King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Directed By: Guy RitchieWritten By: Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram, Joby HaroldStarring: Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aiden Gillen, Jude Law

The plot of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is essentially that of The Lion King: evil power-hungry brother to the King looks to nefariously seize his sibling’s crown; the son of the fallen King grows up in exile, only to return a reluctant hero who challenges his evil uncle. The evil uncle is Vortegern (Jude Law), the heroic nephew is Arthur (Charlie Hunnam). If my summations of character and plot seem brief, that’s because I can only work from what the film gave me. The scarcity of it all is the first of many unfortunate symptoms arising from the tug of war between King Arthur: Legend of the Sword’s story and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword’s style, wherein depth is readily eschewed for frenetic action.

It might have been fun to see the legend of King Arthur committed to film in 2017, to see the story realised with an epic, Lord of the Rings-like grandeur and scale. Alternatively, it might have been fun to see a brash Guy Ritchie crime comedy with a medieval inflection, like if Lock Stock traded in its guns and geezers for swords and knights. Helming King Arthur: Legend of the Sword however, the aforementioned director strives for a bit of both, settles on neither, and ultimately strangles his film in the cross-thread. What the material needs and where its maker excels, never chime.

Guy Ritchie’s break-neck pacing and irreverent aesthetic, which typically manifest themselves in montages boasting enough edits for an entire Peter Jackson trilogy, does the grandness of the King Arthur story no favours. In fact, Ritchie’s crude stylings undermine the appetizing extravagance promised by such a tale as that of Arthur. Not that Ritchie’s unique aesthetic is in itself problematic—for the tight-nit yet chaotic underworld circles of crime and laddish banter that Ritchie has so often dealt in, that aesthetic fulfils purposes both visceral and comedic. But for something of grander proportions, for an inflated fantasy epic, for material tha

t eyes adventure and sprawling drama rather than macho comedy, it’s ill-fitting. The result is a film that’s inoffensive but weightless, one that never resonates, one that, despite its leaping through time and place, takes its viewer nowhere.

The greatest downfall of Ritchie’s King Arthur is how inconsequential its moments of drama feel. It is true of certain blockbusters that their spectacle value is enough to cover for shallow character work, but this particular film merely alludes to successful spectacles, without ever becoming one. The fantasy/medieval war scenes naturally call to mind the previously mentioned Lord of the Rings, a pre-credits sequence boasting goliath elephants wielding their trunks like wrecking balls into towers bears an affinity to Godzilla, whilst Arthur’s apparently-average-young-man-who-is-destined-to-shape-history trajectory calls to mind a cavalcade of big-time franchise protagonists: Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Neo, Frodo Baggins. And yet King Arthur is direly lacking the very thing that comprises the fibre of an effective blockbuster, theatricality.

It’s another symptom arising from the clash of story and style, where there is no dramatic flair to speak of, no penchant for suspense, no proclivity for playing the audience. Everything, rather, just seems to innocuously happen en route to a rushed yet bloated action sequence. Most criminal of all is the lack of drama which surrounds Arthur’s famed retrieval of Excalibur from the stone. The moment happens upon us suddenly, without any real tease, only to be undermined further by the most bewildering celebrity cameo of recent times: David Beckham as a bellige

rent soldier.

The film certainly boasts all the hallmarks of an epic: lavish production, mono e mono showdowns, a parade of high body-count battles. So too does it boast an able cast. Charlie Hunnam has the towering presence of the confident yet confused King in pending down pat, whilst Jude Law entertains as he quietly chews the scenery. Among the supporting players are Djimon Hounson, a gallant knight loyal to Arthur’s father, and Aiden Gillen—Goosefat as he’s known— think of him as a Maverick Legolas, also a loyal knight who served under Arthur’s father Uther Pendragon. Eric Bana plays Uther himself, providing a fitting body of power and goodness in the limited time he’s permitted. The pieces are all there, but each character, like the story they inhabit, are awash in the crazed, Zach Snyder-esque energy of their director. Never is there an illusion of true danger surrounding these characters, never is there any suspense to the unfurling of their fates.

Rating:

1.25/4