King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is Guy Ritchie’s twist on the legend starring Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law (heyyyyyyy). It is basically a mash up of Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, and Spartacus with a dash of Biblical Moses and a sprinkle of The Flash, specifically Zoom. If something cool happens, don’t worry. We’ll rush right over it. At 2 hours 6 minutes, it favors cool over fresh, which is not always the best choice, especially if you have franchise ambitions.
I considered seeing the movie in theaters, but once I saw Eric Bana, a good actor who never appears in any film that is the epitome of undiluted greatness, I knew that I made the right choice. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword feels like a patriotic wish fulfillment/contrivance that you could somehow keep your royalty and have that lower class swagger and underground criminal with a heart of gold sensibility. How many kings of the underworld wear white regularly? Way to stand out from the crowd. When I saw the kung fu moments, I thought, “For real?” and just shook my head. Also side note, didn’t the sign for the rebellion seem like a gender symbol? I loved Xena: The Warrior Princess so I adore anachronisms, but it is not fun because Ritchie just uses it as window dressing, not as an innate part of the narrative.
The heart of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the death of fathers for sons, and the struggles of sons to avenge their fathers. Maybe everyone just needs to run faster so everyone can escape together because this cycle may never end. Is Ritchie’s dad OK? What is going on? The supporting characters never get as much of a dynamic relationship with the titular character as the rivalry between uncle and nephew. When powerful supporting figures simply become pawns and damsels in distress that the villain can metaphorically tie to the railroad tracks, the film has short changed itself and its viewers. Swords and sorcery are the new ways to resolve childhood trauma, not just innately cool elements in a story that viewers like me want to geek out on. It is not satisfying. Side note: I feel like Summer Glau keeps getting cheated by not getting the weird girl jobs. Is she considered too old now?
After awhile, I gave up on wanting to get more information on the sea hags. (Roger Ebert’s site somehow mixed them up with the Lady of the Lake. No, did you watch the movie? I initially thought they were some weird sirens.) Cool, how did he know that would happen with THE SWORD if he stabbed himself with it? Were we supposed to know more about Maggie before the assassination attempt? Oh look, it is the chick from Merlin! And she’s dead. Oh look it is….never mind. Fine. I’ll stop getting distracted and focus on the one strong character, the real main character of the movie: Vortigern. Law still has it. He looks great. His character is interesting. He is the one consistent thread in a story that drops too many balls. For me, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is Law’s movie, and that movie is fun.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword does an effective job in a particular montage that depicts time passing and shows Arthur’s development from a vulnerable child to a man, but when it slows down again, it does not efficiently sustain the audience’s interest in his world, the people that support him or flesh out his ambition and sympathies. It is a cool world, but we just passed through. Watch it for an entertaining, but ultimately derivative movie and don’t expect to be blown away.