KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD REVIEW

NON-SPOILER REVIEW

Sigh. It hurts to see good movies bomb at the box office, it really does, but c’est la vie. On an opening weekend with little to no competition, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword struggled to make a real stake on its cinematic debut. The budget for the movie is stated to be around a massive $175m before marketing, and has only done a meager domestic $14.7m and $29.1m overseas so far since its opening, perhaps the costly repercussion of opening while Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2 still lingered in the cinemas.

The movie has suffered scathing reviews, from its plot, pacing, football celebrity cameo and being a little too yob for the critics. The purists, it seemed were not too happy at the non-canon take on the mythological King of Camelot, but in my opinion that was a good thing, I’ve read books, watched TV shows and movies about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, all to a more or less repetitive tone, and as Antoine Fuqua’s 2004 King Arthur movie proves, any imaginative retelling of the folk tale is usually done with dreadful consequences, failure at the box office for one.

Well, suffice to say I found this version of the story refreshing, whatever the numbers or the reviews say I thought this was a really good and enjoyable movie and I implore you to go see it if fantasy is your thing. I’m just a voice, a little voice standing up for the little ‘Guy’. So with my fingers crossed, here’s hoping the box office numbers improve. Now, back to the review.

As far as plots go, this one was pretty simple. The movie opens with a short back story with a war between the Mages led by Mordred and mankind, Camelot is the last stronghold of man to be crushed by Mordred, an evil sorcerer. Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) the King of Britain, heroically and singlehandedly ends the war by killing Mordred before he is betrayed by his brother Vortigern (Jude Law), and it is here young Arthur Pendragon begins his story after the murder of his parents and usurping of the throne by his evil uncle in a moses-esque fashion, drifting downriver in a boat. The boat drifts to Londinium and he is found by strumpets while doing their laundry at the river banks. Arthur is raised in a whorehouse and quickly adapts to and thrives on the streets, growing to become something of a neighborhood celebrity, debt collector, protector and enforcer. However after an ill-fated clash with Vikings under the now 'King' Vortigern’s protection, Arthur’s life is never going to be the same. It’s pretty much a coming of age story and one of good versus bad, Arthur realizes his heritage and steps against the tyrannical rule of his uncle whilst claiming his birthright.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (LOTS henceforth) is based on the source material but mostly dabbles in the folklore, the usual cast of Mordred, Merlin, and The Lady of the Lake are all mentioned but serve mostly as a point of reference for the story with little cameos. The timeline of the characters is slightly tweaked too, to accommodate the story line (E.g. Mordred is not really in Uther’s time).

King Arthur: LOTS boasts a stellar cast; Eric Bana, Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Djimoun Honsou, Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, Katie McGrath who played Morgana in the Merlin TV series and Aidan Gillen of Game of Thrones fame etc. Personally I think Charlie Hunnam is one of those great actors you don’t get to see much but are impressed anytime you do. He plays streetwise Arthur with the right amount of savvy, humour and panache making the character a real charmer.

David Beckham’s acting didn’t do much to earn anything but scorn from the critics, although I didn’t think it was all bad (but what do I know eh?), his cameo in the sword in the stone scene has been said to have brought an air of levity to an otherwise momentous and important part of the Legend. The scene in question while underwhelming to some, was brilliant for me, I think it’s downplay was done right in terms of the movie’s plot and tone, this wasn’t a crown prince, seasoned warrior or born leader who knew what he was doing, this was a self-assured geezer who simply wanted to get the redundant attempt of pulling the sword over with, having no idea who he really was or what significance the sword held, and is overpowered by its immense power as it surges through him and knocks him out cold. In terms of expectation, the scene in the same way isn’t a moment which is awaited with reverence like the Legend but a rather ominous one, the probability of capture or death is clear and present with the dozens of Blacklegs (Vortigern’s soldiers) just waiting to descend upon the unlucky heir.

Talking about the Excalibur, I’ve seen many iterations of King Arthur’s magical sword but none and I repeat none, is as good as what you see in this movie, it’s probably the most powerful sword I’ve seen in a fantasy film, (sorry Andúril, you’ve just been toppled). This is the sword of a King, powerful in the right hands and making the coinage ‘One Man Army’ a reality, a true weapon of mass destruction.

I was disappointed though not to have had Merlin in this movie other than in flashback and mention, it would have been interesting to see the movie’s version of the character in full swing but since it is hinted that the Wizard still lives, as he sent Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey’s Mage to help Arthur, perhaps he was being saved for a sequel which we most certainly will never get to see now going by the movie’s box office performance. Shame though, Arthur’s Legend is rich with many adventures and many rich characters to have spanned a decent franchise run, however a trilogy would have been a more realistic target against the projected six film franchise which Warner Brothers wanted, that, in my opinion was overly optimistic.

The movie had Guy Ritchie written all over it, his directorial style as seen in many of his movies (Snatch, Lock Stock, The Man from U.N.C.L.E etc.) is brilliantly used here to comical effect as always. I thought the action scenes were quite brilliant and well done in a Zack Snyder kinda way. CGI on this is really top notch; the beasts of the blacklands, the Excalibur fight scenes, the massive snake! It was delightful to watch. I’m not sure if it’s on IMAX, but any 2D screen will suffice and will not take away any of your viewing pleasure.

King Arthur: LOTS may be a casualty of the box office but it certainly is a victor for the fantasy genre, it’s a different take on an old age legend, but loses none of the luster that makes a fantasy epic, at times it isn’t presented with the weightiness the source material is known for, but still remains true to its essence, It’s not a perfect movie, it might not have the most mind bending plot but it makes sense and is a largely entertaining film with great moments and plenty of ‘re-watch’ value, It’s still a ways from the genre heavyweights as LOTR or GOT, but it pulls a decent punch.

 Reject Rating: 7/10