Kamurai
@Kamurai
Empty watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend. This movie is a good example of Warner Bros' desperate desire to be like Disney instead of doing their own thing when it comes to animation. It even looks like they lifted a character directly out of "Alice in Wonderland", and maybe there was a legal loophole they had , but it was really unnecessary. Honestly, most of the premise is a lot of nonsense, and I don't mean to dash dreams and lose the fancy of imaginative creation, but it's not even just fun. They took one of the few popular free stories (King Arthur) that Disney hadn't monopolized ("Sword in the Stone" only covers Arthur as a child, and this is after Camelot was realized), and then added so much magical guff to it that it was hardly recognizable as a version of the original story. This is not a "King Arthur and his Knights" story, it's a Kayley, and you don't know who that is because they made her up. Even Cary Elwes (Princess Bride: The Man in Black), by far the best actor / character in the movie, seems to have impatient disdain for having to perform the role, and he's probably the 3rd most occurring character. A knight that Arthur never would have made a knight, that the audience doesn't know, traitors the crown (when Lancelot did it, it was impactful) and kills a knight, that the audience doesn't know or care about, so the main character is launch into adventure on a basis that the audience objectively doesn't care about, and that adventure is further preluded with a Griffon dropping Excaliber into a cursed wood (which would have normally been represented by Merlin and/or the Woad), and having some magic would be fine, but they basically rip off the "Fire Swamp" from "Princess Bride" and add in all these questionably real people with weapons for hands. Everything I just wrote sounds insane, and that's without the guide being blind or there being a 2-headed dragon that hates itselves. I'm tired, and you should skip this unless you just have to see the train wreck.
