Director Guy Ritchie has made entertaining movies, including “Snatch,” “Sherlock Holmes,” and “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.,” but “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is not among them. It’s more of a goofy romp with fine acting (Charlie Hunnam, Djimon Hounsou, and Jude Law) and fascinating locations and sets, but too much narrative, CGI monsters, and editing that feels like either a trailer or montage.
The story is all cut and paste, the kind you’ve seen done better in “Snatch.” The evil Vortigern (Law) kills his older brother King Uther (Eric Bana), who sends his infant son Arthur (Hunnam) to a nearby village to live in a brothel for safety. Decades later, Vortigern finds out who can pull the sword from the stone, and it’s none other than Arthur. He manages to escape from his execution with the help of a Mage (Astrid Berges-Frisbey), and though in complete denial of himself being the true king, he leads an army to battle Vortigern.
There’s not much to care about in “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,” other than the sets and charming performances from Hunnam, Hounsou, and Law. You like hearing and seeing them act, and you’re impressed at how well this movie produced. But if you ask me, the movie is overproduced.
Most of the scenes are edited like trailers or montages. Examples include Arthur being rescued from execution, him finding out about his true self, and how they must hold ambushes against the bad guys. It’s either interesting or campy to hear some of the modern dialogue. At one point, Vortigern says: “It’s your f*cking job,” and that works. And at another point, one of Arthur’s men says: “I’m scare of the dark,” and that’s plain silly. And what about the octopus-like women and giant elephants? A bit much, eh?
I’ve seen worse action movies this year, so far, like “The Great Wall,” which threatened to destroy Matt Damon’s career.” Thankfully, “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is not among them, but it’s too much for me to handle.
Leave a Reply