Dude are you on drugs??? You are virtually the only “reviewer” that seriously considers that the “source material” is the problem here instead of the director, who uses his “directing style” to recreate his shitty 90s gangster movies in 5th Century Britain fashion. The source material??? He doesn’t use the source material. There are no Chinese in the source material, Arthur isn’t raised by whores, there are no elephants in the source material and nothing of this dubious rubbish.
Are you kidding me with this? Man you are out of your league as a movie reviewer. Go read some old stuff by Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel and get an education son. This is pathetic.
This “director” has butchered a saga that has been butchered to death and has never had a decent fairly historic take in almost half a century. How about we suspend all the nonsense and half naked blue chicks and what not and simply do a film about someone noble who has a noble dream that is flawed because humans are not noble by nature and selfish and put their own desires over what is good for everyone. How is that not a strong story? Instead we get this pile of garbage and a fool like you telling us it’s not the guy, who produced 4 decent films in his whole career and a pile of garbage with all the others, but the material (which he wrote mind you).
You gonna tell us that his fucked up Sherlock Holmes “adaptation” is great as well even though we have evidence to the contrary in that it’s outclassed by the BBC series with Benedict Cumberbatch in every category? Jesus man… you are a joke. I do sincerely hope the Ringer pulls you off any kind of movie review in the future.