Film My Favorite Movie Of 2017
I know, I know, something of a late review here, but after reading up on Guy Ritchie I was reminded of my fondness for this film.
I grew up reading about Arthurian mythology - the tale of the Green Knight, the tryst of Lancelot and Guinevere, the overarching tragedy of the bastard Arthur himself - and my favorite version of the story was T.H. White's The Once and Future King, the first part of which you might better know as being adapted into Disney's The Sword and the Stone. So you might think that I'd hate this movie for how different it is from most every other adaptation of the legend and mythos, and you'd be wrong.
In all honesty, the irreverence with which Legend of the Sword treats most of the setting is part of its strength, charm, and fun. It's got people of all ethnicities running around in a vaguely pre-Industrial Revolution-era Britain, everyone speaks a fairly modern dialect, there's no hint of much of the "original" legend's more out-there concepts like the Questing Beast and the Holy Grail - and that is the point. Because as much as I love the old stuff, there's nothing more to be gained by simply drawing from Boorman's Excalibur: you can't make perfection twice.
And so instead we get Guy Ritchie's King Arthur, which includes but is not limited to:
-Mordred being Arthur's uncle instead of his son, and Uther being a pretty cool guy instead of a rapist
-Giant honking magic war elephants that just crush enemies by walking through castles
-The most badass Merlin since forever who only appears for a 5 second scene
-Guinevere as an actual, capable mage instead of a queen with the power of ANIMALS
-Vortigern in an actual starring role and with a surprising amount of depth thanks to Jude Law
-Vikings
-And of course, Arthur himself, who starts off the movie raised by prostitutes, running what amounts to a protection racket that actually protects people and being charming as all hell about it (thanks to the impeccable Charlie Hunnam)
And yet, despite all these major character and setting differences, never once did I feel like I was NOT watching a King Arthur film, because unlike certain adaptations of existing stories *cough* Man Of Steel, Bleach: Can't Fear Your Own World, Iron Fist Season 1 *cough*, Legend of the Sword doesn't feel like it's telling the audience or the original creators "that stuff isn't good enough, let me show you how it SHOULD be done". Instead, it shows us how to have fun with a new telling of an old story while still respecting what came before. It's energetic, fast-paced, dynamically filmed, wonderfully acted and most importantly memorable. Very unfortunate that it didn't do well enough to kickstart a series as was hoped, but I'm more than happy with what we got.
Film More spectacle than substance, a mindless time-waster
This film is yet another King Arthur story. It's hard to complain about the legend being told again when it's one of the oldest legends in English history, having been retold for a thousand years or so.
It is a unique take on the story, though. But not exceptional.
The plot is interesting enough, but predictable.
The action is chaotic and mostly spectacle.
The worldbuilding goes waaay into the fantasy side of the legend, but is beautiful.
Is the movie good? I don't know, but it is enjoyable as a time-waster. Ultimately, you get a Guy Ritchie movie set in Camelot. The characters are great, but at the same time dumb decisions are all over the place (and not in a hilarious way like in Snatch). The victories don't feel earned. They seem to happen just because they're supposed to happen, and the only reason they didn't happen earlier seems to be to pad the running time of the film.
The action is mostly CGI, which generally isn't a problem unless it's too obvious. Which it is in this film.
The costumes are fantastic and the music is great. This is a great film for watching 5 second clips or turning into GI Fs. But I don't think it really sets itself apart from all the King Arthur stories that came before it, other than budget and CGI.
Film It Grew on Me
Guy Ritchie's take on the Arthurian Legend is one I have a strange relationship with. I've been a huge fan of the source material from a very young age, and could quote chapter and verse from retellings of Malory at one point. So when I initially read about WB's plans for a six part film series based on it, I was unbelievable hyped.
Then multiple delays happened, rumors of the troubled production started to spread, and the marketing didn't do much to quell my concerns. And when I saw the final product the first time around, I hated it, as much for the massive departures from the original story as for the incoherent editing and mediocre special effects.
But a funny thing happened. Four years after the fact, I gave the movie another look, and I... liked it? It still has some very notable problems, but it clicked with me much more. For starters, Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law are honestly great leads here, with Hunnam in particular carrying the film with great wit and charm. There's also a wonderful score by Daniel Pemberton, and loads of insane and cool fantasy elements. It's like Ritchie went full heavy metal album cover here, and it makes for good fun, despite some ropey effects.
However, Ritchie also seems to have decided to go back to his roots and make a fast talking English gangster film. These elements in themselves aren't bad, but they don't mesh particularly well with the fantasy stuff, making the movie feel like two different films jammed together. At point it jumps from a crazy Lady of the Lake scene, to Arthur and his gang of rebels trading Snatch like lines in the space of a minute.
Which leads to the biggest issue: the editing. Some of it feels like a deliberate stylistic choice, but more than few scenes feel like stuff was cut out and papered over with a montage. Seriously, there are more montages here than Rocky IV. Also, this leads to certain plot points happening entirely off camera, leaving the viewer confused. The pacing suffers from this as well, sometimes being too draggy, and other times moving too quickly.
And there are a few other things. The Mage isn't a terribly interesting character or very well acted, the introduction of the Round Table is kind of dumb, and Arthur's arc is a bit repetitive. And I'm not sure if I'll ever quite get used to Canon Foreigners like Goosefat Bill and Kung Fu George becoming Knights of the Round Table. And what is with Mordred showing up when Arthur is still a little kid, and not even resembling his character? He's just some asshole in a stupid hat.
But in spite of all that, the good now somewhat outweighs the bad for me. It's the last thing I ever would have expected to happen, but it did. As far as Ritchie's movies go, it's not quite Sherlock Holmes or Man from UNCLE, but it's far above, say, Revolver.