I love King Arthur. I am a fan of the mythology. A fan of the themes. Quite simply, if I ever wanted to live in a different time period, it’d […]
I love King Arthur. I am a fan of the mythology. A fan of the themes. Quite simply, if I ever wanted to live in a different time period, it’d either be in the time of gladiators or King Arthur’s round table.
The latest addition into the cinematic mythos of the King of Camelot is Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017). Staring Charlie Hunnam of Sons Of Anarchy fame and Jude Law as the main protagonist and antagonist, the adventure takes a different approach on how Arthur came to rise of the King of England.
Take the same themes of growing up with an unknown fortitude (whether it be mental or physical), accepting responsibility and growing as a leader…just without
If you have seen a Ritchie film, you know that you’re in for a psychedelic adventure of slow-motion action, quick-witted dialogue, and over-the-top set pieces. Such is the case for this escapade as well.
Unlike Sherlock Holmes (2009) and Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows (2011) (granted to a lesser extent), King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword doesn’t have the same engaging plot that makes up for some of the expected pitfalls in an all-or-nothing Ritchie experience.
The risks taken in differing away from the classic Arthurian tale don’t fit well together; it’s like walking in a resewn pair of ripped jeans. You want to fully move and walk along the path of the character’s journey…but you are constantly restricted from walking that desired story arc.
In this short but sweet reaction, I can say I’d rather watch Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur (2004). I mean come one, the ice battle is just insane! But I say do pick up this movie, do pull it from your local Red Box station, and raise it high as a good entertaining one-viewing experience.
STANKO RATING: C