Actually the two main sources for Arthurian Legend stories are Thomas Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur and Tennyson's The Idylls of the King. T.H. White clearly nods to Mallory in the last scene of The Once and Future King (also used in the musical Camelot) when Arthur meets the boy Tom of Warwick (Mallory was born in Warwick). And please! It 's The Sword IN the Stone. Not And the Stone!
7
I went into Ritchie's King Arthur with low expectations due to reviews and the fact that I have not enjoyed some of the director's previous films. Lo and behold, the film held my interest throuout by developing likeable characters, a plot that was pretty easy to follow and some fun spectacle (e.g., serpent themes). There was also a nice mix of stylistic elements, some feudal and some thoroughly modern. The film could have been improved by reducing reliance on CGI, using more location shooting footage and developing Vortigern's motivations. But Jude Law was terrific as the villain. All in all, the film was quite entertaining..
5
Thank you. I agree. I enjoyed it a lot!
1
I am beyond sick of movies like this. There are so many good stories out there waiting to be told...why hash and rehash King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes, etc.? Why not do something fresh and real that requires acting and not digitized monsters? And why are there so many movies out there that depict a world in which women do little of note, if there are women at all? It's pablum, it's lazy, it's sexist film-making. Do better, Mr. Ritchie.
12
For all of your queries, I suggest you see "Their Finest."
1
Oh come on! "The Once and Future King" is the novel by T.H. White. "The Sword and the Stone" was a Disney animated movie. Fact checkers! Wake up! Get back to work!
19
Book One of THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING (it's divided into four parts) is indeed titled THE SWORD AND THE STONE.
3
Wikipedia is suggesting it was both a novel written by T.H. White in 1938, and a movie by Disney in 1963. The wiki has no issues of veracity noted on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_in_the_Stone
1
Shouldn't the reference to Richard II be, instead, to Richard III?
4
The Arthurian legend deserves more than a Guy Ritchie production.
7
King Arthur was one of the worse movies I have seen, saw it last night. It hearkens to Ray Harryhausen, which were similar in their eclectic approach to antiquity. I loved Many of Ritchie's other films from Locked and Loaded to Sherlock Holmes and between, but this one is a swamp. The trope of King Arthur is a beautiful and exacting story, One can depart only so much, and Ritchie shakes it up in a disorganized and incoherent way. The giant elephants in the beginning, and then giant serpents later. Excaliber has super powers, then it doesn't. His father is killed with by his brother in the guise of a monster. I could not figure it out. Instead of Merlin is a beautiful young mage. I think Merlin is symbolized by an Eagle but who knows? All the girls were impossibly cute. I loved the crazy realism and verisimilitude of his other pictures. This one I wanted to walk out of. I am afraid to see another Ritchie film now. I would not recommend
7
King Arthur presented a plausible story about the legend. Better than the movie's complete impossible nonsense described in the review.
Read "Idylls of the King" for meaning. All one can ask for is that when Hollywood gets a hold of something it at least pretends to be close to its source, its times.
Read "Idylls of the King" for meaning. All one can ask for is that when Hollywood gets a hold of something it at least pretends to be close to its source, its times.
3
Why not take a great legend with phenomenal possibilities, take away any relevant historical truth in any way shape or form, a foist more inane drivel on the unsuspecting public. The unfortunate fact is that they might believe it truer.
There were two good movies on the subject -- The Once and Future King, and Arthur. And I am sure that any part of the moral story that is Arthur gets lost in the dust. The Grail Quest -- an integral part of the story -- stands by itself.
There were two good movies on the subject -- The Once and Future King, and Arthur. And I am sure that any part of the moral story that is Arthur gets lost in the dust. The Grail Quest -- an integral part of the story -- stands by itself.
5
Why not "Excalibur" as well.
3
EXCALIBER is the milestone Arthurian legend movie. Curious if Charlie Hunnam's girlfriend is named after Morgana (played wickedly beautiful by Helen Mirren) from that movie...?
10
That was Helen Mirren? Who knew! (at the time). However, I can't agree that "Excalibur" was a milestone, except of dark photography.
1
For Mr. Ritchie, I guess besmirching the spare genius of Sherlock Holmes for future generations was just practice for this dreary, gray chaos. Hint: It always helps to have respect for your material, a rule seemingly disregarded by almost every modern director called upon to depict a beloved historical or literary figure. Like our President, they can't be expected to have done any preparatory reading.
11
Yes, she means Richard III, not Richard II. Richard III is a hunch-backed, melodramatic villain. Richard II is ephemeral, childish, and immature. And he speaks in poetry, not prose. Big difference. Silly little mistake.
15
I don't know - "louche pouter" sounds more like RII.
1
This is pretty much exactly what I expected from the preview in theatres. King Arthur meets Pacific Rim, right down to the giant fighting robots. Toss in a completely impossible 14th century West African in England, what the heck. Too bad to waste high quality talent on this, all the major actors are usually phenomenal. If there's a sequel (as seems intended) it's definitely a must-miss.
This does remind me to see The Sword and the Stone again though, terrific Disney flick, not to mention Monty Python and the Holy Grail, probably the most historically accurate of any Arthurian film.
This does remind me to see The Sword and the Stone again though, terrific Disney flick, not to mention Monty Python and the Holy Grail, probably the most historically accurate of any Arthurian film.
15
Manhola Dargis has such a delicious way with words. I am 100% sure this review brought me more joy than this movie ever could.
11
Oh, New York Times, you disappoint me: T. H. White wrote the novel THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING. Disney took a small portion of that delicious book and turned it into the animated feature THE SWORD AND THE STONE, which is also rather delicious, as cartoon movies go...
14
TOAFK's chapter "THe Sword and the Stone" was also issued as a slender, separate novel. But agreed: no one will ever tell the Arthurian legend as beautifully as White did.
6
I should have said "Issued in slightly altered form." Now that I recall. "Sword in the Stone" seemed to include a passage about King Pellinor's toothbrush that was not a part of TOAFK.
1
If any young readers out there are tempted to go and see yet another misplaced Arthurian remake, let me recommend instead revisiting John Boorman's "Excalibur." A modest hit when it first appeared almost 40 years ago, it now shines as a little Celtic masterpiece. The Irish scenery and Nichole Williamson's Merlin alone make it worth a visit. Sublime.
37
Amen. The moment I saw a trailer for this, I thought, "I'd rather spend my time re-watching Excalibur." Without yet seeing "Legend of the Sword," I'm pretty sure its action sequences won't hold a candle to some of the Art Nouveau visuals that Boorman created.
The last compelling take on Arthurian legend, at least IMO, was Terry Gilliam's "The Fisher King." Love how Gilliam cleverly used the wounded Grail King myth to discuss loss, mental illness, and redemption.
The last compelling take on Arthurian legend, at least IMO, was Terry Gilliam's "The Fisher King." Love how Gilliam cleverly used the wounded Grail King myth to discuss loss, mental illness, and redemption.
9
I second that recommendation. "Excalibur" is more fun every time I see it. Nichol Williamson is superb, and Helen Mirren is outstanding.
4
YEEESSSS! "Excalibur" is required viewing. Skip Guy Ritchie's CGI-gamer-monstrosity and go for the classic.
It's been so long since I've seen it that I completely failed to remember, or even realize, that Helen Mirren played Morgana. I really must watch it again. Time to break out that Blu-Ray.
(And for you kids out there, "Blu-Ray" is an optical-disc format offering far better picture and sound quality than any of your digital download/streaming platforms. But then again, if you're watching on your phone or laptop, I really can't help you. Sorry, I just... can't help you.)
It's been so long since I've seen it that I completely failed to remember, or even realize, that Helen Mirren played Morgana. I really must watch it again. Time to break out that Blu-Ray.
(And for you kids out there, "Blu-Ray" is an optical-disc format offering far better picture and sound quality than any of your digital download/streaming platforms. But then again, if you're watching on your phone or laptop, I really can't help you. Sorry, I just... can't help you.)
3
T.H. White's novel is 'The Once and Future King.' It's a long, wonderful, enveloping book.
Disney's cartoon movie 'The Sword in the Stone' dramatizes the section early in the book in which young Arthur becomes king.
The Broadway show (and subsequent movie) 'Camelot' draws on a later, more tragic section of the novel.
Disney's cartoon movie 'The Sword in the Stone' dramatizes the section early in the book in which young Arthur becomes king.
The Broadway show (and subsequent movie) 'Camelot' draws on a later, more tragic section of the novel.
10
The legend of Arthur without Camelot? No thanks.
2
A. O. Scott implies that the T.H. White Sword in the Stone and the Disney movie of the same title are unrelated. Not so. Disney bought the rights to this first book of White's The Once And Future King and the animated feature is based on this retelling. By the way, White's book is a masterpiece.and everyone should read it.
9
Dargis wrote the review. Otherwise, you're correct.
3
Watched it opening evening. Wow, was that bad. It wasn't even a thinly veiled attempt to mask a plotless attempt at violence and special effects. Why did I think there would be some reasonable King Arthur mythology in this?
8
Sounds as though they made this movie strictly in order to set up a franchise. Why didn't they just entitle it "King Arthur I" in consideration of the fact that American moviegoers are more impressed by numerics than they are by creative or personal filmmaking?
16
This was King Arthur: 'Legend of the Sword' think X-Men and X-Men: 'Days of Future Past' they don't always use #'s but that's the way I took it. I left the theater wanting more.
1
"I left the theater wanting more."
I'm sure you did.
I'm sure you did.
1
Lol... Looking over most of the comments they all went in to the movie with the expectation and comparison of another director's way of telling the story and honestly I enjoy other perspectives and vision eh to each his own. What I meant by wanting more is how it will unravel all the chaos that left people all over the place. Also I am going back for 2nd viewing LOL..