KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD REVIEWED
“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is intended to be the first film in a six part series. Let that one sink in after you slink into a theater that is sans Yondu or Amy Schumer. While many people have covered it before I have, this will probably be the only derided movie in May that I embrace the general flow. “King Arthur” is bad, but so have been the last few iterations. The only thing I remember from Disney’s stab at the Legend was marketing guys digitally augment Keira Knightley’s rack on posters. Merlin’s magic doesn’t apply such feats here.
The film is Guy Ritchie struggling to decide what to make. So, when all options are open to you…fall back on what works. That’s how Guy Ritchie turned King Arthur into a fantasy take on Snatch. Well, that would be if Arthurian England had superheroes. I’ve been calling Jude Law the Caucasian answer to The Rock’s cinematic viagra for awhile. What he does here is somewhere on par with Max von Sydow embracing Ming the Merciless. Jude Law plays his villain like Shao Khan via David Niven.
But, Arthur’s guys are all fun and know cool junk. The Chinese traveler can teach Arthur how to perform Kung-Fu. Plus, the other rogues show him how to stay in contact with his roots while being King. Battles are had, people are elected by stoned swords and there’s slow-motion. Jude Law still gets to act crazy as Hell, because stealing focus is cool in a shaky WB movie. That’s why he gets to talk to a Sea Witch.
Other hi-jinks happen, as CIA guy and the weirdest Ritchie cast work their asses off to make this work. It does work. It’s just that it works as a campy movie. This film will find a second life on home video. Maybe that’s the WB plan for films that have had hiccups? String along theatrical and collect the cash at home.
- 2 hrs and 6 mins
- Warner Brothers