I've got a 14 day free trial of NowTV Cinema Pass so my daughter and I decided to check King Arthur - Legend of the Sword
It was billed as being a blockbuster movie, but with a lead who doesn't yet command the draw, a cast of unknowns, only Jude Law to carry the big-name, and with what the critics called 'blokes and banter' style, it flopped to the tune of $150 million.
Right off the bat, I'm going to say it - if you haven't read my bio (why haven't you read my bio), I'm a huge fan of the legend of King Arthur, have been since I was a kid. So, to be honest, I have mixed feelings on films about King Arthur, my only exception being the wonderfully over-the-top Excalibur (come on, who hasn't gone along with "Uther!" "Merlin." "Uther!" "Merlin."?).
I think I just harbour my own prejudices against the adaptations because, for me Arthur, if he existed, existed in a world of decay and ruin, in that twilight era of sub-Roman Britain, where the old Empire was still visible amongst the tumbled down remains and the country was in turmoil. As far as I can see, no one has ever captured that, for me.
Excalibur didn't hide its roots - firmly placed within the world created by Sir Thomas Malory and featuring knights in very shining armour. It was exactly what it was supposed to be - sword and sorcery.
King Arthur starring Clive Owen and the usually reliable Stephen Dillane, on the other hand, took itself way too seriously. Billed as 'demystify the legend' and claiming to have its roots in genuine archaeology, it was a mess. If you want to read a great review on why here it is.
So, another film based on King Arthur and purporting to take the story back to the roots didn't really pique my interest so why now? Well, mostly because I had that free 14 day trial with NowTV, and it was a lazy Saturday afternoon, and there was nothing on telly (no change there). Also, it was directed by Guy Ritche
The thing about Guy Ritchie - you get exactly what you expect. Hands up, I love his take on Sherlock Holmes, I love the aesthetics of Victorian London, I love that Robert Downey Jr plays the titular character as a petulant child with a brilliant mind. I love the script, so much so, that I downloaded it to see how it was engineered.
Ritchie ditches conventional linear for expositional flashbacks that follow through (see the fight scene where Holmes plots out his moves in the bare-knuckle fight) in super-slow-motion. It's a fun film and it doesn't take itself too seriously. RDJ and Jude Law play off each other in that 'blokes and banter' and it's good!
So, on to King Arthur - Legend of the Sword. Best to not go in with any expectation because there is nothing, apart from the pulling of the sword from the stone, that resembles anything of the legend.
Briefly, it tells the story of Uther (Eric Bana) who is waging a war with The Mage and is betrayed by his brother Vortigern (Law) who lusts for the throne. The opening scenes are just bizarre with giant elephants who are possessed and controlled by the King of the Mage. Seriously, didn't anyone watch Lord of the Rings - you just can't go around using elephants or oliphants in battle - they get too over-excited. Anyway, moving on, Uther tries to get his young son, Arthur and his wife out of Camelot during a coup but gets caught by his tricky brother. Arthur is sent down the river and washes up on the shores of Londinium where is he rescued by some prostitutes and grows up in a brothel.
And this, dear reader, is where I fell in love with this film. Londinium is awesome! I mean, really, really awesome. Someone actually had the nous to think 'what would sub-Roman Britain look like?'
From the tumbled down ruins of the amphitheatre, to the reappropriated as a training ground for fighters forum, the people of Londinium are doing what the people of Londinium did for the decades and centuries after the Romans left, living amongst the ruins of the former great city. In amongst all of this, we get a 'fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants' montage of Arthur growing up, getting street-wise, being savvy and having a pretty good time of it (when he's not having his head dunked by the local bullies).
With his besties Wet Stick and Back Lack, our would-be king roams the back-alleys making his money where he can which he secrets away in a chest hidden in the wall of his bedroom, back at the brothel.
It all goes awry when the brothel is caught harbouring a rebel and the Black Legs (as Vortigern's henchmen are known) come to take the young Art away.
Our hero finds himself at Camelot, where all young men of a similar age from across the land, are taken to pull the sword from the stone. Each try, each fails and are branded to show that they are not the lost king. Of course, Art, not realising his true heritage pulls the sword and thus starts the main story. The sword possesses Arthur with supernatural powers but he has to learn how to control it. He also has to accept his fate.
Rescued by the rebels, with the help of a female Mage, from the clutches of Vortigern, who is about to execute him, Arthur eschews the usual protocol for his street-smarts in luring Vortigern to Londinium where his fame has spread and the populace is rioting.
King Arthur - Legend of the Sword is not high art, it's not great cinema either but it is FUN and it doesn't take itself too seriously. You want a great romp, with a hero who does things for the shits and giggles, you got it. Don't expect to be anyway enlightened to the legend and you wont' be disappointed.
As for me, I just want a time machine so I can go back to sub-Roman Londinium and view its ruins, and maybe find a king lurking in the back alleys