King Arthur: Legend
of the Sword (2/10)
by Tony Medley
Runtime 128 minutes.
Not for children.
Thomas Malory, who
first published his
Le Morte D'Arthur
in 1485 bringing together the French legends from the 14th
century that comprise the story, would not recognize this fantasy that
more resembles fantasies like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings
than the Arthurian legend.
Donít get me wrong; the story of King Arthur and his Knights of the
Round Table and Guinevere and Lancelot is pure fantasy. Thereís no
evidence anywhere that people like this ever existed in England or
anywhere else. But what this new film does is tell a totally different
story about Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) than that to which we have been
accustomed, a new prequel if you will.
Writer-director Guy Ritchie doesnít come to this game of putting his own
spin on hallowed literature as a virgin. He did the same thing with
Arthur Conan Doyleís Sherlock Holmes and I loathed each of those films,
almost as much as I loathed this one (incidentally, Jude Law was an
accomplice in the Holmes butcheries and heís here in this one, too, as
the evil Vortigen). The reason a legend like that of King Arthur has
lasted for 700 years is that itís a rollicking good story that has
appealed to millions of people across 21 generations. When you tinker
with that, you had better have something good.
Well, Ritchie doesnít have something good here. The new take on Arthur,
that he is a street ruffian, raised in a brothel, and living on the
streets by his wits, is interesting and might have worked. Because,
letís face it, Malory and his legends do not really provide any clue as
to how the person of King Arthur came about, at least none that I
remember. So this story is just as good as any. Since thereís no romance
here (the legend of King Arthur is first and foremost a romance!), they
apparently cast Hunnan, who is totally ripped, so the women in the
audience will have something to look at.
But what fouls it up is the videogame-like appearance of animals that
never existed, along with unbelievably absurd fight and battle scenes.
These have become so de rigueur and commonplace in action films
that thereís no tension in them and they are actually soporific if not
comical. But they do apparently appeal to the young naÔve male adult
mentality of today.
It is not just the story and the silly fight scenes that donít work.
Right at the beginning there is some dialogue with quick cuts from one
character to another, each dropping one-liners that are supposed to be
witty. Not! Theyíre just enormously annoying.
From a dismal start, it doesnít improve and itís easy to see why this
film has taken so long to hit the theaters, as itís rumored that the
original cut of well over 2 1/2 hours has been tinkered with for more
than a year, and finally trimmed to this, which is still so jumbled and
incoherent that itís little more than
that should appeal solely to teenaged males.