New review: Sword of king Arthur 14.06.2017

Soon the tale told, but not soon deal done. And for business budgets great most of the former are allocated in order to showmanship to give the people full, but the bread themselves Narmada, having bought a popcorn air. But sometimes, in spite of the advantages of various and interesting, fails this colourful spectacle, and the collapse solely of cash. What’s wrong and attack priklyuchilas? After all, the people, basically, like, he appreciated, noting that as true, and the movie turned out decent. The producers and break the head, causing sales of tickets are not enough in numbers zeroes? So I’m on the page of the review will break a little the head, in such a good prechinese illustrious film lost a lot of money.

With the Director the familiarity of long-standing, is he even in the list of Pets who shoot film are diverse, owl decorating style. Two guns were money and cards, “snatch” is translated only Goblin. Both of these beautiful masterpiece become classics in the title of a cult. Was another “Gun” with “Rock-n-Rolston”, weaker, but also entertaining. Sherlock Holmes shines in new camera angles performed by Downey Jr. And guy Ritchie would have taken would have always done the movie very stilnenko, using the crown of props and special music.

Once the public gasped when the news came unexpectedly that a new movie going Director of the British kind. And particularly surprising that the movie is not a criminal, and the genre it’s historical and, besides, even fantasy. Guy Ritchie is not typical, which allowed us to be excited. As time went on, appeared trailers, very stylish, very solid, a lot of the promised spectacle, anticipation grew for progression. And that knocked the premiere date, all alluring and desirable. No popcorn and drink, and of course sober to contemplate very carefully, not to Wake any moment one. The lights go out in the cinema moderately, we fade the title, and stopped the neighboring spectators to stop talking, not interfering with the pleasures to come…

Two hours flew by rapidly, the film is passed in a single breath, and he left only a good and pleasant experience. But, come on everything’s alright, gradually, logical, measured, poetic review that was even structured.

And I’ll start with the part of the actor, it has no claims in the slightest, the characters are very interesting and the actors with the tasks handled. Charlie Hunnam on the main position, it fits into your way confidently, it turned out Arthur’s great with its Golden-haired beard. And the villain, as he should be, appears really ugly and dirty, and Jude law with this image handled, as his time with Watson. Here the witch was cute that in the “Pirates” appeared a mermaid, from “game of Thrones” one man role playing is quite fun. Everyone call to mind the time, and it makes no sense, perhaps you can make only the conclusions briefly: the casting sheet for “Five” but with a plus sign.

The whole idea of the plot is the standard, under the usual blockbuster sharpened, and the sense to change something that was not, because the legend is known to all. But enough in the script, writing dialogues fun, and thus all the formulaic phrase very well diluted. Plus one Director’s cut thingy here is just decoration, the episodes from different time very briskly each other are replaced.

And for eyes there was a lot of fun, and not so much effects epic, how many style of fellow operator, under the command of the Director. There are epics like “the Hobbit”, there are landscapes and scenery are drawn and natural, fights very skillfully delivered mixed with computer graphics, and, of course, action finest, not giving to fall asleep, even drunk.

And, of course, the music. Because guy Ritchie is always allocated a very powerful soundtracks, and no matter which composers will write to the British genius. In every movie Gaya excellent music, and a movie about the great Arthur not getting an exception here. Very cool go tunes on the on-screen events, complementing the gorgeous spectacle Yes the same elegant sound.

You must be pretty exhausted, my dear reader, reading this review, the format of the narrative, though without rhyme, but all poetry. And I rather rejoice that the review is already approaching its finally finished. But to finish because I don’t have rights, not returning to your arguments, those with which I began the review. The question is very clear that the answer is asking why this film is remarkable in its positive sides, with a great audience reaction, with good assessments and reviews proved a failure financially and gathered enough money.

Let razed to the ground by critics, considered unworthy of attention, and their opinions are important but should not influence on the public. After all, inherent to each viewer’s personal taste and mood, forming only personal, only your own experience. Did you know that in the United States of America has become a regularity, when low ratings from critics, ticket sales are down, not always, but often. It happened with the movie about Arthur, the film critics did not like it, and the people, seeing these ratings, suddenly decided that the film is disgusting. For example, here Association. If I suddenly said “Detelina”, which is on the outskirts of Lipetsk, a repulsive institution, and the meatballs they are all disgusting. But I am personally in the “Afternow” in life, even once used to go, and besides, even in the Lipetsk never even side by side. And I believe this view, only hearing the occasional remark of a stranger in the bus of Voronezh. Here is a funny comparison reflects the situation in the movie, when the audience, the film is not to be seen, take the easy solution to blindly believe someone’s there opinion. Very stupid thing to do. Isn’t it?

Personally, I “King Arthur” I liked it, but all the paragraphs of the review, only my personal opinion, to Express feelings. And you can watch the film not to like, well, this is gonna sound super-duper, you understand this can only the true and correct way: to see and not to believe the reviews.

What’s good: Shooting and music, the actors, guy Richie, style.

What’s wrong: a Simple story, though lifted fresh and new.

The best thing: there is, of course, those two stands out. Young Arthur growing up right after the title screen appears for a moment. And the second chase through the city that is called Londinium, and at the end of the episode driving for the first time the sword appear in his full measure of ability, crushing all enemies of Arthur.

And the rating is good, not high, but not low, and this movie saying that it was decent, not a masterpiece, but very worthy.

7 out of 10

New review: Sword of king Arthur 14.06.2017

Поделиться в соц. сетях

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus
Share to LiveJournal