petemcphee2
Joined Sep 2014
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews68
petemcphee2's rating
It felt like a straight to DVD or like the quality of a TV series spin off from the original movie.
I honestly felt no investment in any of the characters. We barely got to know any of them and the clumsy script handed us exposition in grease lumps that were barely digestable.
I blame Ridley Scott.
He clearly only made this movie because he wanted to film the scenes he didn't manage in the original.
Gladiators riding Rhinos and Colloseum Shark Week.
All done far less convincingly proving CGI has only gotten worse in the intervening 25yrs.
The original movie famously began shooting before the script was even half way completed. This movie just should not have been made given the dreadful script which just parodies the original.
I honestly felt no investment in any of the characters. We barely got to know any of them and the clumsy script handed us exposition in grease lumps that were barely digestable.
I blame Ridley Scott.
He clearly only made this movie because he wanted to film the scenes he didn't manage in the original.
Gladiators riding Rhinos and Colloseum Shark Week.
All done far less convincingly proving CGI has only gotten worse in the intervening 25yrs.
The original movie famously began shooting before the script was even half way completed. This movie just should not have been made given the dreadful script which just parodies the original.
Like many I was immediately turned off from the Show. Having read the books which were fabulous I was expecting the Show to be a faithful rendering as Derfel told the story of Arthur.
What was clear from the outset was that the producers had decided they wanted to tell a gritty tale of Arthur, but not from the point of view of another character.
So straight away it's Arthur that's central.
A few years after I first dropped the Show in episode 1 I decided to give it another go.
I put aside my initial dissapointmentvand immediately fell in love with the Show.
It's incredibly well cast and strongly acted. And of course the Legend is a fantastic script to run off.
You can see what they producers attempted. Using the famous book trilogy to bring in an audience for the grittier tale of Arthur... But their mistake was to underestimate the reaction of the book fans.
Ah well, onwards and upwards.
What was clear from the outset was that the producers had decided they wanted to tell a gritty tale of Arthur, but not from the point of view of another character.
So straight away it's Arthur that's central.
A few years after I first dropped the Show in episode 1 I decided to give it another go.
I put aside my initial dissapointmentvand immediately fell in love with the Show.
It's incredibly well cast and strongly acted. And of course the Legend is a fantastic script to run off.
You can see what they producers attempted. Using the famous book trilogy to bring in an audience for the grittier tale of Arthur... But their mistake was to underestimate the reaction of the book fans.
Ah well, onwards and upwards.
There is so much bad with this...
Too long
Too slow
Confusing narrative
Poor direction
I lost count of the amount of times I asked myself "WTF am I watching?"
At 1hr and 37mins the McGuffin arrived... An orphan baby that is being cared by a whore crosses paths with Costner's character.
What's clashing in the background all the time is the soundtrack which never seems appropriate or matches to what's on screen.
Similarly the cinematography of the exterior is difficult to fault, but the interiors are sloppy, poorly lit, poorly focused and in one scene pure amateurish (A flaccid Costner gets dry rode by the prostitute in the tent with all the mechanical effort of a stapler)
Then with ten minutes to go the "Movie" with no explanation resorts to showing a selection of unconnected scenes to come from the next movie.... It feels like a apology. Like Costner watched this crap and said "folks, I know this wasn't very good, but if you stick with it here's what's to come".
No thanks.
What's clashing in the background all the time is the soundtrack which never seems appropriate or matches to what's on screen.
Similarly the cinematography of the exterior is difficult to fault, but the interiors are sloppy, poorly lit, poorly focused and in one scene pure amateurish (A flaccid Costner gets dry rode by the prostitute in the tent with all the mechanical effort of a stapler)
Then with ten minutes to go the "Movie" with no explanation resorts to showing a selection of unconnected scenes to come from the next movie.... It feels like a apology. Like Costner watched this crap and said "folks, I know this wasn't very good, but if you stick with it here's what's to come".
No thanks.