REVIEW: “Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur Tried but...Meh. “
So you know those kind of movies you hear about months and months in advance in magazines and stuff, but don’t really pay attention to for some reason until the week before it comes out? Welll...technically ten days, (I was invited to the King Arthur premiere by a best friend like the Friday night before) if we wanna be technical. You know what I mean, King Arthur was pretty much that. And sadly...for good reason.
Now don’t get me wrong, when I did see the trailer and Charlie Hunnam vs Jude Law, I was definitely interested. But, being the broke college grad that I am, I do not have money to splurge on just any movie. So if my best friend hadn’t gotten tickets to the premiere and therefore inviting me, I probably wouldn’t have seen it.
The director of the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock movies- Guy Ritchie- retells the medieval story of Arthur whom, during a kingdom’s vicious rule under villain Vortigern (Jude Law), is revealed to be the rightful king after he pulls the sword Excalibur from the stone. And while there are things to enjoy about this movie, it misses the mark of being the next blockbuster hit.
Let me say I haven’t even finished season 1 of Sons of Anarchy. So while I enjoy his handsome face, I don’t really know Charlie Hunnam as an actor. I know OF things he’s played in, but ask me have I watched them? Nope. That being said, I enjoyed Charlie Hunnam’s rugged portrayal of Arthur. Out of all the various King Arthur films I’ve seen- Excalibur, Sword and the Stone, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Quest for Camelot, even an old episode of the Fairly OddParents- this may be the first one where Arthur’s portrayal wasn’t a scrawny, weak but kindhearted kid. Charlie’s Arthur, was of course, a very muscular man and while a good man, was kind of a jerk. But he got shit done and protected his. Not what I expected, but different. I’ll take it. He did well. The movie? Not so much.
While the film brought a twist to the well known legend, everything else was pretty.... meh. Most- if not all- of the action scenes included CGI and yes, sometimes so much, none of the film looked real. So much CGI, they needed to use slow mo. It was nice to look at but come on, how much do I have to look at that brings point to the plot?
Shout out to the script though. Many scenes had great rhythm and definitely had me caught up in the dialogue.
The film also brought color to the medieval world with Hunnam’s co-stars, Djimon Hounsou, Tom Wu and Kingsley Ben-Adir while others- Game of Thrones’ Aidan Gillen and Astrid Berges-Frisbey helped bring attitude and magic. And though script moments brought plenty of humor here and there that I enjoyed, you don’t get to know anything about these characters besides their forced loyalty to Arthur enough to root for them against Jude Law. I wish I did. I liked some of them for what they were. And speaking of, Jude Law’s villain king was villainously villainous- meaning, he was a villain through and through, wanted nothing but power, would do anything to keep it but for some reason asks if his people love him like 30-40 minutes in. Uhhh no. No they do not.
And the editing. Ohhh boy. From what I could tell, the editing was supposed to collaborate with the script to bring Guy Ritchie filmmaking to life, but instead made the film hard to watch. Everything was all over the place and that, in addition to the overwhelming CGI, made the movie a bit of a mess.
Overall, I walked out the movie neither sad nor happy that I’d seen it. C Average. At least my best friend and I had a fun time. That I enjoyed.
I give King Arthur a Shoulder Shrug. Cause meh.
annaxmalina
pixelskylines
titsay
jacobvanloon
andulkaphoto
baratheonpilled
vaporwave
blakekathryn
dailybridgerton
