King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword - movie review
King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword
Plot: Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not.
Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Bergés-Frisbey, Jude Law
Director: Guy Ritchie
Certificate: 12A (infrequent strong language, moderate violence, threat)
Runtime: 2hrs 6 mins
Release Date: Friday 19th May 2017
Well then, now we know the answer of what the tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table would be like if they were all geezers. I'm not sure if anyone was actually pondering this thought but clearly Guy Ritchie was. To say that this film has had a tumultuous production journey is putting it nicely. Ritchie's adaptation of the King Arthur story has been one of the biggest production hells in recent memory. Leads were cast and then left and those replacements then left too. The final potential nail in the coffin was the advance test screening. If memory serves, this film was meant to be released in the summer of last year but due to overwhelmingly negative results from the participating audience members, Ritchie was forced to push the release date back nearly a year and had to reshoot a large portion entirely. In Layman's terms, this was not a good sign. The end result? It's actually really enjoyable.
Going into my advance screening of King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword, I was not looking forward to it in the slightest. Not only had the constant delays put doubt in my mind, but the press reviews that had just been released weren't exactly kind. In fact, it was being slated. King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword just happens to be one of those times where I find myself disagreeing with the critics. I can understand why some people may not like this film. Guy Ritchie is certainly an acquired taste and if you were hoping that a fantasy setting may tame his unique style of directing, then my advice to you would be to sit this film out. As the movie began, I thought I would be on the side of the critics. The opening to this film is terrible. It feels like we've joined a previous film right at the conclusion and I haven't got the foggiest what was going on. Giant elephants were trampling soldiers and crashing into bridges. Wizards were casting spells that disintegrate others at whim. It was a clear product of the reshoots and felt completely out of place. In the back of my mind, I had a creeping fear that this would be a worrisome sign of things to come. It wasn't until this prologue is done and dusted and we are eventually introduced to Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) who has grown up clueless of his heritage so much so, he now owns a brothel, that circumstances were improved. From Hunnam's introduction onwards, my perspective on the film changed altogether. Giving a performance that I haven't seen him give the quality of before, Hunnam is fantastic as Arthur and makes a great pairing with Ritchie's frantically paced dialogue and direction. Whereas Clive Owen brought solemnity and dullness to his 2004 incarnation, Hunnam is likeable and that's paramount when Arthur is supposedly rallying an army to defeat Jude Law's sinister Vortigern.
Judging by the trailers, it was those classic Ritchie scenes of geezers telling stories as we cut back and forth between the immediate past, present and future that I feared would irritate me. Fortunately, those turned out to be a highlight. In some respects, elements of this film definitely have the impression of it being Snatch. meets Medieval times and unexpectedly, it works bringing much of the welcome humour. But when Ritchie isn't doing his classic Ritchieism's, there is an attempt to explain the lore of Arthur with a few creative alterations. The best of these is most definitely the story behind Excalibur. Seeing as the subtitle of this film is 'Legend Of The Sword', Excalibur is front and centre behind Arthur of course. From the point where David Beckham (a cameo that will cause palm to meet face) hilariously orders Hunnam to pull sword from stone, to when Arthur is using it to slay a multitude of villains, I really enjoyed how Ritchie has made this iconic sword different from any other regular sword possessing a fancy name. It does get a tad overpowered reminiscent of those times when you're playing MarioKart and someone constantly is gifted with Bullet Bill. However, it does make for some fun action scenes that combine the slow down/speed up technique from 300 with a sword induced sandstorm. It sounds a mess but I found it to work.
FACT: Actress Katie McGrath who plays the role of Elsa in this film played Morgana, King Arthur's half-sister, in Merlin, a BBC series based on Arthurian Legend.
Something which should be stressed with Ritchie's interpretation of King Arthur is that it is full on with the magic and mystical side of the tale. Merlin is nowhere to be seen but giant, possessed elephants, winged beasts, enormous snakes and mages are everywhere. One of those mages plays a considerable role in Arthur's rise to power and Astrid Bergés-Frisbey is the actress to accommodate that character. Unfortunately, I never found her to have the presence to command what is essentially, the lead supporting role. She lacks gravitas to go up against Hunnam or other actors like Djimon Hounsou and Eric Bana who seem to be having fun in their smaller roles. Ritchie also has a prevalent use of score that surprisingly stuck with me a few days after I'd seen it. With someone seemingly having an asthma attack over drum beats, it just adds that extra bit of character to the film. Taking all of these positives into account, this film is by no means without flaws. The first is the films villain. Jude Law is the one actor who I can't make my mind up on in this movie. Law is a terrific character actor and has teamed up with Ritchie before so I assumed he would be more than fine as the antagonist, Vortigern. As it would turn out, Law didn't overly impress me as a villain. It wasn't that he gave a bad performance but instead, the character of Vortigern wasn't overly menacing. He did bad things that would annoy our group of main characters but he was just a bratty leader who gets irrational when someone challenges his right as King. Hmm. Is Ritchie a fortune teller because he made this before Trump ever came to power? Another problem is that whilst the opening stank of studio edits and horrific reshoots, the smell of reshoots did waft over into the main story from time to time. Even though he managed to disguise it as a directing style, the storytelling scenes easily seemed to be added on to incorporate footage that Ritchie would have had big plans for but was forced to cut down in the hopes of making it all the more favourable. Sadly, sequences like Arthur's training among these mystical cliffs feel incredibly rushed through. It's clear to me that Ritchie had envisioned this film to be some sort of three hour epic and simultaneously create his own Lord of the Rings inspired franchise. The final confrontation is also underwhelming as it strays into the territory of a CGI orgy. Arthur is meant to be facing an enhanced Vortigern but with a strong dependence on less than stellar visual effects, Vortigern comes across more like Goro's from Mortal Kombat and Skeletor's love child.
Sometimes the unthinkable happens and I wildly disagree with the majority of critics. This is one of those times. King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is by no means any kind of cinematic marvel that will be adored for years to come but it provided me with heaps of enjoyment. Guy Ritchie has his stamp all over it and it seems like he's found a great partner in Charlie Hunnam. All in all, this will be something I'd have no problem re-watching, so long as I skip the god-awful opening.
My Verdict: 7.5/10
If you like what you've seen here don't forget to share this with everyone you know, comment below and check out my other reviews. Thanks for reading!!
Comments
Post a Comment