Skip to main content

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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more