Braveheart without the heart
Legends are always something of a specialty for cinema. We can never know the truth so instead we make up our own, we would rather have a fantastical idea of previous worlds than the reality that it was all probably a bit boring. So the real question is will this new medieval fantasy from Guy Ritchie be a Kingdom Of Heaven or just another Revolver in his chambers?
So Guy Ritchie is back. Many directors want to broaden themselves and not get typecast, they are forever trying to reverse what the public think of them, always fighting from the bottom attempting to become something more than they were first known for. Guy Ritchie isn’t like that. He prefers to continually re-skin his previous works and successes and transport them to different locations.
King Arthur feels very much like a Guy Ritchie film, it’s filled with his conceit and disjointed storytelling and some truly terrible sequences. That’s not to say that The Legend Of The Sword doesn’t have it’s redeeming features, it’s just those features are submerged in pure stupidity. Lets start with the sword itself…
When King Arthur first gets his hands on Excalibur (Spoiler) he is greeted by one of the worst cameos I have ever personally seen, to which they try and redeem themselves by making him go Super Saiyan (complete with comical sound effect), it’s here where the entire film begins to go south and everything starts to slip off the edge of reality like a painting in a thunderstorm. Everything in the movie skips to a beat that is both nonsensical and eurythmic, actually speaking of rhythm.
The Soundtrack is a conflicted affair (much like the film itself) it’s half filled with amazing Celtic ballads backs with strong string and orchestra and the other half is pumped full of Medieval dubstep, with this bizarre heavy breathing a compliment. It’s just a mess.
That’s what King Arthur is, a mess there could have been so much to enjoy in this film, but none of it properly translates or hits. There are characters that warg into a giant eagle (which can only be a ill-judged reference to Assassins Creed) , Peter Baelish is somewhere in the film as a revenge filled archer who can escape any prison, Jude Law seems like he has turned up for an entirely different movie and so does the his entire role as a thespian, and Charlie Hunnam’s accent relocates from scene to scene.
Here is the biggest downfall of King Arthur, it reminds you of a host of better films, it’s like Gladiator without the Gladiator, it’s like Lord Of The Rings without The Lord Of The Rings, it’s like Monty Python And The Holy Grail without the Monty Python or The Holy Grail, it’s like Hamlet without the sophistication or epicness, it’s like all of these films, but isn’t actually as good or ambitious as any of them.
King Arthur has moments of pure beauty, that get totally lost in a whole world full of conflicted plot lines, silly storytelling and poorly thought out characters.