New review: Sword of king Arthur 08.06.2017

Richie with his trademark English squint migrates from one sandbox to another, and sculpt sand something indecent in the cinematic sense: the gangster film in the spy, of the spy — in historical fantasy. With these turns scary to think that we are waiting on. The horrors with the Statham in the role of a scared student? Bloody cartoon about a difficult childhood Mr. one Two? A kung fu Thriller about a London yuppie, trapped in a brutal closed Chinese martial arts school? No, of course, every Creator and indeed people have every right to peacefully Express themselves as he pleases and spraying their imagination in all directions and volumes. Moreover, Mr. Ritchie is a right earned through honest work. Neither I nor any other have no right to require him to remove only what we, the audience, like. How do we know: maybe he’s lost someone and now need to mint three stupid movie, slurred one another? So much so that they have in common with him was exactly one name in the credits? But also silently pass this — too so-so option. And where the Creator does what he wants, in the same plane and approximately on the same rules, the audience appreciates the resulting in the best of their abilities.

“The sword of king Arthur” is a ridiculous and eccentric mutant, whom he seemed since the first trailer, which mumakili from Lord of the rings brutally waving his tusks, and Jude law in the armor “Dolche BadAss”, tugas, palm was nacatamal peerbolte. Richie put on the operating table standard, unremarkable fantasy movie and pranks for gave him a serious dose of “criminal ostanki”. Not that these genres cannot be mixed (in life-almost everything is possible), but in the movie even more. But here’s where simple math: in order to create a masterpiece, or at least a sensible one in the film defined within a genre, need remarkable skills and talents. But to succeed with a hybrid that includes several fundamentally different from each other layers and coatings require a certain proportion of genius. That is why successful movies-jugglers-Ambidextrous so little, and for the same reason, those the most successful of them are so beautiful (“V for Vendetta”, “Watchmen” , etc.). Such a cocktail requires a degree in chemistry and in cooking. Little shake hard to mix, you should not miscalculate the proportions, do not overdo it with any of many ingredients, with the right mine to submit it all to the table. What did Richie in this movie? Richie soared. He poured half a Cup historical film and threw him the remains of last year’s crime stories. The color of the drink, its taste and the sediment turned out proportional to the “accurate calculations” frolicking boss.

And not that I wanted to say if criminal streak spoils the whole movie, no. On the contrary, it fulfills its minimum, causing a few smiles for the film, and deliberately reminiscent of the who’s behind the wheel of it all. But despite the fact it’s not built into the frame of the main genre, and just plastered on top, a thin layer ending in the eyes of the oil. It looks flimsy, incomprehensible and even kind of a shame. Yes, and the bricks with it, with this gangsta’s “enamel”. The main problem lies in the fundamental genre, ohvatyvaya at least 80% of the screen time. The fantasy component Ritchie paid a fraction of their attention to include only the most necessary (villain, betrayal, the ascent of the protagonist, etc.), thrown into the water to “it” itself buried towards the shore, if wants to live, and, turning away, began to prescribe minor scenes to which his soul lies: the bustle of the city with a “cool” shot long in half an hour, not quite appropriate and logical episode with the killing of the friend of the protagonist, etc. Again, these scenes look good, it’s just “not bad” from the category “cool brass knuckles in his paws from priviliege kangaroo”. Knuckle dusters-that are told more or less, that’s just the rest of the movie just pulls at the face of the kangaroo lost in the supermarket, in the Department of household appliances. I have no idea whether the problem is that Richie can not, or is that just until the end it wants, but the result is obvious. For the development of new genres with their original nature, very little in common with his profile, he doesn’t have the zeal, experience and hard work. Simply put, everything you need. It turns out “phenomenon Gaya”. All of his experiments point to the fact that he was born for a certain niche, which is the true king. But he continues to veer off course and run from his nature. Without any visible effort, without noticeable enthusiasm, without clear progress, finally. You kept this beautiful sword “Criminalizar” in his hands, Richie! Why throw it at his feet and bump into biathlon? The only message your last film is that people must not turn away from his destiny. Shooting you nothing reminded?.. While you indulge and waste precious time of others annealed at your own genre, giving the world savory and ridiculous “Shootout”. The king is still dead?

To brag movie is nothing, all its sides, including the plot, secondary, and weak. The best, apparently, it’s an acting game, simply because it has no claims. It is, but no more. Music is also present, and here it is quite a good one. The script is trivial, the secondary characters at the level of any other minor characters in any other large-scale film. And perhaps most offensive of all. Their distinctive and specific characters Richie traded on the cardboard a sort of hero to Junsu, who for 15 years played the same guys in the same film (so similar that even there is no difference, positive character or negative). The dialogue is frankly weak. Nobody expected realistic talking raccoon, but an ordinary eagle to draw normally. “Ekshon” so-so: it is either limited to a short “crumpled” skirmishes or trying to be like kung fu with swords in slow-mo. Similar tricks the audience gets in “Elysium” in the final chestiunii Damon and Copley. And admittedly, much more successful, despite rhinest of the film.

There is eclectic, and there is a hodgepodge. There’s style, and there is bad taste. There is an obvious coolness, and there’s a cheap Ponte. And in all these cases, “the Sword of king Arthur”, confidently stepping stops for the second line.

Vydeliajuscijsia scratch, faded, like his film, is not defined with the worldview of the film. With pockets stuffed to the brim with conventions and extra points.

PS once slender, who prefer acting and not swollen muscles , Hunnam is perfectly performed the role of any plans (“Green street Hooligans”, “children of men”, “Cold mountain”). Once Richie

Not recommended.

5 out of 10

New review: Sword of king Arthur 08.06.2017

Поделиться в соц. сетях

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus
Share to LiveJournal