I am always excited about new Guy Ritchie projects, like Spielberg's or Nolan's. He, like some other great directors, has this personality, which is bigger than movies he does. And I think, that King Arthur suffered because of that in the first place. The style, brought by Ritchie didn't help to tell the story, it was bigger than the movie, and that only created a mess, in my opinion. Maybe, the biopic didn't work for many people, but we know that Ritchie can make good movies, and tell stories. The style definitely helped him with Sherlock Holmes and The Man from U.N.C.L.E., not even speaking of his first movies, that kicked of his career. But now it is time to admit, that this time it didn't work. Usual people didn't dislike King Arthur as much as critics did. And I am not saying, that this is a bad film, it has some goodness in it, that is why it's not trash, and also a good part of the audience liked it.
Everybody has got a bad part of their careers, and I hope that for Guy Ritchie this is the lowest level possible he can fall ever. The movie itself is a story, the british legend about the legendary sword and King Arthur. And I am not sure about magic part of that story, but the fictional part of it might have been the reason why the style didn't match the tone, with which this movie could have worked. You can tell that, just looking on other the movies Guy Ritchie made, and there was no magic in them, so it was al least interesting, how it could have matched this particular story, but apparently the first time didn't pan out to be a good one.
The film starts with the betrayal of the King's brother Vortigern, played by Jude Law, who was one of the bright sides to the movie. The magical part blends very well with his character, this time the magic actually works really well to bring drama to the character and make him complete. The kingdom as it was, fell, and the only person who survived the purge was the King's son. The narrative was so rapid at first, that in 20 minutes the story was already focused on an adult version of Arthur, played by Charlie Hunnam. And he did a good job playing this character. I thought he was the second good thing about this movie. Arthur had character development, but the way the he was written, made him dull at times. And I think Hunnam did the best version possible of King Arthur, mostly ignoring the flaws of the narrative in this movie. That is one of the biggest issues of mine with this movie - it has a floppy narrative. I couldn't understand anything, what was going on, it was paced so abruptly. Ritchie's quick cuts made this movie a big disappointment. Not that it is a bad movie overall, but this style and tone the director goes for all the time in his movies, just didn't work for this story. It was a good idea, but the execution wasn't great.
And then the whole movie is focused on adult Arthur, who was raised by the lower classes. He have become a commoner on the streets. While the sword reveled itself, the movie already becomes some sort of a huge "exiled-and-returned" cliche. Vortigern of cause wants to kill Arthur to gain the power of a true ruler and the Excalibur's might. But the "true ruler' can't even use the sword, he is resisting the sword. So, that Arthur with his forgettable friends, finds himself for the whole movie, trying to maintain the power oh the sword. I found this journey incredibly boring, and even worse, when the movie ended the way, I knew it would end. A mix of magic, legends and terrible demons have not worked for this movie, it is unwatchable and sometimes unpleasant.
But Ritchie, turning Arthur in a street lad, has created so much oddities filled with the image of a new take on the legend of King Arthur, that I think the audience was not ready to see such an excessive departure from the traditional vision of cinematography.
And then the whole movie is focused on adult Arthur, who was raised by the lower classes. He have become a commoner on the streets. While the sword reveled itself, the movie already becomes some sort of a huge "exiled-and-returned" cliche. Vortigern of cause wants to kill Arthur to gain the power of a true ruler and the Excalibur's might. But the "true ruler' can't even use the sword, he is resisting the sword. So, that Arthur with his forgettable friends, finds himself for the whole movie, trying to maintain the power oh the sword. I found this journey incredibly boring, and even worse, when the movie ended the way, I knew it would end. A mix of magic, legends and terrible demons have not worked for this movie, it is unwatchable and sometimes unpleasant.
But Ritchie, turning Arthur in a street lad, has created so much oddities filled with the image of a new take on the legend of King Arthur, that I think the audience was not ready to see such an excessive departure from the traditional vision of cinematography.
