King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Starring Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Jude Law

Directed by Guy Ritchie

The Story:
After an epic battle against the evil sorcerer Mordred, King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) is betrayed by his brother Vortigern (Jude Law), who wants to become King of Camelot.  Uther manages to get his young son Arthur away from the castle before he's killed by Vortigern.  Young Arthur washes up in Londinium where he is raised in a brothel and learns how to fight as he grows up, completely unaware of his kingly lineage.

One day the waters around Camelot recede revealing Excalibur, the fabled sword wielded by Uther and something Vortigern desires.  When no man is able to pull it from the stone, Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) manages to pull it free.  Knowing he is the last of Uther's line, Vortigern sets out to kill him and gain control of the sword for himself, but Arthur escapes with the help of a Mage (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) and Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou), a former warrior for Uther.

As he comes to terms with his destiny, Arthur struggles with understanding the power of Excalibur, the mystery behind his parents' deaths, and dealing with his own perceived shortcomings.  Meanwhile, Vortigern grows stronger and sets out on a desperate search to destroy the last of Uther's line and claim the mythical sword for his own.

The Synopsis:
While not having any big preconceived notions on how I would feel about the film, I went in with a very skeptical mind and not a lot of expectations.  Maybe that's why I was entertained by it, because I wasn't expecting very much out of it.  While I'm a big fan of Guy Ritchie, the previews didn't really get me pumped for yet another trek into the Arthurian legend, but thankfully Ritchie made it his own and weaved out a unique tale that isn't just a regurgitated re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-telling of the legend that we've heard since we were young.

There's a lot of differences between Ritchie's film and the classic legend (some of which include Camelot existing before Arthur became king, Mordred isn't Arthur's son, Arthur's entire upbringing and Excalibur's power) that gives it a fresh twist and a refreshing take on the legend, even if it seemed a bit heavy-handed at times.  Ritchie made the film not as a movie about Arthur, but about a movie that centers on the classic hero's journey; it just so happened it turned out to be Arthur's hero's journey.

This is undoubtedly a Guy Ritchie film from start to finish, as it harbors his many traditional styles: from the greyed-out colors from "Sherlock Holmes" to a motley crew of ruffians who work with Arthur to take down the king in a series of annoyances to draw the king into hiding like "Snatch" and of course Ritchie's way of telling a story that involves flashbacks, flash forwards and fast-paced banter.  Throw in some over-the-top, amazingly rendered CGI action sequences and you've got a unique Arthur with a wholly unique story that's filled with action, humor and excitement.  If it were done by another director, this film could've easily fallen to the ranks of other origin story epics that are as boring and unmemorable as the last time you clipped your toenails.

Casting Charlie Hunnam as Arthur was a perfect choice, especially if you've seen him in "Sons of Anarchy" or "Pacific Rim."  Hunnam exudes confidence, arrogance and his own brand of swagger to the role that makes Arthur an exciting character to see develop from a petty thief to chosen king.  Jude Law is your quintessential bad guy who thirsts for power above everything else, and he naturally seems to have that type of arrogance about him that makes him an extremely unlikable character.  These two are the yin and yang of the film, the conflict and resolution, and its on these two that the entirety of the film lies.  Thankfully Ritchie cast well and they were both able to hold their own.  The supporting cast also did a decent job (there was even a cameo by soccer great - and Ritchie's BFF - David Beckham), which helped make the film something more enjoyable than I expected.

When it comes to the action, there's a lot of CGI to go around.  When Arthur finally unleashes the power of Excalibur, he becomes almost superhuman, slicing through hordes of enemies with ease with dizzying camera angles.  There's also behemoth animals such as a giant snake that look really cool, but I can see in about ten years being ridiculed as badly as The Rock looked at the end of "The Mummy Returns:"

How did we ever think that looked cool?

Anyway, the action was exciting and fast-paced and helped add a sense of excitement and wonder to the Arthurian legend.  Just hopefully the CGI animals hold up to the tests of time.

The Summary:
While there didn't seem a lot to be excited with at first, Guy Ritchie managed to give his own interpretation on the Arthurian legend, making it something fresh, new, and original, featuring a standout cast especially Charlie Hunnam as the reluctant hero.

The Score: B+