Yes, I forgot this existed. Yes, I am sure many of you also forgot about it. It certainly hasn’t endured in the way some other cinematic depictions of the King Arthur tale have endured. That’s probably down to it being quite a bad film.
Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur. He isn’t a king, unaware of his destiny, but he is the kind of determined rogue who can lead a group of men in a campaign against the tyranny of the current ruler of the land (played by Jude Law). Hunnam has the loyalty of a group that includes Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Neil Maskell, and a few others.
Written by Joby Harold, Lionel Wigram, and director Guy Ritchie, this is a film that could just as easily have been called Geezers Of The Round Table, and your enjoyment of it will depend completely on what you think of that phrase. I rolled my eyes as soon as I realised what I had let myself in for, and the film generally lived up to my painful expectations.
I wouldn’t say that this is a film everyone should avoid. The special effects are pretty good throughout, although there’s a tiresome overuse of CGI throughout, and Ritchie makes some stylistic choices during the action sequences that Zack Snyder would be envious of. He has a vision, whether you like it or not, and he sticks to that vision from start to finish. While that juxtaposition of style and content didn’t work for me at all, others may enjoy what is sold as a fresh take on a classic tale.
I cannot really complain about Hunnam in the lead role, he definitely has a certain charisma that helps to make up for weaknesses elsewhere, but the real fun comes from the supporting cast. Hounsou is great, Gillen and Maskell are fun, and Law makes for a hugely entertaining and irredeemable villain. There are also enjoyable turns from Eric Bana, Geoff Bell, Peter Ferdinando, and a few other familiar faces (including David Beckham in a cameo that he does okay with). The women don’t fare as well, sadly, but that at least allows them to forget this is even on those C.V.
Maybe I would enjoy this more if in a better mood, but I certainly went into it with my usual readiness to be entertained or impressed. This did neither, and I could feel Ritchie and the cast all working harder to ensure that this felt more like a romp than the retelling of Arthurian legend. Unfortunately, feeling that energy so misdirected just made me like it even less. Technically fine, and the cast could have done even better with a script that worked, but this turned out to be a knight I would rather forget.
4/10
If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do
consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A
subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share
I hated that movie so much. I gave it a 1/5 which I guess would translate to 2/10. My favorite King Arthur movie is still Excalibur, but also I liked the first season of "The Winter King" on MGM+. That's a different take on the Arthurian legend without being wildly different and stupid; I hope it gets more seasons to adapt all 3 books.
ReplyDeleteI really like Excalibur, and also really like The Green Knight. Never saw/heard of The Winter King.
DeleteThe Winter King and its sequels Enemy of God and Excalibur were written by Bernard Cornwell in the 90s and I think a lot of it takes place in Wales in the 5th Century. It's more historical fiction than fantasy, so no dragons or zombies or things like that. Cornwell also wrote the "Last Kingdom" that was on Netflix for a few seasons.
DeleteI liked but didn't love the first season of The Winter King but I recall the book was a bit slow too as a lot of it is setting the table for bigger things.