Mixed Genres Make for Muddled “Arthur”

Made for the superhero generation, Guy Ritchie’s King
Arthur: Legend of the Sword is an origin story about an orphan who finds out
he has a destiny, gets a magical object that gives him superhuman powers and is
internally conflicted about the whole thing. 
Think Thor by way of Game of Thrones and you have some idea of
what’s being attempted here.  This is an
origin story, a franchise starter, a reimagining of the Arthurian legend with
sequels and action figures in mind. All that’s missing from this sword-wielding
hero is a cape.

To Ritchie and co-writer Joby Harold’s credit, this approach
actually works for a while as the film’s dark tone signals that a more grounded
reboot is afoot.  This time out, the
orphaned Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) and is taken in by a group of kindly
prostitutes who raise him a brothel.  On
his road to adulthood, he becomes a fierce warrior, shrewd businessman and
charmer of the first order, content to live a relatively quiet life, greasing
the necessary palms so the house where he was raised can remain a viable
operation.  However, a raid and other
circumstances conspire to see Arthur sent away to be conscripted in the army
where, before being enlisted, he’s allowed a chance to pull a mysterious sword
from a stone, which has recently been revealed. 
Our hero manages to pull off this feat and before you know it, he’s
being recruited to be the leader of a resistance against King Vortigern (Jude Law),
an evil ruler who’s morally compromised himself to gain power.

As he did with his two Sherlock Holmes features, Ritchie
strips away much of the romance surrounding the legend, giving the story a
gritty, dirty feel with its realistic, primitive settings, period costumes and
worn, tattered faces.  This approach, as
well as the director’s trademark kinetic style, in which events are wittily
recounted and paired with scenes featuring altered speeds that are cut together
rapidly, are part-and-parcel of any Ritchie film. Love it or hate it, there’s
no questioning that this technique energizes the story, moving it along briskly
and with imagination.

However, as the movie progresses there’s more sorcery than
swords at play here and the realistic approach is abandoned for a comic book
aesthetic that’s initially intriguing but ultimately wrongheaded. Whenever Arthur
grasps Excalibur we are privy to disturbing visions he’s haunted by while the
action slows down so that we might see the outlandish acts he’s capable of when
he and sword are one.  The earth quakes,
buildings shake and the Once-and-Future King is able to wipe out 50 – 60 men
with one 360-degree turn of the sword and, before you know it, he’s standing
amidst the vanquished, his cohorts gazing in amazement. This makes for little
tension where hand-to-hand combat is concerned but more damning is the fact
that the sudden shift to a comic book tone jars with all that’s come
before. 

While I was willing to give Ritchie some rope and see what
he would go during the movie’s second hour, like other modern action movies it
just continues to build, one outlandish elements tripping on the heels of
another.  Once a snake the size of a
semi-tractor trailer appeared on the scene, my patience had worn thin.

This is a shame as Hunnam is very good, as is Law and Astrid
Berges-Fribey as a magician that comes to Arthur’s aid, while the production
values are top-notch and some of the set pieces are amazing, in particular the
opening battle sequence that finds King Uther’s (Eric Bana) castle under siege.  There’s plenty good about King Arthur:
Legend of the Sword, so much so that you may find yourself seduced enough to
overlook its faults.  It’s a movie you
end up liking more than you should but in the end, Ritchie’s clashing tones
make for a muddled look at the legendary ruler.

This article appears in May 4-10, 2017.