. There really is nothing to see here. 1/5
King Arthur Daley, E's alright.
The trailer was only good for telling the viewer to avoid like the plague. It's a shame that all the expense has gone to waste on a less than mediocre experience. Pass me my sword Terry'
A bit woah! A bit woo! 'ees gonna go there!