King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - A Blockbuster Reimagining
A familiar tale, but delivered with intensity, drama, and a touch of humor, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword offers a blockbuster-style take on the Arthurian legends.
Prince Vortigern (Jude Law), fueled by dark magic, seizes power in medieval Londinium, the heart of England. He murders his brother, King Uther, and attempts to eliminate the queen, but the royal couple manages to save their infant heir, Arthur. Raised in the city’s underbelly, Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) grows into a charismatic and resourceful, yet honorable, rogue who runs protection rackets for merchants and brothels. Years pass, and a stone emerges from the depths, bearing Excalibur – Uther’s sword, granting its wielder immense power. Only the true heir can draw the sword, and Vortigern sees this as an opportunity to find and eliminate his nephew. All men of suitable age are brought before the stone, and Arthur, long oblivious to his lineage, finds himself among them.
Fun Fact: Forty copies of Excalibur were created for the film – ten steel and thirty plastic and rubber versions.
A Familiar Story with a Guy Ritchie Twist
The story of King Arthur’s rise to the throne is a beloved British legend, retold countless times in film and television. Guy Ritchie’s new blockbuster doesn’t drastically alter the core narrative. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a classic tale of a streetwise kid who discovers his royal heritage and, with the help of old friends and new allies (Uther’s loyalists), teaches his “dear uncle” a lesson.
.jpg “A scene from King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”)
When Guy Ritchie doubted Charlie Hunnam’s suitability for the role of Arthur, the actor declared he was ready to fight the other two contenders to prove his strength and determination. This convinced the director.
Aside from a few politically correct casting choices (apparently, medieval England was more diverse than history suggests), the most significant departure from tradition is the absence of a romantic subplot.
No Romance, Just Action
A knightly tale without romance might seem like a gamble, but Arthur isn’t a knight; he’s a good-hearted gangster who doesn’t need to spout love poetry. Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, playing Merlin’s nameless envoy, focuses on her mission rather than romantic entanglements. She guides Arthur in magic, assists him in battle, and that’s it. No longing glances or hesitant confessions. Besides, the sorceress looks like a strung-out addict, making her a more suitable match for characters from Trainspotting than a future English king.
Redeeming Qualities
The fundamental predictability of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is initially disappointing, but that feeling fades as you realize Ritchie has breathed life into the formula, making it compelling. We don’t just see a young man conquering the throne; the film clearly demonstrates why Arthur, with his genuine concern for the people, would be a better ruler than the power-hungry Vortigern. The film also portrays the prince as a natural leader, not a puppet manipulated by a foreign sorceress and Uther’s advisors. Once Arthur understands the situation, he takes control and starts devising “clever plans,” as befits someone destined for the throne. His companions can only marvel at Arthur’s agility and contribute to his schemes.
.jpg “A scene from King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”)
Vortigern also displays leadership qualities, and Jude Law’s imposing presence makes the usurper a worthy adversary for the claimant to the throne. Vortigern proves to be a formidable “final boss,” capable of fighting Arthur on equal terms even after the prince wields Excalibur, allowing him to fight in the style of Russian epic heroes: “One swing of the sword – a street falls, another swing – an alleyway.” While the final battle could have been longer and more spectacular, it’s a genuine and dramatic fight, not a demonstration of predetermined superiority.
Missed Opportunities
Speaking of “longer and more spectacular,” King Arthur falls short of its potential in more than just the climax. Why introduce a kung fu master if no one, including the “shifu,” demonstrates real Chinese martial arts? Why spend time highlighting one character’s incredible marksmanship if he doesn’t get a chance to make a decisive shot? Sniping a few soldiers isn’t enough to justify bringing a Robin Hood clone into the picture! Why are the most impressive displays of combat magic in the prologue, not the climax? Why are seemingly important scenes where Arthur enters a “parallel” magical world and undergoes trials presented in a montage, rather than with depth and emotion? And it’s a shame that Arthur’s companions, who heroically die for the cause, are remembered only for their deaths, not for how they fought in life. They should have been more colorful characters and warriors, so their deaths would affect the audience as much as they affect Arthur.
Final Verdict
However, it’s not all bad. While King Arthur would have benefited from a longer and more elaborate narrative, its current form is a fast-paced film that rarely loses the viewer’s attention. A catchy soundtrack and a cohesive vision of a dark but not depressing medieval England create a rich atmosphere of high-budget adventure, and Charlie Hunnam is a much better prince-gangster than he was a giant robot pilot in Pacific Rim. It’s clear that the Brit didn’t spend seven seasons in the crime drama Sons of Anarchy, where he played the leader of a biker gang, for nothing. Finally, the film has just the right amount of humor for a blockbuster that doesn’t aim to be a comedy but doesn’t want to be overly serious. Heroes like Arthur always benefit from the ability to crack a joke at the right moment.