Summary Robbed of his birthright, Arthur 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…
Robbed of his birthright, Arthur 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.
Charlie Hunnam : Arthur
Jude Law : Vortigern
Astrid Bergès-Frisbey : The Mage
“How’d you get money from a Viking?
I feel a joke coming on here.”
Ever seen me excited before? Then you should have been there, when I was watching this movie. Perhaps because it’s a movie that’s being razed to the ground by the most appreciated film critics. How do they actually evaluate a movie? Do they use a minutely compiled questionnaire with a precise step-by-step plan to evaluate a movie? Armed with a decibel meter, lux meter and a comprehensive Wikipedia reference about the subject, so technical and substantive negligence can be spotted right away? I know, I know. Smart readers will of course immediately ask me the following obvious question: “Say wiseguy. What’s the base of your judgement of a movie?”. To be honest, I don’t know. Is it a gut feeling? Or temporary insanity? Believe me, I don’t know but read on and I’ll tell you everything you need to know.
It’s a pimped version of a medieval legend.
Lets start with the proclaimed criticisms which were excessively exaggerated in my opinion. Some claim that this was an outright disgrace to the great legend about King Arthur. At first I don’t think that was the intention of the creators. And by the way, had they done this (which means that all involved characters who played an important role in this legend, probably also would have gotten a spot in this movie) then other whiners would say this flick is just a copy of a previously made movie. In my opinion, if you want to experience a historically accurate story, follow evening lessons about medieval history. These are accurate enough. No, this was a pimped, modernist version of a medieval legend.
Beckham was in it. So what!
Next point that gets on my nerves is the whole fuss about Beckham. I’ve read that he got the part thanks to his friendship with one of the leading players, but that he’s better in juggling with a ball than in acting. Give me a break. That bloke was only a few minutes onscreen. A rather limited contribution to judge someone about his acting capabilities (Although I’m not waiting for a movie with Beckham playing an important part).
Ladies and gentlemen, the Guy Ritchie style ….
And finally, the style of this film by the hand of Guy Ritchie. Frankly, I had to get used to it myself. Strangely enough, I have never seen a movie directed by him before. But after seeing this movie, I plan to fill up this cultural gap because this tastes like more. In other words, you can call me a real Guy Ritchie fan from now on. That driven, flashy and hyperkinetic narrative style was quite confusing at first, but once I got in the flow of the movie, I began to appreciate that style. Not only is it a fascinating style, it also makes for subtle and raging scenes. Even conversations were filled with humor because of the style.
Action and magic.
“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is a mix of different types of movies. From “Lord of the rings” and “The Hobbit“, to “Fast & furious” or any other slick action movie, making it a medieval story with a modern jargon being used. The action filled scenes, especially those where Arthur suddenly holds Excalibur with both hands, are breathtaking. It looked like “The matrix” with a bunch of knights. And then there’s the magic. “TLOTR” was magical and full of fantasy. But also this movie contains a considerable amount of magical elements, even though the illustrious Merlin is just in it for a split second. The Darklands with its unworldly creatures. The Mage (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey) who, by means of telekinetic powers, can summon the animal kingdom to intervene and also has alchemical wisdom about herbs. The sea witches helping Vortigern (Jude “Gigolo Joe” Law) to gain power. Mordred, a sort of Lord Sauron, who attacks Camelot with an army of monstrous-looking elephants. And all this is shrouded in a fabulous and dark atmosphere.
Even the cast was interesting enough. Charlie Hunnam played the role of Arthur with bravura. Not the Arthur we know from the legends, but a born fighter who grew up in a brothel and along with his companions Wet Stick (Kingsley Ben-Adir) and Back Lack (Neil Maskell) earns his money in a not so honest way. You can hardly call him a noble and righteous man. Frankly, I didn’t recognize Astrid Bergès-Frisbey immediately, even though she played a fascinating role in “I origins“. The acting wasn’t her main concern here but the mysterious nature of her character was, which she played in a convincing way. But also the less important secondary persons were of a valuable addition.
Don’t you get it yet? I really liked this one.
Well, apparently I’m swimming against the grain again with my opinion. To be honest, this was one of the most energetic and entertaining movies I’ve seen this year. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is a hell of a rollercoaster raging over you like a bulldozer. For those who haven’t seen this modern King Arthur interpretation yet, just one advice : ignore the negativism about this movie, go see it and get overwhelmed by this movie.
My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB
More reviews here