Bringing you honest reviews of recent releases
Charlie Hunnam – King Arthur
Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey – Mage
Jude Law – Vortigern
Djimon Hounsou – Sir Bedivere
Eric Bana – Uther Pendragon
Aidan Gillen – Sir William Wilson
Freddie Fox – Rubio
I honestly don’t know where to begin with this one. Or what I can comment on without sounding like I’m having a total bitch (which as you readers will know, is very unlike me. Emoji smirk).
By Christ, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is dull viewing. And this is literally every element; the setting and scenery, costumes, lack of dynamics.. all of it. Dull. Hunnam does make a strong character I applaud him at that. He brings a powerful, brave version of King Arthur to the screen and if anything, the actor’s ability to play an ice-cool king is admirable. But this doesn’t stop the rest of the movie being the tedious crap that it is.
The casting is almost bizarre: a group of B and C-lister males thrown together to play out the scrip they’ve been given like they’re at some actor engagement workshop. Each man seems to be on the same level performance-wise with no real talent shining through. It’s not great, and I almost wondered what the hell I’d come to watch as I sat looking up at the big screen with this inharmonious bunch of men swaggering about the medieval set as though trying to recreate Goodfellas – in a barn. If these chumps were trying to be cool.. they were scorching hot.
Ok, let’s break it down:
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a bit like your worst nightmare of a TV show hitting the cinema screen. For me it was Sunday afternoons as a child, where a painfully tedious feature would be on the television in the living room; stony-faced men with boringly monotone British accents dressed in old-fashioned costume and playing out a dreadful script. A script which seemed to go on.. and on.. and on..
It’s boring, I won’t lie. And it reflects the same distinguishing elements as those god-awful Sunday afternoon TV movies.
Casting. Not only was it a real random selection of men, there were too many of them. The actors seemed to fill the screen until bursting with many backing cast and extras getting in on the action as much as they could too. This gave the movie a busy, messy feel.
Possibly one of the most bizarre cameos I’ve ever seen, and clearly only appearing in this movie due to being pally with one of the producers. Or promising a signed football in return for having his moment on screen. His ‘starring’ moment lasts less than ten seconds and even then the camera gives him very minimal focus.
One of the characters says, “bollocks” during a certain scene. Which seemed a tad out of its time, as I doubt the word ‘bollocks’ even existed in the 5th / 6th AD centuries.
The fast motion visuals at the beginning of this movie are brilliant. Pounding music overlays slick action scenes which contribute to a good opener. I can’t fault this element at all.
The sword element is nicely touched upon, with Hunnam performing the epic moment and complemented by nice (but subtle) visuals.
Charlie Hunnam puts his all into this movie. The man makes Arthur his own with feisty attitude and some acidic language. This is probably one of the best portrayals due to his sharp, modern characteristics and younger viewers would be better suited to this version of the historic tale to learn more about it. After all, entertaining makes things easier to absorb.
How rather queer to see Hunnam and Gillen on screen together again. The two men certainly caught the British public’s attention in the late 90’s with their homosexual antics in TV series Queer as Folk. Good to see them working together again – regardless of the lack of prostate smashing.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Not worth hearing about, let alone watching. Which is a shame because the poster for the movie is quite swish and glossy, making it look like a nice slice of adventure – but the finished product turning out quite different.