The Definitive Guide to Living in the Capital , Cairo , Egypt

Film
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

King Arthur The Legend of the Sword: Swashbuckling Guy Ritchie Adaptation Lacks Depth

  • Astrid Bergès-FrisbeyCharlie Hunnam...
  • Action & Adventure
  • Guy Ritchie
reviewed by
Marija Djurovic
rate it
review it
King Arthur The Legend of the Sword: Swashbuckling Guy Ritchie Adaptation Lacks Depth

There’s plenty to feast your eyes on in Guy Ritchie’s latest cinematic endeavour, an adaptation of the story of King Arthur. It’s a plucky and amusing, but often messy and you definitely won’t be walking away floored by the outcome.

The story opens with a grand sequence where King Uther (Bana) is fighting to defend Camelot– with the help from his sword Excalibur – from an army of giant elephants who are under the control of the evil enchanter, Mordred (Knighton). However, things take a tragic turn when, upon his victory, Uther is betrayed by his younger brother Vortigren (played by the scenery-chewing Jude Law) who ends up murdering his older brother, stealing his crown just as Uther manages to help his son Arthur escape down the river.

Having been forced to live on the streets of Londinium, Arthur (now played by the super affective Charlie Hunnam) has now grown up to be a street-smart and a defiant young man. Meanwhile, Vortigren is now growing increasingly concerned that Uther’s offspring will return to the kingdom and successfully pull Excalibur from the stone – something only a descendant from the Pendragon bloodline can do – and claim the throne.  Sure enough, Arthur soon finds himself in the possession of the legendary sword and with the help from his own crew of soldiers, starts rolling out a plan for claiming his place at the throne.

 Coming across as a somewhat of a weird mix of HBO’s Game of Thrones and Ritchie’s 2000 comedy-crime-thriller Snatch, King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword has plenty of that spunky Richie-ism running through its veins, which keeps the picture vibrant and vivacious throughout.

However, while it boasts a feverish energy and terrific fight sequences there are a few too many downs to recall, it’s these things that also send the film into a squander at times.

Running at just over two hours, it becomes a little hard to figure out exactly what’s going on at times, with the movie seems more interested in distracting us with the excessive use of everything from the elaborate battles, to the director’s flashy stylistic spurs. And while the cast are all effective in their respective roles, there is very little connective tissue to the storyline or emotional engagement to the characters on screen.

Overall, the ingredients for an innovative Medieval-Cockney-inspired watch are all there but, thanks to its heavy-handed approach, the impact diminished as a result.

Like This? Try

King Arthur (2004), Sherlock Holmes (2009), Excalibur (1981)

Write your review

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

recommended