I am mad about "The Green Knight."

[Rome's rightful successor]

Was going to go and see this movie today.... I guess I'm not going to now.

Eventually we are going to Horseshoe Theory our way back to John Wayne playing Genghis Khan-levels of miscasting, and that's hilarious.

We've pretty much already have though at least with the mindset of John Wayne as Genghis Khan it was a need for an icon charismatic actor could you say the same for a production made today on woke progressive ideology?

 

[Commander X]

Green Knight isn't a real movie, stop getting psyoped into thinking it happened. I haven't even seen a single person mention it after a review.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Eventually we are going to Horseshoe Theory our way back to John Wayne playing Genghis Khan-levels of miscasting, and that's hilarious.

We've technically had something akin to that but it was...not poorly received but never got enough traction to hit mainstream with much success. Patrick Stewart played Othello in a version of the play where all racial roles were reversed. So he was the sole white amongst an otherwise black cast.

By all accounts the performance were very good and of course offered a fairly hefty lot of opportunities that many of the performers would never have otherwise. But I suspect he is very smug about getting that in before the current state of affairs because no way is that happening again any time soon.

I'd actually be kind of on board with an all non-white film or series of the Arthurian legends if done well. Not at the moment though.

 

[Michael Wade]

I still want to see this, it looks epic. I didn't really hear or think shit about the main dudes skin color till it was pointed out here. Now.. is there actual gay shit or is it just an epic looking travel movie?

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

Havent seen the film (and I won't), but here's some assorted bullshit I found while reading: Gawain isn't even a knight when he accepts the knightly challenge. Morgan le Fay is Gawain’s mom. Speaking of moms, the director is a sad little manlet who warped the story to include his pathetic 'failure to launch' shit. Article

Lowery, too, shows Morgana as the orchestrator of Gawain’s entire test—though her motivations here are very different. “In the book, you get this deus ex machina appearance by Morgan le Fay and she’s like, ‘I was behind everything, Lord Bertilak and the Lady were possessed by me and I was also this character.’ … She’s vital to the story, but she really only shows up in the last two or three pages of the text. I definitely wanted to avoid that.” Instead, Lowery decided to make the whole gambit much more complicated and personal.

“It became a drama about a mother and a son in a way that I hadn’t intended,” he says. “All of a sudden, I was writing about my own relationship with my mom, and the fact that I stayed, I lived under her roof for far longer than I should have. I had failure-to-launch syndrome, and she eventually had to force me out.” Morgana’s trick with the Green Knight and the Lady and the bet are all part of an effort to push her layabout son into the world and test his mettle.

How about you just, oh I dunno, faithfully adapt the work. Also fuck pahjeets.

 

[Screamer]

Eventually we are going to Horseshoe Theory our way back to John Wayne playing Genghis Khan-levels of miscasting, and that's hilarious.

It'll start by taking some historic bad guy who wasn't white and making them white. Some argument about appearing right to modern views on race. Which is an argument they make about showing places like ancient Rome or Greece as full of sub-Saharan Africans. They were "racially diverse" for their time but wouldn't look it to modern audiences, so they need to put lots of blacks in there to represent it those modern audiences.

 

[That Chris Guy]

Saw it, thought it was shit.

Plodding, pretentious slog of a movie that's not enjoyable to watch. There's a bunch of extra fluff tacked on to stretch the story out, and it really shows. CGI is utterly wasted on an unconvincing fox and some marginally amusing plot pieces that are neither explained nor go anywhere, pointless story additions that do nothing to enhance the story, and in true Pajeet style it takes a giant shit at the end and the curtains close.

Ultimately, Gawain doesn't feel like much of a hero at all by the end of this film. They do their best to make him look cowardly and weak, and the end result is the conclusion doesn't do enough to reverse that viewpoint. They also fail to give the impression of impending doom. Movies like Donnie Darko or even The Ring did a good job of feeling like you were heading towards the character's oblivion and maintained that tension throughout. This does none of that - you'll hope he gets there faster than he actually does.

Woke casting choices aside, had they removed the pointless CGI and done a lot less dream bait, it could have been a much better movie. Would not recommend; you'll be bored out of your skull - even if you take an interest in quiet, sombre movies.

I still want to see this, it looks epic. I didn't really hear or think shit about the main dudes skin color till it was pointed out here. Now.. is there actual gay shit or is it just an epic looking travel movie?

There's a brief moment where two men kiss, but it's part of the original story so not-gay.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Now that I remember, wouldn't be the first time...

(Sure, we can make a point of him being in fact ethnically white, but nobody wants to mention that ever...)

 

[Sex Cannon Lupa]

But he was the best thing in that boring movie.

 

[Cowboy Cat]

Seeing this tonight. Personally the race shit doesn't bother me, the cinematography is enough to win me over.

Spoiler: pl

also I'm fuckin gay and want to look at Dev Patel for a while, sue me

 

[Mullti Port RDRAM]

I liked all the visual and cinematographical elements of this movie. I even liked the performance by Dev Patel. But holy shit is this movie beyond pretentious and dense. I'm conflicted as to whether I liked or hated it.

 

[Cowboy Cat]

Seeing this tonight. Personally the race shit doesn't bother me, the cinematography is enough to win me over.

Spoiler: pl

also I'm fuckin gay and want to look at Dev Patel for a while, sue me

Alright so some thoughts:
- everyone worried about the 'gay shit' needs to calm down it's like a second long and occurs in the original story
- it's definitely kind of pretentious and not for everyone but personally I liked it
- jesus christ it is Beautiful to look at for the whole movie
- structure is weird and probably would not appeal to a lot of people, especially if the bulk of the media you consume was made after 1980 and in english

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Alright so some thoughts:
- everyone worried about the 'gay shit' needs to calm down it's like a second long and occurs in the original story
- it's definitely kind of pretentious and not for everyone but personally I liked it
- jesus christ it is Beautiful to look at for the whole movie
- structure is weird and probably would not appeal to a lot of people, especially if the bulk of the media you consume was made after 1980 and in english

It does make me wonder whether promoting Cinematographers and Directors of Photography to the Director chair is worth it overall. Mortal Engines also comes to mind as a good-looking movie let down by a mediocre script.* These movies look great, but the thinking seems to revolve around making making movies into a series of paintings instead of telling a well-paced story. It's a trade-off that I'm not sure is worth it in the end.

*That argued that protecting the wall was a good thing.

 

[Cowboy Cat]

It does make me wonder whether promoting Cinematographers and Directors of Photography to the Director chair is worth it overall. Mortal Engines also comes to mind as a good-looking movie let down by a mediocre script.* These movies look great, but the thinking seems to revolve around making making movies into a series of paintings instead of telling a well-paced story. It's a trade-off that I'm not sure is worth it in the end.

*That argued that protecting the wall was a good thing.

Agree, it gives me the same kind of reaction I had to The Neon Demon; it's beautiful but lacking in story and I'm honestly unsure if that's better or worse than the films that are the other way around. It's a visual medium and it's nice to see that highlighted, but it's unfortunate that good film writers seem to be in short supply.

 

[Gar For Archer]

Agree, it gives me the same kind of reaction I had to The Neon Demon; it's beautiful but lacking in story and I'm honestly unsure if that's better or worse than the films that are the other way around. It's a visual medium and it's nice to see that highlighted, but it's unfortunate that good film writers seem to be in short supply.

Easily worse.

Sure movies are a visual medium, but a medium for what? Storytelling. No matter how pretty a movie is, the thing that sticks with you a month after you watched it is going to be the story. You can have a meaningful discussion about a poorly-shot movie with a really compelling story, but when it’s the other way around, all you can really say is “…well, at least it looked really nice”.

 

[Mullti Port RDRAM]

Agree, it gives me the same kind of reaction I had to The Neon Demon; it's beautiful but lacking in story and I'm honestly unsure if that's better or worse than the films that are the other way around. It's a visual medium and it's nice to see that highlighted, but it's unfortunate that good film writers seem to be in short supply.

I think its subjective, but (to my recollection), many visual-forward films that I like, have some kind of a traditional three act story through them. Not all of those without can function without the service of a plot, like Sans Soleil or Koyaanisqatsi, for example.

The Green Knight has a three act structure but I would argue the climax occurs in the first, when the Green Knight confronts Arthur. Everything else kind of putters around at a slow pace until the final scene. That's not necessarily compelling storytelling, it feels like the doldrums of a journey speckled with the cinematic equivalent of sight seeing McKinney Falls on your 15 hour drive to Austin. Maybe that was what David Lowery wanted to convey. Both are not really exciting to me, so good job David. You did it.

 

[Techpriest]

Ver archivo adjunto 2398803

Most of that is people mad that it isn’t a huge action blockbuster. It’s an art house film that somehow got a big release because nothing else could fit the slot.

 

[Techpriest]

Saw it, thought it was shit.

Plodding, pretentious slog of a movie that's not enjoyable to watch. There's a bunch of extra fluff tacked on to stretch the story out, and it really shows. CGI is utterly wasted on an unconvincing fox and some marginally amusing plot pieces that are neither explained nor go anywhere, pointless story additions that do nothing to enhance the story, and in true Pajeet style it takes a giant shit at the end and the curtains close.

Ultimately, Gawain doesn't feel like much of a hero at all by the end of this film. They do their best to make him look cowardly and weak, and the end result is the conclusion doesn't do enough to reverse that viewpoint. They also fail to give the impression of impending doom. Movies like Donnie Darko or even The Ring did a good job of feeling like you were heading towards the character's oblivion and maintained that tension throughout. This does none of that - you'll hope he gets there faster than he actually does.

Woke casting choices aside, had they removed the pointless CGI and done a lot less dream bait, it could have been a much better movie. Would not recommend; you'll be bored out of your skull - even if you take an interest in quiet, sombre movies.



There's a brief moment where two men kiss, but it's part of the original story so not-gay.

This is a big part of the original story though. While Gawain confronts his fears and is brave sometimes, he isn’t brave all the time. He flinches at the axe strikes, he takes the token of protection, and so on.

 

[That Chris Guy]

This is a big part of the original story though. While Gawain confronts his fears and is brave sometimes, he isn’t brave all the time. He flinches at the axe strikes, he takes the token of protection, and so on.

It's true, but they piled too much on top of those elements in my opinion. For one, he only flinches once from the first strike in the original story. He doesn't have a vision about being a wuss and inventing his own fanfic on the demise of Gawain . Nor does he go on a bizarre headhunting quest or get jerked off for the belt and berated for jizzing. Ultimately, the story's Gawain retains his presence as a knight despite his moments of failure; Dev Gawain just gets repeatedly degraded.

Also, maybe they could have not ended the movie so abruptly and instead used the time they wasted on fluff explaining the outcome. They somewhat did themselves in on that by making the Green Knight a summoned golem rather than an illusion.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

I saw it and this was a movie that I REALLY wanted to like, but it became a victim of style over substance.

I love the look of the film, and kickoff point and overall premise are awesome, and I even liked how it ended, but the stuff inbetween was just a slog where hardly anything paid off in a satisfying way. I really wanted to like the fox...but he didn't amount to much. I wanted to be creeped out by Winifred and The Lady...but they only created either awkwardness or nothing at all.

I'm all for slower paced movies and ambiguity, but this went way too far into that camp to the point of being relentlessly dull, and the entire story just made the main character look like an awful knight all around and really killed my interest in his journey. But again, it all looked very nice.

And as someone with a more than passing familiarity with Arthurian lore, I'd have been nice to kind of revel in its lore beyond King Arthur himself. Like give us a little bit more of Merlin, or given us a set up for how important Excalibur is, or at least let us know the the witch was supposed to be Morgan La Fey and what her motivation was. As is, it just looked like the mom senselessly set her son up to have a great fall for no reason. If the throne of Arthur was her goal (as the vision at the end implies) then explain it. And even if that was her goal, its a roundabout and convoluted way to do it.

Now I can't judge it as an adaptation as I've never read the original poem its based on, but judging it as a movie, its a disappointment because I wanted a break from the Western Blockbuster / Capeshit type of movie, and this was a perfect opportunity to do that, but it didn't quite give me what I was looking for.