It's safe to say that opinion was divided when 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' was the released. The critics seemed to absolutely hate it and the public didn't think it was that good, too. Okay, so opinion wasn't that divided after all. Anyway, from the amount of hated this film received before it was kicked out of cinemas and branded a 'flop' you'd think that all you'd see online were 1 star reviews. However, now that I see what the public seems to think about it, I can actually stand by my opening statement about it leaving audiences divided.
Sure, it's got it's fair share of 1 star reviews, but it also has more 5 star reviews than you'd expect based on how it was originally received. About fifteen years ago, Hollywood decided to 'reinvent' King Arthur in a more 'gritty' fashion and made a film starring Clive Owen. And, despite 'Legend of the Sword' also trying to reinvent King Arthur in a gritty and realistic fashion, Guy Ritchie's interpretation adds fanciful direction, superhero-like fight scenes and giant elephants. In fact... probably the biggest elephants every created by digital effects for the silver screen.
When director, Guy Ritchie, was promoting the film, he described it as 'Lord of the Rings' meets 'Snatch.' Yeah, I can't really sum in up any better. Only that does probably sell it a little more than it's worth. Yes, there are plenty of epic battles and computer effects which remind you of the 'Lord of the Rings' films and, yes, the dialogue seems like it was additional scenes left on the cutting room floor after 'Snatch' had been edited. The main problem is that 'King Arthur' feels like it should have been about three hours long and then cut down to only two hours. For all the good bits it contains, it feels like it's a whistle-stop tour of the actual story.
Charlie Hunnam is the titular King Arthur and he plays the hero pretty well as he tries to reclaim his birthright from his evil uncle (Jude Law) and his army of Kylo Wren impersonators. He doesn't have too much to do other than look 'buff,' but he's a watchable enough hero. Jude Law is good when he's in it, but - again - he's not in it enough for us to really get to know and his only job appears to just be evil. And, while we're on the subject of casting, who gave David Beckham a cameo? Sorry, but no matter how well he can bend balls, he really can't act!
I hear the film went through some major reshoots before release. I'm guessing that these were the parts of the film that really do feel 'thrown together.' And, not only do they feel out of place, any special effects used seem to be done on the cheap. There are some pretty good effects here and there, but they're not constant enough to feel like they belong in such a big budget production. Plus the sets look a little too 'modern' for the time period. No, I'm not saying they look like they belong in today's world, but I'm sure the time period King Arthur was supposed to be set in didn't look like the world which is depicted (what we see looks more like only a couple of hundred years ago, rather than about 5-800 years ago). It all feels more like Robin Hood's era than King Arthur's.
If you're a fan of Guy Ritchie's directing and dialogue then you'll get plenty for your money. However, the film is so weirdly slung together that it's all just turned into a bit of a rushed mess. There's a scene in the middle of the film that actually feels like a trailer for the film itself. I've never seen anything like that before. It's very jarring.
7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that
No comments:
Post a Comment