Film Review: King Arthur : Legend of the sword
Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama
Cert: 12a
Cert: 12a
Director: Guy Ritchie
Screenwriter: (screenplay) Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie & Lionel Wigram (story by) David Dobkin and Joby Harold
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Jude Law, Djimon Hounsou, Eric Bana, Aidan Gillen, Freddie Fox, Craig McGinlay, Tom Wu, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Neil Maskell, Annabelle Wallis, Zac Barker, Oliver Zac Barker, Geoff Bell
Running time: 2h 6min
Parents advised reading before viewing a film as some scene may contain scenes unsuitable for younger viewers.
Sex & Nudity: One of the main themes revolves around one young character being brought up in a brothel:
-Some female characters wear clothes that reveal some cleavage
-No sexual acts are shown, but several scenes involve men with the prostitutes (flirting, etc.)
-A man stops another man from beating a prostitute in her bed.
-One conversation involves a man telling his boss that another man touched him (he was being roughed up). The boss quips that "usually people have to pay for that".
-The young man believes he is the ba***rd son of one of the woman, he states it at one point.
One creature is a multi-tentacled beast with several upper naked female bodies as heads. Critical areas are covered by hair, strategically place tentacles and a darkly lit scene.
Other tree creatures are made partly of upper naked female bodies that are covered with bark.
A male character flirts with a female mage and asks if she is falling for him like he is falling for her. She uses her magic to cause the horse he is riding to buck him off. Played for laughs.
There is a close up of some tapestry and part of one of the images appears to be a female breast.
Violence & Gore: People are wounded or killed with swords, knives and arrows
Profanity: One use of "f---ing" (non-sexual), and light use of milder curse words.
Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking: A discussion about delivering brandy
Frightening/Intense Scenes: Some scenes have magical snakes.
Story: Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not.
Likes : "A legend", "a birthright", "a sworn just king of his time", gave the words and code to live by to his knights of the round table: A knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defend helplessly, his might uphold the weak, his words speak only the truth, his wrath undoes the wicked. That was the legend that is King Arthur.
There have been so many films regarding this legend over the years from the early 1953 "knights of the round table", to 1963's Disney adapted animation film "The Sword in the Stone", to "Camelot", in 1967 with a few other films. Where most have been a historical version of the fabled history with the odd few fantasy style mythology of the story, King Arthur story is no stranger to being told on a fantasy style involving magic and demons which is the mythology of this legend.
Which is actually what Guy Ritchie has done with this version as he is portraying by taking most part of history and putting it into a mythology lord of the ring's style of the legend, with dark magic from Mordred (Rob Knighton ) to Arthur's traitorous uncle Vortigern ( Jude law).
I can see why this film had flop which I will explain in the dislikes and most of the review toward this film is pretty bad, but it wasn't as bad as some people are making out to be. It's got it's a unique twist in giving the audience an entertaining movie, there is no doubt about that here but very clearly something doesn't work in this film.
I mean the acting from Jude law playing the evil Vortigern was brilliantly done, special in giving us a performance of a mage craving power but not only that using fear to control as well just gave his performance that edge, just enough for you to want to hate his character as well which was great for the film to have a villain to hate.
Charlie Hunnam Playing the Legend that is King Arthur was the best choice in casting, special giving a background story from a young age, growing up to the adult learns of his past Charlie played this amazingly on screen. Special showing the character's hatred for Vortigern which lead to a final confrontation with the dark demon.
The special effect in this film showing the demon and the swords true power toward its wielder in a fantasy style slow-motion effects are amazing on screen with certain action scenes, the music is fitting for the medieval theme of the film with a slightly modern edge to it.
David Beckham's easily spotted cameo although a bit of an odd cameo to play, but did a great job with it, all in the all the film as a whole was good but I feel could've been done better in places. I do feel the film should have been more focus on the history side than fantasy but still, the mythological side was a great change.
At the very least, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" does have a clear story, so this is not as messy or as incoherent as most film can be and if you're a die hard fan of Guy Ritchie film, this carries his usual brute montage banter style that often explains a subplot in a very quick, very humorous manner, so in that sense, it's more of a dynamic style film than any of the other versions of King Arthur you've seen on Iver on the big screen. or small screen.
Question to those that have seen this film what did you think of the film style? do you think the film should have been done in a more historical manner or do you think the Typical guy Ritchie gangster banter style didn't work for the film?
Dislikes: Here's why I think the film kind of lets itself down why it flopped is the typical Guy Ritchie style film using the "long stock London gangster style banter", in the film, this I did feel was out of place for the time period they were portraying. Not that some moments weren't funny me personally I think was a mistake to put in this type of film, special with the way the direction of it was going.
The end confrontation I didn't have a problem with it personally, I think the fight was good pure good vs evil fight but to certain audiences this might of feeling like something out of a video game, it just had that vibe I was wondering if this could've been done a little better.
Overall: Great story, brilliant acting performances, just slightly underwritten characters and certain things didn't fit but Worth watching, not as bad as it made out to be.
Rating: 5 out of 5 for Entertainment / 8.3 out of 10 for style version of a legend.
Screenwriter: (screenplay) Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie & Lionel Wigram (story by) David Dobkin and Joby Harold
Running time: 2h 6min
Parents advised reading before viewing a film as some scene may contain scenes unsuitable for younger viewers.
Sex & Nudity: One of the main themes revolves around one young character being brought up in a brothel:
-Some female characters wear clothes that reveal some cleavage
-No sexual acts are shown, but several scenes involve men with the prostitutes (flirting, etc.)
-A man stops another man from beating a prostitute in her bed.
-One conversation involves a man telling his boss that another man touched him (he was being roughed up). The boss quips that "usually people have to pay for that".
-The young man believes he is the ba***rd son of one of the woman, he states it at one point.
One creature is a multi-tentacled beast with several upper naked female bodies as heads. Critical areas are covered by hair, strategically place tentacles and a darkly lit scene.
Other tree creatures are made partly of upper naked female bodies that are covered with bark.
A male character flirts with a female mage and asks if she is falling for him like he is falling for her. She uses her magic to cause the horse he is riding to buck him off. Played for laughs.
There is a close up of some tapestry and part of one of the images appears to be a female breast.
Violence & Gore: People are wounded or killed with swords, knives and arrows
Profanity: One use of "f---ing" (non-sexual), and light use of milder curse words.
Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking: A discussion about delivering brandy
Frightening/Intense Scenes: Some scenes have magical snakes.
Story: Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not.
Likes : "A legend", "a birthright", "a sworn just king of his time", gave the words and code to live by to his knights of the round table: A knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defend helplessly, his might uphold the weak, his words speak only the truth, his wrath undoes the wicked. That was the legend that is King Arthur.
There have been so many films regarding this legend over the years from the early 1953 "knights of the round table", to 1963's Disney adapted animation film "The Sword in the Stone", to "Camelot", in 1967 with a few other films. Where most have been a historical version of the fabled history with the odd few fantasy style mythology of the story, King Arthur story is no stranger to being told on a fantasy style involving magic and demons which is the mythology of this legend.
Which is actually what Guy Ritchie has done with this version as he is portraying by taking most part of history and putting it into a mythology lord of the ring's style of the legend, with dark magic from Mordred (Rob Knighton ) to Arthur's traitorous uncle Vortigern ( Jude law).
I can see why this film had flop which I will explain in the dislikes and most of the review toward this film is pretty bad, but it wasn't as bad as some people are making out to be. It's got it's a unique twist in giving the audience an entertaining movie, there is no doubt about that here but very clearly something doesn't work in this film.
I mean the acting from Jude law playing the evil Vortigern was brilliantly done, special in giving us a performance of a mage craving power but not only that using fear to control as well just gave his performance that edge, just enough for you to want to hate his character as well which was great for the film to have a villain to hate.
Charlie Hunnam Playing the Legend that is King Arthur was the best choice in casting, special giving a background story from a young age, growing up to the adult learns of his past Charlie played this amazingly on screen. Special showing the character's hatred for Vortigern which lead to a final confrontation with the dark demon.
The special effect in this film showing the demon and the swords true power toward its wielder in a fantasy style slow-motion effects are amazing on screen with certain action scenes, the music is fitting for the medieval theme of the film with a slightly modern edge to it.
David Beckham's easily spotted cameo although a bit of an odd cameo to play, but did a great job with it, all in the all the film as a whole was good but I feel could've been done better in places. I do feel the film should have been more focus on the history side than fantasy but still, the mythological side was a great change.
At the very least, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" does have a clear story, so this is not as messy or as incoherent as most film can be and if you're a die hard fan of Guy Ritchie film, this carries his usual brute montage banter style that often explains a subplot in a very quick, very humorous manner, so in that sense, it's more of a dynamic style film than any of the other versions of King Arthur you've seen on Iver on the big screen. or small screen.
Question to those that have seen this film what did you think of the film style? do you think the film should have been done in a more historical manner or do you think the Typical guy Ritchie gangster banter style didn't work for the film?
Dislikes: Here's why I think the film kind of lets itself down why it flopped is the typical Guy Ritchie style film using the "long stock London gangster style banter", in the film, this I did feel was out of place for the time period they were portraying. Not that some moments weren't funny me personally I think was a mistake to put in this type of film, special with the way the direction of it was going.
The end confrontation I didn't have a problem with it personally, I think the fight was good pure good vs evil fight but to certain audiences this might of feeling like something out of a video game, it just had that vibe I was wondering if this could've been done a little better.
Overall: Great story, brilliant acting performances, just slightly underwritten characters and certain things didn't fit but Worth watching, not as bad as it made out to be.
Rating: 5 out of 5 for Entertainment / 8.3 out of 10 for style version of a legend.
Comments
Post a Comment