King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

There's always room for King Arthur in Hollywood. His last screen appearance was a same-titled 2004 dud about the "real deal." I vaguely remember it being drab. Guy Ritchie's reinvention, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, is slightly more memorable for its oddities. But at least it resembles the myths more than the "real deal."

The evil Vortigern (Jude Law) hates his good brother, Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana), king of Camelot. So he cooks up a scheme with the mage Mordred and some Sea Hags to dispose of the Royals. Uther's son Arthur gets away and is found by some Londinium ladies. Years later, Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) is a rowdy guy with equally rowdy friends. They rough up bad guys, like the Viking who roughed up Arthur's adopted mother. But the Viking was a guest of Vortigern. Uh, shackles...

When the Sword in the Stone is discovered, Arthur is last in line to pull it out. Arthur gets in front and the sword, thus proving him the Once and Future King. But the sword is too powerful for the untrained mind. So a mage (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) frees Arthur and gets him to Sir Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou). Naturally, they're here to help him control the sword and cut down Vortigern. Arthur has his doubts.

As with Ritchie's last film, The Man from UNCLE, there are four writers on the story/screenplay. You'd think there'd be a few dozen more. It throws a lot of questions around in quick succession. What's the deal with the Sea Hags? How come this human/mage war the intro text exposits is barely explored? Is Vortigern a power-hungry psycho or a remorseful man putting up a tyrannical front? The film's editing style overwhelmed its attempt at cohesive storytelling. Arthur's growing up montage went by faster than a speeding bullet. A few other scenes zig-zag in time in rapid succession. 

The film's best characters were the Sea Hags themselves. OK, they're called the Syrens. They're the most bizarre part of the film as they're equal parts creepy and unintentionally funny. They only really appear in one scene and I wish there was more. The human characters were uninteresting standard action characters. Except maybe Vortigern, but that's because he occasionally turns into a demon knight that looks like Skeletor. There was nothing wrong with them as a whole, but nothing special either.

The film's best visual effects, other than the Sea Hags Syrens, were the beyond skyscraper-sized war elephants in the prologue. Yes, this sounds like the Mumak, but they're still terrifying monstrosities. Their roar is simply astounding. The action scenes are pretty good when you can tell what's going on. Unfortunately, the opposite happens a lot. Camelot itself is recreated with fine sets by production designer Gemma Jackson. Annie Symons' costume design complements the gritty fantasy tone well. The same goes for the makeup work. 

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword hopes to be the first of a six-film series. They forgot to make an engaging first installment. Its heavy style over substance makes the 126 minutes tough to sit through. It's one thing to reinvent a story that's been done for ages. It's another to make that reinvention something worth watching. Let's hope the next person who pulls King Arthur back to the screen have a great idea in mind.