Opening this weekend is “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” which takes the classic tale in new directions for better or worse.
Maybe there is an expectation among some critics and fans for a King Arthur film to have certain aspects of the traditional telling; Themes like magic, romance, and betrayal. Perhaps there is also an expectation to include Merlin, Guenevere, and Lancelot characters which have all played integral parts to the shaping of the Arthurian storyline, but which are all absent from this version.
Does that automatically equate to Richie’s “Legend of the Sword” not being worthy to stand on it’s own?
Richie’s hoped up telling is a mix of the fantastical reminiscent of 1981’s “Excalibur” and Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings,” as well as incorporating Richie’s fast paced style. Think “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels,” and “Snatched.” Take those three elements and mix them all together and you get an attempt that will be received by many as too many elements that don’t necessarily go together.
“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” stars Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) in peak physical form as Arthur. In this version he is no longer the humble squire to his adopted/knighted father but rather a medieval gangster who was raised in a brothel. He’s sharp witted, fast on his feet and has friends named Wet Stick and Back Lack. Far from the classical version.
Crucial to this tale is the villain. The traditional foe of Arthur has always been Mordred. This version’s villain is Arthur’s uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) whose thirst for power supersedes all boundaries of what is sacred. Unfortunately, even with Law’s impeccable ability as an actor, we get a mostly single note, one dimensional villain. There are some early scenes, and one towards the end which almost gives you some hope but its still not enough to flesh out the characters motivations. That’s too bad because I really enjoy seeing Law as a bad guy.
Maybe there is a director’s cut down the line with more scenes that flesh out Vortigern and his all consuming desire to be King. As is, there isn’t much feeling one way or the other for the antagonist.
There is a prologue to the film (just like in Excalibur) where you get to see Arthur’s very early beginnings with his dad King Uther (Eric Bana), Igraine (Poppy Delevingne), as well as Vortigern’s wife and daughter. There was a part of me that wanted to see that movie more than the three acts that followed. Eric Bana was totally impressive and I’d like to see him get more roles in this genre.
Also, the prologue has the largest amount of fantastical elements in comparison to the rest of the film with massive war elephants, balls of super-charged magical energy pounding the defensive forces, and the sinister Mage Mordred (Rob Knighton) behind it all. His costume was excellent, and further more so are all the costumes in the film. Nothing that resembled those horrible costumes the knights wore in the TV show that got cancelled last week “Emerald City.” Those were the absolute worst I’ve seen in awhile!
The opening sequences of “Legend of the Sword” is nothing less than spectacular and I thought one of the best parts of the film. It’s almost like shooting the film was divided up, and someone else wrote and directed that part, while someone else did other parts of the film, and in the end they put them together.
There are many positives to this film including a resounding sound track composed by Sam Lee and Daniel Pemberton. “The Devil and the Huntsman stands out;” Click here for a listen. The sequence that shows Arthur growing up also has a fantastic bit of music from Daniel Pemberton, “Growing up Londinium” hear it here. Too many times the score and sound track are forgotten and in this film they really play an integral part to giving the film this epic feel and I wanted to pay them homage.
Another technical part of the film that was outstanding was the sound editing. I could hear arrows whizzing by, horses running, people out of breath when fighting etc. People are going to say… when you start complimenting those aspects the other parts must suck.
All of the acting including the dialogue between Hunnam and his co-actors was interesting. Jude Law got some juicy moments to be evil, and then there were moments when the dialogue was overly contrived. Again, did someone write one scene and then hand it over to someone else? The styles didn’t always quite align. Rather than a classic English style, Richie gives his modern gang banger twang injected into Arthur’s confidants but then in another scene you get a more formal English sound. If you are the type to notice, then this could be a love/hate thing.
I am a fan of most of Richie’s work, and just like seeing a Quentin Tarantino film, there is going to be a particular style that not everyone gets or even enjoys and I bet he’s fine with that.
Richie gave an interview online and said he envisions this film to go as far as six films in total. Personally, I would love to see King Arthur and more tales that come after this one however, because there is a lack of singular vision in this first one, the chances of a second one in my mind are 50:50. The American box office can be finicky sometimes while the International could love this film. We’ll know within the first week if it’s popular enough to warrant a sequel. Also, going into week 2 it will be competing with “Alien: Covenant” which shares a good portion of the same demographics.
“Legend of the Sword” is also a bit top heavy with the fantastical elements mostly in the prologue and then the final part of act 3. Again, it’s almost like multiple films, multiple styles meshing into one that doesn’t entirely fit. This is where I envision most critics are going to pound this film. I say most, because I like to write reviews for everyday people who make up most of filmgoers. I’ve seen close to 50 films already this year. How I see a movie and it’s failings isn’t how most of my friends see them. I do my best to wear glasses that many could see through rather than a few.
An aspect that I personally really enjoy in a Guy Richie film is when he likes to speed up a story and do these fast video montages. They are thrilling to watch. However, sometimes as fun as they are they end up moving the story to quick and those scenes that would have given a character more dimension, and gravitas get glazed over. As exciting as Arthurs growing up montage is, it neglects character building that is needed in establishing Arthur as a thinking, feeling, evolving person, and that takes more time than the estimated 3 minutes spent in this version.
Critics are going to beat this film up because the narrative is jumbled sometimes, and the main characters lack dimension. However, it’s a fantasy film where action takes center stage. Richie has fun injecting some new bits and unique storytelling that may be for some, and not others. In the end though, “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is a fun take on the classical tale. It’s not to be taken too seriously, and rightly so. Going to the movies with your family and friends is about having a good time, and that’s what you’ll get.
“Legend of the Sword” has a few issues that may be deal breakers for discerning film goers. The first one is that the story is just a bit disjointed in style and pacing. You get a lot of bits and parts that are brilliant but you also get a narrative that has too many one dimensional characters. I’ve seen this happen to a lot of fantasy films that have such promise but the special effects and action sequences end up taking over and leaving the story in the dust. I wouldn’t be surprised though if a lot of people forgave this failing and just went with the flow and enjoyed it for it is, a big fantasy with tons of action.
2 1/2 Stars Out Of 5
Rating:
PG-13 (for sequences of violence and action, some suggestive content and brief strong language)
Genre: Action & Adventure, Fantasy, Drama
Directed By: Guy Ritchie
Written By: Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram
In Theaters: May 12, 2017 wide
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures