Review of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) by Patrick L — 13 Jul 2017

"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is another dull historical epic that has nothing new to offer".

Movie Review: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.

Date Viewed: May 20 2017.

Directed By Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Snatch and The Man from U.N.C.L.E.).

Screenplay By Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram, Joby Harold, Story By David Dobkin and Joby Harold.

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Craig McGinlay, Annabelle Wallis, Tom Wu, Neil Maskell, Freddie Fox and Eric Bana.

There are no legends around here folks. "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is another dull historical epic that has nothing new to offer. Okay there are giant elephants in the movie but did we already see them in "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"? The problem with the movie is not stiff leading man Charlie Hunnam, it's the lone trigger-finger director known as Guy Ritchie. His filming techniques are nowhere to be found and plus his "King Arthur" is loud, bombastic and not very bright.

Just like "Robin Hood", "Tarzan" or "The Three Musketeers", there have been dozens of variations of "King Arthur" over the years but all of them certainly weren't thrilling or engaging. I heard that Warner Bros. was looking at franchise potential for "King Arthur" but looking at those bleak box office results suggests that plans for a six-film franchise may not happen at all.

"Legend of the Sword" revolves around a skilled fighter and swordsman named Arthur (Hunnam) who runs the streets of Londinium. Back when he was a little baby, his father King Uther (Eric Bana) ruled England with a mighty fist until his treacherous brother, Vortigern (Jude Law) orchestrated a coup against him and seized his crown for himself. Oh yeah, Vortigern also sacrificed his wife to sea witches so that he could bring forth a demon knight to kill Uther and his wife. Arthur became the only survivor as he drifted away in a boat and he made his way to Londinium where he was raised by prostitutes.

Meanwhile in Camelot, the evil mad-drunk known as Vortigren grows ever more powerful and he doesn't care if people hate him as long they fear him and his conquering rule. Suddenly, a mysterious, magic sword appears near Vortigren's castle and he commands the Blacklegs to pull out the sword from the stone it's stuck in. Everyone of them can't get it out except for Arthur who has no idea what his true identity is. It takes a long while but when Arthur pulls out the sword, he faints from the magic it contains. He later gets sent to the dungeon where he meets his treacherous uncle and he calls for his execution but he gets rescued by a mage (Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey) and Sir Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou) and his men.

With his life turned upside down, Arthur is forced to face his heroic destiny and save the people of Camelot from the clutches of his evil uncle. This new "King Arthur" film has great locations and is competently put together but there isn't a whole lot to care for in this picture. Jude Law doesn't make for a convincing villain, the action feels relentlessly stale, the monsters are nonsensical and ridiculous and it has one of the most embarrassing celebrity cameos in recent memory.

I'm not a fan of Guy Ritchie's movies but I don't hate him. He has a pure directing style but he just doesn't know how to use it well. And another thing, I don't want to see King Arthur being treated as a superhero. Can we just let King Arthur be King Arthur instead of having him be Thor with a magical sword? Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur" could've been a smashing success, it just needed significant changes to the script and remove "Legend of the Sword" from it's title.