Green Goblin Reviews King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
One of the more interesting things a critic can do is right a review for a bad film. Not every bad film, mind you. There are some films that just disappoint or bore you. It’s hard to elaborate on the flaws of a film if you forget them the instant your ass leaves the seat in the theater. And then there’s the other side. You know the kind. The films that are just so spectacularly bad, that their overall badness just permeates everything around it and you can smell it coming from a mile away. This is honestly what I was expecting to see, going into King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. The marketing was virtually non-existent, the date kept getting pushed back and what little we did see of the film looked like a gray, washed-out, paint-by-numbers action piece with the titular character looking like a discount Medieval Mackelmore and that Lord of the Rings style oliphaunts would somehow be involved. I won’t lie, folks: I went into this movie expecting it to be genuinely bad. So was it?
….well, yeah. But less than I thought. So….hooray?
First things first, the plot of this film pretty much jettisons everything about the actual tale of King Arthur, with the Merlin upbringing and the animorphing in favor of telling a version of Hamlet set to the tune of Excalibur. Uther Pendragon is a king during an age in which mankind is involved in some kind of wizarding war (that we only catch the tail-end of in the film) and wields Excalibur to take on the evil mage, Mordred. Jealous of the King (Eric Bana), his brother Vortigen (Jude Law) takes up the dark arts and stages a coup, murdering his brother (and both of their wives) and takes the throne for himself, while little baby Arthur (adult, played by Charlie Hunnam) escapes, Moses style, and comes of age in a brothel. As an adult, Arthur is discovered by now-ruling King Vortigen and is to be made an example out of to the masses by way of public execution. But he’s saved from the executioner’s axe by a group of rebels led by a woman only ever called The Mage in film, but was apparently suppose to be Guinevere, according to wikipedia (played by Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey). So Arthur has to usurp the current corrupt king and claim the throne for himself and bring piece to the merry old land of England.
Simple plot, yes? You’d think it’d be concise in the film itself, but you’d be wrong. For the most part, the film is coherent; some intentionally unanswered questions in the first half waited waaay to long to reveal themselves, but it’s not a chore to follow. And despite having very little to do with the actual story of King Arthur apart from a sword in a stone, it still manages to be a more compelling take than the 2004 version. Though that bar is set pretty damn low. The dialog in the film is surprisingly pretty solid, especially when Ritchie gets to do what he does best with quick editing and speed-talking. Unfortunately, said dialog is only relegated to a couple standalone scenes and a montage or two. If the film was indeed initially set up to be a Medieval take on the same sort of script that made Ritchie big to begin with, then it must have gotten lost in the production. What gets left is bits of giant monsters that you never actually get a good taste of, samplings of decent dialog that you wish you had more of, Jude Law chewing the scenery in the way only he can and a main character that’s JUST. NOT. LIKEABLE. He’s tolerable, mind you. Like, you could stomach him, if need be. But Hunnam has very little actual charisma to work with here and should be thankful to be surrounded by better actors around him. There are some cool bits in the middle of the film, involving a bunch of giant monsters that you would have liked to have seen a little more drawn out, immediately followed by a dragged down second act that far overstays its welcome and a finale that’s setup felt the most forced of anything I’d seen in a while and made me second guess my desire to see more giant monsters.
The genuine badness of the film sorta lingers, as there are bits and pieces of an enjoyable film to be had here. I laughed at certain character interactions and thought some of the designs were pretty solid. But the flaws are still out there in the open for all to see; or at least, they would have been if Warner Bros. had decided to advertise it much at all. Make no mistake, releasing a week after Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, this film was put out here to die. There’s no baiting for a sequel or after credits scene. The word that I think best describes this film is “digestible”. There’s nothing toxic about it to really get upset about. But there’s really nothing to get very excited about either. It’s really just cinematic gruel; flavorless, yet filling in a forgettable way.
4.5/10
Film purgatory for you, King Arthur. Enjoy your eventual limited syndication run on TBS a year from now and then fade into obscurity.