Guy Ritchie's films always like to express the ruffian habits of the British, adding various street rascal social styles to the actors' performances, which are contrary to the typical British gentleman image, and express the British people to the extreme. Feeling bad ruffian rogue image.
In the previous films, he mainly attached this image to the lower-level social personnel, fully expressing the tactful attitude towards life of the lower-level people in British society, but this time, he repeated the same trick to strengthen the King Arthur-themed movie into a This kind of ruffian culture style, so playing with historical figures with a sense of epic depth, has to be said to cause great psychological discomfort to people, and also casts a shadow of black history on this inherent hero image.
Guy Ritchie has always paid attention to the realistic style of film expression in his previous films. Everything is based on reality, and he never engages in those illusory things. I don't know which one of his muscles was wrong. In the solemn and heavy historical film King Arthur, he not only turned the humiliated King Arthur into a little ruffian who collects protection fees, but also incorporated magical elements such as wizards and black magic. It makes Arthur in the movie look not only condescending and reckless, but also makes the whole movie atmosphere smoky and nondescript.
It can only be said that Guy Ritchie did not grasp the subject matter of the film well. He did not really integrate the historical character film with his own style. Incorporated into the movie, it makes the whole movie seem niche and unnutritious. It is obvious that a war can be used to express the heaviness of the movie, but the movie uses the confrontation between magic and divine power to deepen the magical style attribute of the movie. This way of avoiding the important and deviating from the theme makes the movie go farther and farther on the road of King Arthur. . Not only is it difficult to become a classic, but it also lacks respect for history, especially the interpretation of heroism is too casual, ignoring a person's own ability and ability performance. If a hero is born only by the support of magic and divine power, then this person will no longer be a hero.
The characters in Guy Ritchie's films are all like Beijing films, full of bandit and ruffian spirit. Not only did they start a series of bickering games one by one, but also showed that kind of logical eloquence. In particular, the unique perspective of the movie character shots, combined with the sharp lens editing, looks very enjoyable, but it makes people feel more like showing off and mocking. Because of his approach, he did not connect the characters who were questioning him, he just blindly opened up the three of them without giving others a chance to express himself. The expression is still the strong cognition of the character.
This kind of performance makes us very dissatisfied with the protagonists in the movie, because their approach is fundamentally disrespectful to people, and the clever and ruffian-like approach keeps the characters in a constant state of disrespect. A level of three religions and nine classes, if even such a vulgar little person can become the monarch of a country, how can it be loved by people? King Arthur himself was a man who avenged his father and regained the throne, had a major mission and endured humiliation, but in the movie he became a bold, pushy, fearless and unprincipled person, if not With the help of wizards and divine power, this guy has died many times.
Therefore, King Arthur in the movie is really far from what we know. If a person is considered to be an emperor from the beginning, the story will become bland and uninteresting. Especially in this movie, Arthur, who has no real ability, is always a little too casual about his destiny, whether it is to give up or persist. Not only does he have no pressure to endure humiliation, nor does he have a heart full of anger to seek revenge, It's all game-like, making the whole ending a win too easy. Therefore, in the movie, we can't see anything worthy of respect and admiration, and we have no sense of identity with King Arthur in this magical world.
The biggest feeling of the movie is subversion. He subverts our cognition and the interpretation of historical themes. Although the original story that has been changed is dull and rotten, the exaggeration is a bit too much. So we don't see anything worth thinking about in Arthur, let alone the sparkle of human nature or even touching, only those cynicism and all kinds of cleverness. He didn't even show a trace of memory of his deceased parents, and even if his friend was captured after being injured, he could choose to flee without looking back. It was precisely because he was influenced by the culture of the rogues at the bottom that it affected him in us. The shining image of King Arthur in the heart.
Watching this movie, I have to say Charlie Hunnam, who plays King Arthur. The first impression he interprets as King Arthur is that he is full of blood, arrogant, and a ruffian who ignores me. He is completely fearless. But this image is really annoying. If he is not King Arthur but an ordinary person, I don't think he will be hacked to death many times? I don't like his style, he's too selfish, he's too arrogant, especially the fact that he doesn't take anyone's eyes is the most hated. I don't know why the director cast King Arthur into such an image, which is typically a blackening of history. figure.
Because this movie made me not like Charlie Hunnam very much. This sunny actor was shrouded in a shadow by the image of King Arthur. After the experience of losing his parents, not only did this character not learn to bear the humiliation, but he was everywhere in the limelight. , was hated. Knowing that pulling out the sword in the stone is a very dangerous thing, but he still chooses to make a fool of himself in this matter. He doesn't know that he hides his whereabouts and shows himself everywhere. It is a miracle that he can survive in the movie. It's no exaggeration to call the movie a bad movie, and it's clear from this point.
Guy Ritchie's films have been highlighting the ruffian culture of London, England. I don't know why he is so obsessed with rogue behavior. It would be understandable if this kind of behavior appeared on a few countrymen, but even the prince's revenge was imposed on this kind of thing. Style is a bit of a misfire. Not all movies fit this subculture of Guy Ritchie, not all genres fit this style of cinema, and as you can see from this film, after several films have been successful, Guy Ritchie has Becoming a little smug, self-righteous.
Therefore, such a nondescript film was created, where human feelings are lost and logic is lost. At the same time, I couldn't grasp the point of the movie, which not only made the already chaotic plot a mess, but also added to the magical plot of the introduction of black magic, which made the movie even more chaotic, and there is no point at all, neither is there anything super shocking The war scene, there is no magic scene, the fish and the bear's paw want to have both, and in the end, they didn't even do it. It's strange that the movie doesn't hit the street. .
S�
View more about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword reviews
