User Reviews (1,932)

Add a Review

  • Liked the first half, disliked the second half. The alterations to the original story were in some ways intriguing, like including the story of St. Winifred whose fate echoes Gawain's, but in other cases, went too far off the rails. Some of the wild ideas that got included to pad the film out to 130 long minutes should have been excised.

    What is the green knight? Death, the green of the earth that will cover us all, the moss that will grow over our edifices when we're gone - I loved this interpretation. Facing the prospect of death with honor, resisting temptation - the basis for the original story may sound rather old-fashioned, but it's from the 14th century after all. Too many of the embellishments David Lowery made to the story - subplots, characters, hallucinations, etc - detracted from it, feeling at best inelegant and at worst pretentious. You certainly don't get the impression from the film that the story is about virtue or honor, and that's a shame. It started feeling like ambiguity for ambiguity's sake, which was irritating by the time the film ended.

    The cinematography certainly had its moments, but I prefer less CGI, less darkness, and a more realistic look even to fantasy stories, at least as much as possible. Aesthetically I had a very mixed reaction, and in any event, the lighthearted tone of the poem was completely lost here. Dev Patel is wonderful though.
  • siderite23 January 2022
    I really wanted to like this film, but other than the obvious care towards its execution, everything else is basically slow, pretentious, referencing stuff important to the writer/director and metaphorical. This is one of those movies that you have to research after watching it, trying to understand what it wanted to say. In short: a boy's rite of passage to becoming a man by facing his own death... stretched to more than two hours.

    It certainly helps to know the 14th century poem the film is based on, its various interpretations and associated folklore, including the French versions. Not ready to do that? Well, you're out of luck! Because the film is purposely vague, explaining nothing, making no sense and adding stuff from poems from the same era as filler. In short: Gawain was this noble and kind knight, unless you read the French versions where he was a total dick or the later rewrites which feature Lancelot as the top good guy.

    The film is slow, methodical, making you want to watch it at 1.5x speed, only you can't because you need to see every detail and divine its meaning. For example: King Arthur's coat has these little metal badges on it, which are references to previous projects of the writer/director and of other people in the team. What? You didn't get that while Arthur is walking around in a dark room and scenes are interspersed with scenes of Morgana Le Fay doing pagan magic? Well, I can't understand how, because the writer/director spent more than a year perfecting the scene until it was just right! And yes, I am sarcastic.

    The only reason why I rated this so high is because the sets were nice and the actors did great work. However, this is one of those obscure works that carry meaning only to the creator and can't possibly bring any joy at the first viewing. Do I care about old British folk lore and how the writer/director wanted to tell the story so I would research all of this and then rewatch the film so I can revel in the details? Hell, no!
  • I've got to admit, I'm very confused by all of the negative reviews. Were people expecting A Knight's Tale? This is an A24 artsy movie, it's not a popcorn movie. That being said, I found it very engaging. It's slightly slow paced, only because each scene takes its time, but I did not find it boring. In fact, I found it fairly riveting and propulsive for a movie of its kind. There is a thick atmosphere by way I of very compelling visuals and music, which reminded me of an Alex Garland movie, like Annihilation or Men, but set in medieval times.

    The movie is also extremely thought provoking. There are several interesting themes of the movie: 1) The nature of chivalry and honor, 2) The meaning or meaninglessness of life and death. There are also some interesting choices about race and color.

    I will say, I did read the original legend before seeing the movie, and perhaps that increased my enjoyment of the movie. It's short, and will only take you a few hours. It was very interesting to see in what ways Lowery chose to stay true to the story, versus what says he chose to deviate. There was even an interesting meta line in the movie about making changes to an original work when it needs improvement.

    Overall, if you're open to a thought provoking and artistically beautiful movie, I think you'll enjoy the movie.
  • Before I viewed this movie I was aware of the polarized reviews and ratings, some think it is great while others consider it a complete miss. So I was curious.

    It is a lesser-known story on the fringes of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Sir Gawain (they pronounce it 'GAW-in') is the King's nephew, it is Christmas, and a mysterious Green Knight shows up, inviting a challenge. None of the Knights step up but Gawain does.

    Then a year later, on Christmas, he must travel 'six days north' to meet up with the Green Knight again, to settle the score.

    My wife and I viewed it at home on BluRay from our public library. At just over two hours it was a fantastical, mystical movie. It has very accomplished actors who play their roles well. The locations (shot in Ireland) and cinematography are excellent all the way through. The sound track is really great. That's all the good stuff.

    The not-so-good is that the story is very obscure much of the time. Things happened (like, what was up with the blindfolded woman who never spoke?) that cannot easily be interpreted as part of the story. So what we end up with is a pretty good viewing experience that leaves you figuratively scratching your head and wondering, "What was that all about?"

    I am glad I watched it, I doubt that I will ever want to watch it again. The "making of" extra on the disc contains lots of discussion for those wanting to dig deeper into it. I viewed some of it. The cast and filmmakers clearly had a good time making it.
  • The Green Knight came highly recommended. I went in wanting to love it, but left disappointed. The cinematography and visual execution in the film are outstanding (with the exception of the weakly CGI'd fox). The movie drops the viewer into a fully realized medieval fantasy, complete with talking creatures, witchcraft, a ghost, and even a traveling crew of giants in a segment that made little sense. It's fortunate that the scenes are so dazzling, because you'll be staring at them a while. The movie trudges along for over two hours.

    For plot, the Green Knight tells the story of Sir Gawain, King Arthur's unaccomplished nephew who appears to spend much of his time drinking or fraternizing with a prostitute he fancies but is unwilling to progress the relationship any further beyond transactional. On Christmas, at the King's feast, the eponymous Green Knight appears, a creature with a human shape but made of trees and plants. He proposes a game: anyone who strikes him will receive his powerful ax, but in one year, that individual must go to the Green Knight's home, an earthen chapel, and receive the same strike in return. Gawain beheads the Green Knight, achieving instant fame throughout the kingdom. As the following year slips away, Gawain then faces his obligations and sets off on the journey to meet the Green Knight.

    It's a film that asks Big Questions, about the meaning of being human and facing one's death, about honor, duty, and chivalry, and even about love. After raising these issues early on, once Gawain begins his travels, the film then instead forefronts the slog of the journey. Maybe the unpleasantness of duty is part of the point, but it's not enjoyable viewing either. Several of the stops along the way seem nothing more than pretty, pretentious asides - dreamlike aspects of the film's world that they just couldn't cut during editing - rather than necessary portions of plot. The movie was stuffed with these aspects and overlong as a result, resulting in a viewing experience that felt tedious by the time the credits rolled.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is not as much a review of the movie but an attempt to clarify it, as its story seems to have been widely misunderstood. I will first summarize the main events as told in the original tale, and then compare them as told in the movie. It will be found that the movie inverts the original tale in a highly innovative manner.

    In the original tale, Sir Gawain is an honorable knight who unknowingly gets in the way of a witchcraft ploy by Morgan Le Fey (not his mother!) to gain power over the Arthurian throne within a year's time.

    When the Green Knight, summoned by Morgan, appears in court on Christmas day and issues his challenge, it is King Arthur who is the target. Gawain courageously takes Arthur's place in confronting the Green Knight in order to assume the consequence of decapitating the Green Knight a year later for himself: meeting him at the Green Chapel and suffering a similar mortal wound.

    A year later, when he is ready to face his end of the game, he maintains his honor throughout, except on one occasion: he breaks his word in an agreement made with the lord of a manor he comes across just prior to reaching the chapel where he is to meet the Green Knight.

    He and the Lord had agreed that while he stayed there, each day the Lord would give him whatever he gets while on the hunt, and Gawain would give him whatever he gets in the manor. While the Lord is out hunting, his wife, the lady of the manor, attempts to seduce Gawain, but it only ever leads to a kiss and nothing more. When the Lord comes back, he presents him with the game he caught, and Gawain presents him with a kiss on the mouth, thus keeping his end of their agreement. These events repeat the next day.

    However, on a subsequent day, when the lady of the manor offers him a green sash she tells him will protect him against the Green Knight and save his life, he keeps that from the Lord and thereby breaks his end of the agreement, while the Lord presents him with a fox he hunted.

    Gawain then goes to face the Green Knight, and assumes the position to be decapitated as agreed, but flinches at first. Eventually, he gains his composure and is ready. The Green Knight lifts his axe, and it comes down just by Gawain's neck, imparting merely a glancing wound.

    It turns out the Green Knight is actually the Lord (transformed by Morgan), and the glancing wound was only because of the slight breach in Gawain's honor when he failed to disclose the receipt of the green scarf, otherwise the axe would have missed his neck completely, as Sir Gawain's honor is otherwise spotless, and the Green Knight's axe cannot harm an honest honorable man.

    Now to the movie (Lots of Spoilers):

    Morgan Le Fey is Gawain's mother and wants her son to one day succeed King Arthur on the throne. The problem is that her son falls drastically short of the chivalric ideals of a knight. He spends his days in a whorehouse with a prostitute, imbibing alcohol and doing little else, even on Christmas, and then lies to his mother about it. He is not an honorable man.

    So Morgan concocts a plan to use her witchcraft that will help demonstrate to others her son's honor, thus giving him a reputation worthy of the throne.

    She summons the Green Knight, and the target of the challenge is Gawain. Her son does indeed rise to the Green Knight's challenge. However, it would have sufficed for Gawain to demonstrate his honor just by nicking the Green Knight and agree to be nicked himself a year later. Indeed, he is indirectly encouraged by his uncle to do just that when told "Remember, it is just a game", but the reckless young man instead chooses to decapitate the Green knight, presumably reasoning that this will obviate the need for him to subject himself to any kind of harm a year hence.

    But the Green Knight then gets up, picks up his head and reminds everyone present of Gawain's end of the bargain before galloping off.

    In the intervening year, Gawain has still not attained much honor. Among the populace, his encounter with the Green Knight has been spun into a tall tale of courage and honor which bears little resemblance to the actual event.

    But as flawed as Gawain is, he does want to attain the chivalric ideal of honor, and so, with encouragement from his uncle, he goes on his way when it gets close to his appointment with Green Knight.

    Unfortunately, already at the outset of his journey, his honor is compromised because he obtains "insurance" that nothing will really happen to him, as his mother gives him a green scarf that will protect him against the Green Knight.

    Along his journey, he is presented with a number of opportunities to prove his honor, and he spectacularly fails almost every time: when attacked and captured by a group of bandits, he begs for his life like a coward, when asked by a mysterious lady ghost to retrieve her skull, he queries what she can do for him like a haggler, and when the lady of the manor attempts to seduce him, he completely gives in like a lecher.

    In the one situation in which in the original tale Gawain's honor is blemished, in the movie he manages to save it: after he has obtained a replacement sash to protect him (the first one was taken from him) and per agreement is obliged to give it to the Lord, he asks to be "unhanded", presumably meaning to be released from their agreement. The lord agrees, and releases the catch of that day instead of giving it to Gawain: a fox which had joined Gawain earlier in his journey. He also kisses Gawain on the mouth, which I interpret as a hint that this story is the inverse of the original tale.

    As Gawain comes very close to the green chapel, the fox suddenly turns out to be able to speak and tries to dissuade him from proceeding. The fox's voice is that of his mother!

    It turns out that Morgan had been watching over Gawain all along, accompanying him on his journey in the form of the fox. Presumably, she also arranged for him to regain the items he had lost along the way: his horse, the axe and, most importantly, the green scarf that could literally save his neck.

    Why did she reveal herself now?

    The honorable thing for Gawain to do would be to present himself to the Green knight without his sash, but that would mean certain death for him. Throughout the journey, Gawain had acted reliably in a dishonorable manner, but now, Morgan had just witnessed her son for the first time acting honorably: instead of breaking his agreement, as in the original tale, he asked to be released from it. Might this inspire him to act honorably when he encounters the green knight?

    Presumably, this is the fear that compels Morgan to blow her cover, but to no avail: Gawain continues his journey until he meets the Green knight.

    He assumes position but flinches. He asks the Green Knight whether that is all, getting in response asked what else there ought to be. This seems to be a nod to remind the audience that in the original tale, there was indeed more, but not here.

    He assumes position again, but loses his courage and runs away. In a lightning-fast sequence of events, we see him return to Camelot, assume false honor, succeed King Arthur on the throne, father a son with his prostitute lover, take it away from her and marry a more reputable lady, unsuccessfully seek honor in further conquest, eventually losing his son on a campaign, then his kingdom and finally his head.

    This turns out to to have been a vision of what his life will be like if he chooses the way of dishonor as he has almost always done. He decides to change, and removes his scarf before assuming position to be decapitated. During the literally last minute of his life, he becomes an honorable man.

    The manner in which the movie inverts the original tale is nothing short of brilliant. I would have rated the movie, which in all other aspects (cinematography, music, acting) simply dazzles, a 10/10 if the inversion and the meanings had been handled more transparently.

    The fact that so many people have failed to understand what the movie is about is prima facie evidence of a massive failure of the movie to communicate. Many films are criticized for being too obvious, this movie is too opaque. What a loss for everyone who saw it but did not understand it.
  • It's a good film, but modern filmmakers seem a little too obsessed with deconstructing characters and de-romanticising the hero's journey, and it's starting to become a cliche that is overplayed and almost insulting to the audience. The filmmakers seem to think that by making all the protagonists anti-heroes who are not as heroic as we think that it's intelligent storytelling, but it really isn't.

    I find myself regularly asking, "Where have all the good guys gone?" and "why isn't there romance in films anymore?"

    Is it a little too much to ask for a righteous protagonist and a little love in films?

    The modern landscape of cynical filmmaking that creates nihilistic stories has become very tedious.
  • Despite one of the biggest divides in critical reception (critical acclaim) and audience reactions (much more polarising, with a large amount of strong dislike) of any film seen by me, 'The Green Knight' was still seen anyway on high recommendation from my sister. Also like Dev Patel, with him coming on a long way as an actor, and have liked David Lowery's other work. Especially 'The Old Man and the Gun'. The subject did fascinate me a good deal and have no problem with symbolism or slow pacing, have even in the past defended films with heavy symbolism and/or slow pacing.

    Somehow though, 'The Green Knight' was one of those difficult to rate and review films. Really wanted to like it, with how much it had going for it and how highly recommended it was, but it was wildly uneven. There are good things, and those good things are actually quite outstanding. There are also bad things, and a few of the bad things are worse than bad. Actually saw 'The Green Knight' last year, but it has taken a while for me to think over and adequately sum up what my thoughts were.

    'The Green Knight' does have good things. Cannot fault the acting, with Patel giving perhaps his best performance to date in full command of a strongly written role. Alicia Vikander is suitably enigmatic and 'The Borgias' Sean Harris makes the most of his short screen time. Did think that it started off great, very thought provoking and with a very haunting, creepy mood. The Green Knight is pretty frightening.

    Also cannot fault the production values, which are quite wonderful. Very handsome and atmospheric scenery enhanced by the vibrant yet also moody photography. The effects work shows a lot of professionalism and care. The music has a haunting ominous vibe and had no problem with how it was placed, also felt that it suited the tone of the story and didn't come over as too heavy.

    On the other hand, the story felt dully paced and over-extended, starting off with great promise but meanders about a lot in the second half. If you read any synopsis that indicates that a lot goes on, it didn't feel like it to me with a lot of scenes going on for too long, everything that happens post the battlefield sequence (which was well done) to the arrival at the Green Chapel feels like forever. Lowery directs with ambition but sometimes it was very more style than substance and show offy.

    Furthermore, the symbolism is very heavy handed and not easy to get the head round. Especially in the final act. Some interesting themes here, not dug into deeply or insightfully enough. The whole ending also felt confusing and it feels rather abrupt as well. Too much of the script is too rambling and there is not much fresh or insightful about it.

    In conclusion, very difficult to rate and review. 5/10.
  • ghost0ne19 September 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    So the first time I watched this movie, I didn't get it. I was very confused by what was "real" and what wasn't "real". Even though I was lost at what to make of this movie it had somehow still put it's hooks in me. The next day, after having seen it, I read a fantastic article that better explained the movie to me then I watched it again with this understanding and I loved it! But I can understand people not liking it. It's one of those artsy, interpretive movies and can be difficult to grasp but once your given some guidance on how to interrupt what you're seeing it is much more enjoyable.

    Let me start off by prefacing that this is not your typical knighty movie. In fact, I'd call it the anti-knight's movie. The anti-quest, if you will. Gawain has aspirations for being a famous knight BUT he lacks knightly qualities. He's not brave. He's not chivalrous. He's always trying to take the easy way out. Every test to prove the caliber of his character he fails. Now this sounds like a set up to a comedy, and in some ways it is, but not the laugh out loud kind of comedy more of an intellectual kinda comedy. It's brain funny because it's a contradiction.

    Also, Gawain's mother plays a huge part in the story even though she's not in most of the movie. She is the one who summons the Green Knight to King Arthur's court so that her son can go on a Knightly quest. She also gives Gawain a scarf(???) or something like that, that essential makes him invincible as long as he keeps it on. Any scene that depicts him dying, he doesn't actually die because the scarf magically brings him back to life without any knowledge that he'd ever died in the first place. You can see how this makes his quest unfair. There's nothing that he is really putting on the line. It's like playing a video game where you're constantly getting help from an unseen hand and you have infinite lives. You're eventually going to make it regardless of how unskilled or incompetent you are. You're not truly being challenged just in the same way Gawain is not truly being challenged. And therefore, he is not worthy of becoming a knight but, he becomes one anyways because he cheated and he lied his way to it. But it's a empty victory. He lives a long life only to understand that all his victories are hollow and everyone hates him and everything he built up over the years falls apart late in his life. Was it worth it?

    The answer is no, because he's suddenly taken back to his final confrontation with The Green Knight where he decides to take the scarf off and accept his fate. The Green Knight sees this and congratulates Gawain on his bravery only to tell him that his head is coming off anyways. This seems to surprise Gawain, as I think, he was excepting to be praised for his bravery and allowed to live for it. And then the movie suddenly ends. We don't see his head come off but I think we can safely assume it does. Now Gawain is truly a knightly hero and all he had to do was give up his life.

    I really like this movie because it's very different from other movies I was watching at the time. Something new and refreshing. It even contradicts the usual conventions of its own genre. Also, to me, Gawain was portrayed as something like an everyday man. He's not a bad person but he has no real strengths, no real talent, and he's lazy. He's just an ordinary guy who has aspirations for being great but lacks the strength of character or real will to do so. This movie is The Anti-Knights Tale and I love it!
  • The interstitial credits give such a great sense of suspense and dread. The design, cinematography, costumes, art direction are absolutely 10/10. Will be slow for some viewers but it felt perfect and the ending is great. Absolutely will be one of the best films of the year. Entrancing. A work of art on the screen from beginning to end.
  • I'm writing this seconds after finishing the movie so forgive my frustration. While this is generally a well-made movie from every technical perspective, it is completely destroyed for me by two things. One, it's one of the most boring movies ever. And two, it's made up almost entirely of metaphors and symbolism with nothing concrete to hold onto.

    I may not be the best with abstract movies but I normally have at least some sense of what they're going for. In this movie, I didn't have the slightest clue about the meaning behind anything and everything. It's all straight nonsense. So many weird random parts seem to have nothing to do with the rest of the story. It's all style, no substance and fully pretentious.

    There is a lot I liked, even loved. The visuals are stunning. So many beautiful shots. Great cinematography combined with intense music create such an affecting atmosphere. Some really cool camera movements and overall fine directing.

    Even with all those likes, this movie completely drained my patience. And when it ended, I wanted to yell at the screen in exasperation that I watched the entire thing and still have no idea what it's about. I hate this movie. (1 viewing, 2/20/2022)
  • The Green Knight follows the general plot of the poem, embellishing along the way. The film stands out in the sumptuous details of scenery, costuming, writing, and acting. This is not a sword action film. This is a lyrical presentation of seeking honor and one's center of life. Dev Patel as Gawain strikes a meek figure as he strives to achieve his quest, assumed to be a knight, but he continually denies this. He embodies the meaning of what a knight is, but he doesn't have the confidence to act in accordance with this chivalrous code when challenged with his own urges and emotions. Allegorical, the film won't answer most questions of plotting dtraihht forwardly or easily in its details, but at the end, one may recognize the importance of how one answers, not whether it is correct. While linear in structure, the mystical aspect of the film may be difficult for many to sustain their attention, but if you enjoy absorbing the feeling that a film can project, The Green Knight offers a lush display to be had.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is an interesting take on one of the lesser known Arthurian legends, the first notable retelling in popular culture since Tolkien. There are plenty of good things about the film - acting is great, especially Dev Patel, and the score is especially worthy of praise. The supernatural stylistic flourishes of unreality are well-done, though perhaps not quite as ambitious as, say, Neil Jordan's The Company of Wolves or Ben Wheatley's A Field in England.

    However, ultimately the film is let down by the weakness of the screenplay. The dialogue is clunky in places, the narrative sometimes feels a bit baggy and the conclusion is ultimately unsatisfactory. The director made a clear choice to avoid the ending of the original poem, but the reworked conclusion was simply not revelatory enough or smart enough to justify itself, and, as a result, failed to reward the viewer for their invested time.
  • I don't know what kind of drugs David Lowery took but it seems like that stuff was doing its job. The Green Knight is well filmed, I'll give them that, but the story itself is slow, making no sense for the majority of the time. It's just a weird movie, and normally that doesn't mean it's bad but in this case it was. The acting wasn't bad either so it wasn't their fault this whole movie was a mess. Apart of the good cinematography and the decent acting it's just not good. I wouldn't waste your time with this one if I were you.
  • I could see how this movie could put some to sleep or how other people could say it's not faithful to its source material, but this is genuinely one of the most intriguing movies I have ever seen, and if you have enjoyed the past styles of a24 you will definitely enjoy this movie, as it has its high moments. Most of the negativity I see stems from people going into this movie expecting an epic tale of Game of Thrones proportions. This is not the case, and anyone who knows a24 should really have known better. This movie is enjoyable and a sight to see, so giving it your time could change your perspective.
  • What does it all mean? I don't know, but it's a stunningly beautiful audio-visual experience. An early favorite for best original score and cinematography Academy Awards. Don't get lost in what it isn't. Sign on for what it is, even if you can't quite put your finger on it.
  • Really sad all this bad reviews complaining 'nothing is happening' People are getting used to all this cheap ass crap movies Hollywood serves us. Films that only have action and form but not an ounce of substance. In the end you raise a nation of spectators who are completely unable to recognise content at all and call it boring because people aren't killing each other all the time.

    When people can no longer tell the difference between a sampler and a piano, why continue to make pianos? Fortunately, even in superficial America there are still directors who like to listen to classical music. I would call this a relief. A little haute cuisine in an ocean of hamburger.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I saw "The Green Knight", starring Dev Patel-Chappie, The Last Airbender; Alicia Vikander-Tomb Raider_2018, Jason Bourne; Joel Edgerton-Red Sparrow, The Thing_2011 and Sean Harris-the Mission:Impossible movies, Prometheus.

    This is a medieval Knights of the Round Table type story that is good & strange. It's good, as far as the costumes and visuals go, but some elements of the story are a little strange. Dev plays Sir Gawain, a want_to_be Knight but he drinks and parties too much. Sean plays his uncle, King Arthur, and wants to groom him to be the next King. Alicia plays Dev's girlfriend. The Green Knight is part man and part plant-hence the name-and he shows up at the Round Table with a challenge: Any Knight can strike him with the fiercest blow that they can muster, but one year later, the Knight must travel to the Green Knight's castle where he will return the same blow to that Knight. Well, Dev wants to show his fortitude & ingenuity and jumps to the challenge, cutting off the Green Knight's head-thinking that should settle things with no second part to the test to worry about. The Green Knight picks up his head and rides off, laughing. One year later, Dev has to keep his part of the bargain-or loose respect to his uncle and everyone in the village-and embarks on his journey. Along the way he meets ghosts, thieves, nude giants and talking animals-remember, I said strange-and Joel, who acts strange as well. And don't get me started on Dev's mother.

    It's rated "R" for violence and sexual content-including nudity-and has a running time of 2 hours & 10 minutes.

    It's not one that I would buy on DVD but if you are interested in medieval tales, it would be a good rental.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'll start by saying that visually, this movie is stunning and it has some moments of great acting. That's about the extent of the positives. As an avid fan of A24, I was very excited for The Green Knight and tried to go into it with as open a mind as possible. I wasn't expecting a horror or action movie. I went in simply expecting to be told a story. I anticipated that it would be on the slower side, but wow. I feel so guilty for saying this seeing as so many people loved the film, but it was way too boring for me to enjoy. I have loved the slow-burn approach that A24 has taken with other movies like The Witch and The Lighthouse, but The Green Knight just didn't have enough substance to keep me engaged in what was going on. Every time something significant seemed to happen, it would be followed by an agonizingly long shot of a forest with loud, eerie music playing over it. Furthermore, this movie is DARK. Like literally dark. I couldn't see who was on the screen or what was happening for at least 30% of the movie. As for the other 70% that I could actually see, I had literally no idea what was going on. What's the meaning of those giant gray naked people? Why did everyone want to kiss Dev Patel? Beats me. Maybe that's my fault because i'm not very familiar with the story of Gawain and the Green Knight, but I consider myself a generally thoughtful person who makes an effort to understand complex films. I spent the entire drive home mentally analyzing this movie and still had no idea what any of it meant until I read some online articles explaining the story. I really wanted to love this movie and I wish I could understand why it is receiving such praise, but both my friend and I left the theater feeling very underwhelmed and sleepy. I've also noticed that a lot of these rave reviews are coming from people who are likely pretentious arthouse film lovers who somehow think they are better than everyone else, since they all seem to think that anyone who didn't enjoy this movie is ultimately "unintelligent". As one review states, "all negative reviews are from people who should have stayed home with a bud light and watched South Park". Well I hate both South Park and beer and still found this film boring, as did the four or so people who walked out of my theater.
  • jalivezb24 December 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is not a sword & sorcery movie. This isn't Tolkien or Game of Thrones. You are experiencing Gawain's quest thru the perceptions of Gawain. You are experiencing the poem itself, caught in the tangle of magic & the dangerous mischief of the Fair Folk. Some advice: watch for doubles. Gawain's lover and the Lady of the Castle. His mother, the witch sister of Arthur, & the blindfolded woman. Gawain & the fox. Bergilac & the Green Knight. Repetition, given so Gawain may repent when he fails to "be a Knight." It is a game, Gawain fails. He must be charitable, honorable, prizing love over lust. Visionary. Strange. At times, psychedelic. Incredibly beautiful landscapes, touched by war, loss, ghosts, and fell creatures possessing strange, hallucinatory powers. Remember, it is a game. This is a journey alongside Gawain, for his soul. Some, no doubt, dislike the ambiguity of the ending, but i loved it. The ending is not the point, in a sense. The journey was the destination. If he keeps his word to the Knight, then he has fulfilled his knightly promises. A year hence, stand before the dread judgment, to have repaid what you once gave. What man do but dare?

    "Now, off with your head."
  • This was a well made movie with a lot of metaphor and symbolism that I enjoyed. There were a lot of things you could take away from this story, even if you don't understand everything. The 1-3 star reviews must be from folks who were expecting another marvel movie. It's a good movie worth a watch.
  • You would have to go back to "Excalibur" to find an Arthurian movie that looked or sounded remotely like David Lowery's "The Green Knight". This is the Middle-Ages as gritty and downright dirty as they come, (think Richard Lester or "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"), while still aiming to deliver the fantastical, magical goods a genre picture like this requires.

    The hero of our tale is Gawain, (Dev Patel, excellent given the material he has to work with), who, in the film's opening scene, becomes something of a hero after defeating the Green Knight who has challenged him to a Christmas duel in what appears to be the court of King Arthur but there's a catch; there's an addendum to the duel and Gawain's life isn't quite the same afterwards as he rides off to meet the Green Knight for round two the following Christmas.

    Lowery's film is certainly no "Ivanhoe" but an adult fairytale that deliberately sets out to alienate a mass audience. This is an art-house movie that might please the critics but is unlikely to prove popular at the box-office. Indeed it's hard to figure out exactly what audience it's aimed at.

    Visually, it's often remarkable, again mixing fantasy and realism to good effect. The cast are also well chosen but, Patel aside, are given very little to do though that most brilliant of young Irish actors, Barry Keoghan, has no trouble stealing the movie in his couple of scenes. The real problem lies both in the film's length and almost total lack of action. Gawain's adventures are singularly unadventurous and ultimately the film comes across as both boring and pretentious, unforgiveable sins in a film of this kind. Still I can see Razzie glory come the awards season.
  • nikkibroadwell5 August 2022
    If you are right brained like me you will most likely love this movie- left brained not so much - it is an allegory disguised as a sword and sorcery movie so you have to just let go and take in what it has to say- no crazy fight scenes that go on way too long, just a a twisting and turning story that leaved you wondering.
  • jwbarth25 April 2022
    6/10
    Yawn
    Told in the spirit of watching paint dry, waiting for water to boil, or watching golf...this an insanely boring telling of what should have been a great story.
  • As most artisanal movies go, the visually were breathtaking, with this aura hanging over ever scene. However, the storyline plot and dialogue were downright nonsensical, what the hell were even half those scenes about? I have no idea. Made no sense, I got lost and bored ten minutes in.
An error has occured. Please try again.