A Danny Dyer away from being a medieval Eastenders reboot, Guy Ritchie’s take on the oldie tale of King Arthur and that pesky sword is washed in typical Ritchie-isms.
LADS! LADS! LADS! It’s all very manly – with barely a worthy female character in sight, other than prostitutes and Astrid Berges-Frisbey’s magic waving The Mage – with Sons of Anarchy star Charlie Hunnam leading the way as the sword-pulling future king. A flop at the box office and branded “dull” by many a critic, King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword was being talked of as just the start of a multi-film series. The ending’s a cheeky little hint at what they had planned, yet, disappointingly, we’re probably not going to see what this laddish Arthur and his scallywag pals get upto next.
I really do think it’s a bit of a shame. Don’t get me wrong; it’s a mess. Confusion will wash over you like Jude Law’s bad guy mascara, but I had quite a lot of fun this. I reckon Guy Ritchie had crammed in a Lord of The Rings binge before heading into pre-production. Gigantic elephants, masked supernatural villains and a giant, villainous tower… I was half expecting Gollum to pop up and nab the sword from Arthur’s manly (‘cos everything’s manly) hands. Visually it was pretty spectacular, which distracts from its general messiness. More than not the fantasy stuff worked well, if not a little ridiculous towards the film’s latter stages where your hopes for one big ass finale are dashed for a rather strange, lapsidasical and disappointingly lacklustre showdown between Arthur and his bat-shit Uncle Vortigen (Law).
This won’t be everyone’s cuppa tea. It’s man-heavy interior and swashbuckling action sequences may put many off, but it’s a cool film and if you can look past it’s sloppiness in both plot and structure, there’s a fun fantasy flick there.