Shooting like CG, the bullet screen at station B is more interesting than the movie itself. But Guy Ritchie's picture, step-by-step mirror change, soundtrack yyds?
But is a market scoundrel really good enough to govern a country?
I always feel that Guy Ritchie's movie protagonists will always have his shadow. From the humorous self-deprecation of God's perspective in "Two Smoking Guns" to today's "King Arthur: Beasts", this gangster has a noble blood. , turned into the only son of the late king. Quite a bit of the pride of the "chosen son".
Arthur was rescued by blood, picked up the sword in the stone by blood, fought (with a sword) by blood, defeated Boss also by blood... And blood is precisely what the Chinese disdain the most. "Whose ancestors haven't been rich yet", Zhao Qiansun, Li Zhou, Wu Zheng Wang... that is not the queen of the royal family. What's more, we still have the concept of the Chinese nation. The pre-Qin people who left fingerprints on the mouths of the Terracotta Warriors are called "old ancestors" by all Chinese descendants.
Back to Arthur's "blood". I have no prejudice against the common man, but can Arthur run Castmelo well? Can his growth environment, education level, and life experience support a country? Is it possible to govern a country by blood?
Because Arthur could not use the power of the sword in the stone, he was sent to the dark forest to experience. But he is a king. He shouldn't learn the way of a king. In my opinion, a king's character can control the sword in stone better than his strength. Besides, how can a king go to war? Those who go to the battlefield are all soldiers and low-ranking officers. What the king and high-ranking officers have to do is to command and make decisions. Or how come so many protracted wars? Just let the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon duel one-on-one, and whoever wins is up to whoever wins.
Also, the Vikings slipping to their knees at the end is so funny. This King Arthur fully illustrates the above point about state governance. As long as the Vikings knelt down, they surrendered. Also "if you can make friends, don't go to war", is this called "making friends"? Isn't it still the "kneel for me if you win" set of gangsters?
In the end, Guy Ritchie, worthy of you, the British Empire. I thought I was the sun never set.
I really found that, no matter how proud Guy Ritchie was about being a gangster, he couldn't get rid of his wishful thinking about the British Empire. Regarding the "Chinaman" in "Gentlemen", there is actually a clue in this movie - George, the leg master, can't be more "Fu Manchu". In his mind, only the British Empire is the yyds, what are the Vikings (even if they were once the rulers of England)? Even if the Chinese market is very fragrant, he is not even willing to change his image for the Chinese.
Ps: I just saw someone say that this is a man's film.
Well, there is a saying on Weibo: Men always sympathize with rapists, but women like to accuse sluts. There is no personal attack, which means that some men always like to empathize with the same sex, including the same sex who rely on the aura of the protagonist. They also hope that they can be like Arthur, the only son of the previous king, the son of heaven, so they don't have to work too hard. You can get all the born king. In fact, I also thought about it when I was a child, but only when I was a child, um, "Men are teenagers until they die." (Whoever feels offended by this sentence can only show that you think so)
View more about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword reviews
