King Arthur: Legend of the Sword tells the story of Arthur, whose robbed of his birthright, and comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy – whether he likes it or not.
Going into any Guy Ritchie film, you know what you’re going to get and with this latest instalment in a well know tale with a twist, it delves back into the old school Ritchie style of films like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. With King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, it’s such a Guy Ritchie Film, it’s almost at detriment to itself. I almost lost count of how many times my eyes rolled back into my head but I sure knew that I got a headache out of it.
Although the scathing reviews of the film may be a little harsh, more often than not, they’re correct in their perception of this mess of action. The film itself was almost generic in itself with the Ritchie style thrown in. It was hardly as entertaining as Sherlock Holmes and its sequel, which also starred Jude Law, or even the less of a box office hit in The Man From U.N.C.L.E.. There were times when the dialogue and creative editing to blend this all together worked to the films advantage but otherwise fell flat.
The biggest problem with King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is that it’s trying too hard to be a Guy Ritchie film than actually trying to tell a story and immerse the audience. That and a lot of the time, it felt like you were watching a video game on the big screen instead of a film. Even with a clear story, and a much cleaner tale than any Zack Snyder film and the mess of more action than any coherent and logical story that was Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, it really comes down to the fact that even though it may have been enjoyable for some, especially for the Guy Ritchie fans, I too often felt myself bored and checking my phone. I couldn’t connect with the character’s and everything almost happened too fast and too much of a montage to actually properly connect with the characters, probably because the character’s, or at least the supporting ones were the main culprits, weren’t developed enough.
It can also come down to the fact that the film is, for some reason, whatever that may be, is so obsessed with wasting time on the visuals and pointless creatures that pushes the films run time to the two hour mark when it doesn’t need to be.
The films only redeeming quality is Jude Law’s Vortigern and he definitely has the star power, as well as the charisma, to at least bring some light (or darkness, in his character’s case) to the bleak outcome for the film. Charlie Hunnam’s charisma has hardly reached that stage yet, though this doesn’t discredit him from being a good actor — because he is, however, he still has quite a bit to go yet. He doesn’t yet have the strength to carry a film like this and overall was a bit “meh.”
In the end, if you’re one who’s more about style-over-substance, this is the film for you.