Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aiden Gillen, Eric Bana
Guy Ritchie's King Arthur adaptation is so concerned with style it forgets to tell a story we can care about. King Arthur is not exactly a story crying out to be retold, but if you're going to do it, why all of the frenetic camera work and Sherlock Holmes-style flashbacks which reveal unnecessary plot twists and flashbacks? Why so many queasy-cam shots which make much of the action indecipherable? Why were there no nails around to fasten Ritchie's camera to the ground?
- King Arthur begins amidst a coup within Camelot. Noble King Uther (Bana), Arthur's father, fights off an invasion by the evil Mordred which we later learn was arranged by Uther's envious brother Vortigern (Law) as a coup attempt. Uther defeats Mordred, but Vortigern kills Uther and his wife, but not before young Arthur is sent off alone in a boat to safety by his father. Vortigern usurps the throne, while young Arthur drifts to the town of Londinium, where he is discovered by prostitutes and raised in a brothel. Arthur's boyhood is fast forwarded past hastily, in another odd stylistic choice by Ritchie, so we see him grown into a strong young man who runs the brothel, protects his women, and can handle himself in a swordfight. Despite being a de facto godfather of Londinium's streets, we see he lives by some semblance of principles. Grown Arthur is played by Charlie Hunnam, last seen in The Lost City of Z.
Meanwhile, the crown rests uneasily on Vortigern's head, as he learns of the existence of a "born king" through a serpentine soothsayer who lives in a pool in the bowels of his castle. This born king will be the only one able to pull the fabled sword Excalibur from the stone and challenge Vortigern's throne. After Arthur wards off Vikings who attempted to take over Londinium's streets, he gains Vortigern's attention, since the Vikings were under his protection. The king's flunkies arrest Arthur and bring him to Camelot, where we see Arthur can indeed pull the sword from the stone.
There is more to the plot, which I will encapsulate as much as possible, in which Arthur learns to accept his destiny as the one who will battle Vortigern for the throne. He also learns to control Excalibur, which is like a wild horse of swords. Arthur does this by traveling to a land populated by terrifying animals and monsters. Arthur then gathers up an army of supporters, many of whom will become part of his round table, and challenge Vortigern.
The story of King Arthur is by its nature silly, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun. The trouble is, not matter how much Ritchie tries to lend funky camera angles and flashbacks in which we learn how we got here from there, the movie isn't a lot of fun. It is dark and depressing, which plenty of dark magic thrown in for good measure. Vortigern's kingdom is such a creepy place that we wonder why he is so hell bent on keeping it. Hunnam is more than a suitable hero and perhaps more of one than the movie deserves, while Law is a suitable villain who doesn't mind offing his own offspring in order to maintain power.
Ritchie's production choices are distracting. We begin to notice them, which isn't a good thing, but it all just feels like a desperate attempt to spruce up a lifeless story. In the end, we shouldn't feel bad for the victor, who now has the unenviable task of ruling this God-forsaken land.
No comments:
Post a Comment