Review of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) by Joshua S — 19 May 2017

Oh boy. I think I have gotten shit for even bothering to see this from at least 3 different people. But it's not everyday a studio puts big budget money into a medieval fantasy film anymore, even if that's ill advised. No, that's best reserved for premium and higher end cable television, as we all know now. But I stuck to my old idiom of giving a movie its "fair day in court." And that was probably a mistake. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a kind-of-shit movie with no real reason for existing, but is the fascinating kind of bad that deserves to be viewed and picked apart as an example of how not to jumpstart a franchise.

I have no idea on how this nonsense of a six-part King Arthur franchise started. But gods an HBO film based on the making of this movie and the studio infighting that this thing must have caused would be a hell of a lot more substantial than the actual movie I'm reviewing. This version of King Arthur comes courtesy of Guy Ritchie and I have to admit I am impressed that Warner Bros would take a risk on hiring him to helm a King Arthur movie. It was an incredibly fucking stupid idea, but I applaud risk-taking when I see it these days. And you can see the idea here - this Arthur is a rough and tumble street-smart survivor, whose "knights" are equally as ahem... "urban" and the flash cutting and quick dialogue is evocative of Ritchie's style. The problem is - it has no place in a fucking movie about Arthurian legend, defeating the purpose of risking 200 million dollars on Guy Ritchie. It's the kind of "edgy" movie that studio execs probably think audiences like, but in reality actively avoid.

The same goes for the titular character himself. Charlie Hunnam is not a bad actor by any means and would have done well in another of Ritchie's crime dramas for sure, but he has no business playing Arthur Pendragon, the first of his name and King of all Britain. Also, Hunnam is simply not a movie star, and that's kind of a big risk in of itself isn't it? Jude Law excels as a mad king with a fetish for blood magic. Law is one of those actors who everyone is supposed to hate for some nondescript reason, but I've always enjoyed him and he hams it the fuck up here. In fact, I'd say that he's the only performer that understands what kind of movie this is supposed to be - an over-the-top howler bound for the $5 bin at Wal-Mart but still packs enough entertainment for that price or the Redbox rental that most people will opt for. The supporting cast deserves a nod as well for making much of the film's humor work and giving Legend of the Sword the little bit of life it has. The action is flashy and well-made, but little of it remains memorable, aside from a gloriously crazy prologue battle and another showcasing the devastating power of Excalibur itself. But the CGI nonsense drowns out any enjoyment to be had, and it clearly wasn't worth the millions blown on it.

So yes, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is not worthy of its name and not worth the price of admission. It may make a decent rental, but I would recommend being intoxicated while viewing it. If you are looking for a decent, serious take on Arthurian Legend your best options are still the 1981 classic Excalibur and the BBC series Merlin. As for me I KNOW NO KING BUT THE KING IN THE NORTH, WHOSE NAME IS STARK. In other words, this movie can fuck off. Anyone else excited about Game of Thrones Season 7?