King Arthur: The Once and Only King

          The Arthurian legend has been adapted hundreds of times over the centuries, into poems such as Tennyson’s Idylls of the King, book series’ by T.H. White and Stephen Lawhead, multiple BBC series’, and numerous films including Camelot, First Knight, and even Disney’s The Sword in the Stone, one of their more forgettable animated films. King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword is the latest interpretation, one brought to us by Guy Ritchie of all people, and his signature is all over this movie, but not exactly in a good way.
          During an apparent war between humans and mages, the sorcerer Mordred attacks Camelot, and though King Uther (Eric Bana) is triumphant in killing him, his brother Vortigern (Jude Law) stages a coup that results in Uther’s death. His young son Arthur escapes to Londinium, and years later is tasked with pulling his fathers’ sword Excalibur from the stone, defeating Vortigern and taking his rightful place as King of the Britons. 
          The frantic editing of this movie is really obnoxious. Ritchie’s direction has always involved quick cutting for stylistic and comedic effect and non-linear exposition, but here not only does it not suit the subject matter but it’s really overdone. There are action scenes that are nearly unwatchable in how fast-paced and incoherently shot they are. The quick cutting is used for really bizarre moments too; not one scene is left without some typical Ritchie editing choice. It’s incredibly distracting and it’s not helped by the fact that this is a very unpleasant-looking movie. There’s very little colour, it’s palette is lifeless and grim and because the story’s not engaging it nearly puts you to sleep. Ritchie also tries to bring his usual style of humour, but it results in a severe disconnect. There are a couple scenes where characters are explaining something with that quick cutting going on, but the inflections and language are really off. They talk in distinctive accents, use repetition, even cockney slang and it seems like something out of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. Which is great for Lock, Stock, but this is King Arthur, and because of this, there’s no believability in them or their quest.
          With the exception of a couple diversions that are interesting but not well-executed, the story’s so typical it’s everything from Moses to The Lion King. Which is a tremendous waste given all the canon of Arthurian tales to pull from. The only real mythic elements are the presence of Mages (but no Merlin??) and the focus on the power of Excalibur. And while I like in theory the idea of exploring the history and magic of a sword, the way it’s used as a weird medieval WMD is pretty ridiculous. There’s also clearly very little research that went into this movie. Mordred is really over-the-top, and him dying early is already a massive departure from lore, as he’s almost always portrayed as the figure destined to kill Arthur. And as a former history student, one detail that really bugs me is the occasional use of the name “England”. Setting aside the fact that if he existed, King Arthur wouldn’t have been an Angle (in fact there are purported histories that he fought them), but the term “England” didn’t come into use until somewhere around the reign of Alfred the Great in the late ninth century. And the first named “King of England” was Cnut in the eleventh century. The legend of King Arthur exists in the fifth!
          But you know what, Ritchie’s last film The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had some of these same problems. What saved that movie though was a charming cast which this film lacks. After having seen him perform so well in The Lost City of Z, it’s sad to see Charlie Hunnam in this. He’s not bad necessarily, but he’s not playing his own part. This is a Guy Ritchie King Arthur movie, and so he’s playing Arthur basically as Jason Statham in Snatch, and it doesn’t make for a very interesting kingly figure. Jude Law, but for a couple scenes, is phoning it in as a really bland villain, Astrid Berges-Frisby and Eric Bana don’t get to give good performances. Game of Thrones’ Aidan Gillen and Michael McElhatton are enjoyable but underplayed. The best performance may be Djimon Hounsou as Sir Bedivere. He’s a character I’d have actually liked to see more of. But then there are just some odd casting choices; like David Beckham’s in this movie for no reason. And it’s really weird seeing Katie McGrath, who played Morgana on BBC’s Merlin for five years, in a minor role in another Arthurian adaptation. After seeing this movie, I’m just reminded that that show, for a kids’ fantasy-adventure series, was actually pretty good.
          It feels like Guy Ritchie wanted to make another British crime film that he’s so good at, but was just stuck with this King Arthur project and had to work around it. I wouldn’t mind as much if not for the fact that there’s so much material in Arthurian mythology, and it’s a legend that’s shaped British culture and had an enormous effect on the western world in general. And honestly, Monty Python and the Holy Grail does it more justice.