Guy Ritchie messed up this movie! In other words, Guy Ritchie has tried his best, but this film is still smashed! This film is the same as "Ghost in the Shell" that was released before, it is a "hypnotic film" with personality but very boring! Therefore, the simultaneous release of China and the United States on the weekend is likely to be a synchronized ending! Therefore, there is no need to hide from Hollywood blockbusters for any level of Chinese-language commercial films in the summer. Although there are many Hollywood blockbuster films, there are also a lot of street movies. This has never happened, so a high-level Chinese-language commercial film can be directly shot by just looking at which Hollywood blockbuster has a street scene! I'm far from it. When we come back to this film, let's not talk about anything else. Let's just talk about the title. Isn't the earliest popular online translation of "King Arthur: Legend of the Holy Sword" or "Arthur: Sword of Kings" not good? Also with King Arthur: Sword corresponds to the English film title. Has to be translated into "King Arthur: Battle of the Beast", which has to be translated into a wrong donkey's lips. Is there anyone who has had a bad idea with the filmmakers and wants to make the audience think of "Warcraft" through the subtitle "Beast of Beast"? As a result, I saw the film and found that there was neither "Beasts" nor "Hegemony" in the film. There were only two giant magic beasts, one head and one tail, to create a visual gimmick. Don't you fool the audience with "fake big sky"? Can the audience complain after watching it? Specifically, talk about how director Guy Ritchie messed up this film. First of all, the gloomy and gloomy image style is a big problem, yes, it is the tone of "Ghost in the Shell", plus this is a 3D film, with 3D glasses, and many theaters in China have 3D screens. The problem of not bright enough, there are a lot of plots in the film that take place in the dark or dark environment. Watching the entire film, it seems that the sky inside seems to have not cleared, so it is easy to make people feel that the entire film takes place in black and black. In the world, the picture quality is poor and the vision is blurred, and the look and feel is not ordinary! Think of the dim and terrible look and feel of "Ghost in the Shell", and the same is true of "King Arthur: Battle of the Beasts". Although Poison Tongue can understand Guy Ritchie’s choice of this tone, one is to fit the British island environment, and the other is to highlight the dignified, atmospheric, and quaint atmosphere of the costume film, but the film’s narrative and characters are actually quite unruly. , The modern sense is quite strong, it is definitely a "non-traditional" period costume film, so it is not necessary to use this traditional costume film to show it, the visual impression in the theater is really not good! Secondly, the plot of the film is also quite hollow. Perhaps because of the hollow plot, Guy Ritchie can only play tricks and make up for it with a lot of personalized narrative skills. Therefore, many sections have adopted two time-space cross-quick editing. The fast-paced and funny montage style of mixed flashbacks, voice-overs and dialogues intertwined, makes people suddenly look like a kind of unique sense of joy and rhythm, but after watching too much, I will think about it. When I think about it, I realize that this is nothing more than a narrative technique gimmick, and it cannot save a mediocre plot. It is like a patient who is dyingly ill. If you give him all the good cures and medicines, it will not help in the end. Moreover, the plot and characters of the whole film are so hollow that there is almost no sense of excitement and highlights at all. The twists and turns of the plot and the motivation of the characters are too casual and foolish. Charlie Hannum, who plays King Arthur, is not only scornful. There is a serious lack of kingliness, and Jude Law, who plays the evil king, is also a very routine villain. The whole film is actually a cliché and boring drama in essence. And Guy Ritchie's clever gimmick-style narrative skills can make the audience feel a certain degree of fast-paced, but it is this fast-paced that further dilutes the charm of the plot and the characters, making it almost impossible to tell after watching it. What are the wonderful plots and roles of the film? In addition, Guy Ritchie's construction of the entire fantasy world of the film is also a failure! In addition, the excitement of the movie's big scenes and action scenes is also obviously insufficient. It can be seen from this play that Hollywood studios actually don’t have much confidence in Guy Ritchie, so you can clearly feel that the film did not really cost a lot of money, so the real big scene is at the beginning of the film, the army of villains and the summoners. The magic colossus attacked the human castle, but even this only big scene was deceived. Such a powerful wizard was taken down by King Arthur's dad without any resistance. This is too foolish! What is really exciting is the failure of the assassination of the king in the middle of the plot. King Arthur and others start the "Battle Royale" scene. It is full of action, excitement, and the brotherhood of fighting to the death. Finally, there is the saint of King Arthur sweeping the army. Sword's big move is the finale, and the whole movie is only available for this action scene. At the end of the decisive battle between King Arthur and the evil king, Guy Ritchie still only had to play a visual gimmick. How did he play it? That is, when the two are fighting, the camera quickly zooms in and out, and it turns around and quickly zooms in and out, supplemented by the super slow motion camera. This kind of dazzling fighting effect is irritating if you can stand it, but you can’t stand it. Dizziness! Finally, I emphasize that the overall dim images of the film, the quick editing style of certain sections, the boring plot and characters, and the rock-and-roll style noise soundtrack can easily make your brain unable to withstand this intense audiovisual bombing. "And enter the "dead" state, that is to say, the "hypnosis" effect of this film is excellent! By the way, Beckham's guest appearance in this film is more reliable, and it can be regarded as the most unconventional one of all his guest appearances! There are also elements of fooling. Such a powerful wizard was taken down by King Arthur's dad without any resistance. This is too foolish! What is really exciting is the failure of the assassination of the king in the middle of the plot. King Arthur and others start the "Battle Royale" scene. It is full of action, excitement, and the brotherhood of fighting to the death. Finally, there is the saint of King Arthur sweeping the army. Sword's big move is the finale, and the whole movie is only available for this action scene. At the end of the decisive battle between King Arthur and the evil king, Guy Ritchie still only had to play a visual gimmick. How did he play it? That is, when the two are fighting, the camera quickly zooms in and out, and it turns around and quickly zooms in and out, supplemented by the super slow motion camera. This kind of dazzling fighting effect is irritating if you can stand it, but you can’t stand it. Dizziness! Finally, I emphasize that the overall dim images of the film, the quick editing style of certain sections, the boring plot and characters, and the rock-and-roll style noise soundtrack can easily make your brain unable to withstand this intense audiovisual bombing. "And enter the "dead" state, that is to say, the "hypnosis" effect of this film is excellent! By the way, Beckham's guest appearance in this film is more reliable, and it is the most inconsistent one of all the films he has guest appearances in! There are also elements of fooling. Such a powerful wizard was taken down by King Arthur's dad without any resistance. This is too foolish! What is really exciting is the failure of the assassination of the king in the middle of the plot. King Arthur and others start the "Battle Royale" scene. It is full of action, excitement, and the brotherhood of fighting to the death. Finally, there is the saint of King Arthur sweeping the army. Sword's big move is the finale, and the whole movie is only available for this action scene. At the end of the decisive battle between King Arthur and the evil king, Guy Ritchie still only had to play a visual gimmick. How did he play it? That is, when the two are fighting, the camera quickly zooms in and out, and it turns around and quickly zooms in and out, supplemented by the super slow motion camera. This kind of dazzling fighting effect is irritating if you can stand it, but you can’t stand it. Dizziness! Finally, I emphasize that the overall dim images of the film, the quick editing style of certain sections, the boring plot and characters, and the rock-and-roll style noise soundtrack can easily make your brain unable to withstand this intense audiovisual bombing. "And enter the "dead" state, that is to say, the "hypnosis" effect of this film is excellent! By the way, Beckham's guest appearance in this film is more reliable, and it can be regarded as the most unconventional one of all his guest appearances!
View more about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword reviews
