Review of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) by Gamerzx — 23 Jul 2017

Good movie. Great cast. It feels more like an experiment in High fantasy than a retelling of the Arthurian Legend.

The Arthurian legend is based on a leader in Britain that forged peace between the Romans, Celts (Britons), Anglo-Saxon-Jutes and the Vikings. He was a Romano-Celt. He turned the conflicts of the different peoples into a peaceful nation. A nation that rose and disappeared so fast leaving a memory that has lasted almost two thousand years.

The different King Arthur renditions that I will compare this to are;.

1) Excalibur. The movie that is by far the best King Arthur retelling of them all. Every scene has your blood pumping your skin crawling your anger inflamed or a shock to your remaining senses.

2) The Sean Connery retelling. Camelot. Not bad. It is too watered down made for an audience that includes date-night crowds. 3) Clive Owen. Arthur. Good conceptualization with Merlin as a Celt. Accurate armor and dress. Fighting the Saxons who are mercilessly attempting a forceful conquest of the Isle of Britain.

4) Starz Camelot. Great moments good reimagining. We likely will never see the smiths daughter rise as the Lady of the Lake. Merlin was a fantastic reimagining of a young wizard without discipline. They blended the legend with sitcom episodic interactions. Turned down the intensity of the story. Morganna was fantastic too. The actress from Kingdom of Heaven. 5) Merlin the made for TV series. I saw this I can't remember much of it. Not memorable but well reviewed.

The effects were called generic by one critic. The videogame sequences were one of the better parts of the movie. The weakness in it is it didn't make your blood pump (move you emotionally) until the Celtic Hymns kicked in at the end. The sequences of the partisan war were too brief. There was not enough character intensity showing Arthur forging his band of post story Round Table Knights. The Guy Ritchie modern underworld takes were good. Arthur being a rogue in his youth is a good concept (rather than being raised by merlin and his adopted Father from the legend).

Tldr.

I enjoyed the effects loved the cast. The story was flatlined. Jude Law's character was portrayed as disinterested. A little bit of Hollywood portrayal of Royalty. They had to mesh the most important moments better. Those are his upbringing. The revealing of his lineage and the sword in the stone. His rise as a leader. His victory over the bad guys.

Guy Ritchie needed to make it more like Batman Dark Knight and the original Excalibur. He didn't concentrate on the main characters. There were a lot of characters. I never had any feel of bonding between the group. It could be a product of the times that when reviewed with terms like generic you tend to receive a review from me with generic imagery.

Excalibur my favorite has the heavy armor of the High Middle Ages way past Arthur's time. Perhaps it works because the memory of his Kingdom and the Chivalry of his Knights was remembered at its peak in the high Middle Ages. The heart of the story is that England (Great Britain) love the character for defeating so many enemies and bringing peace. Only to see it disappear within a blink of the eye. Leaving only memory and song (poetry) that is cherished and loved by many today.