King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has the worst opening credits text formatting I've ever seen in my life. 

This is probably the pettiest criticism I've ever started a review with, but I think there's a common theme that emerges from it. 

Seriously, it looks like a 3rd grader designed some format of incredibly skinny text in paint with Wordart, and that was what the producers went with to introduce their movie title, stars, crew, and director. I just couldn't get past it. 

The theme I want to bring up here is a lack of someone in the group speaking up. Guy Ritchie is a director who very much has his own style. It's often a great style with neat visuals, crisp dialogue, and witty characters. None of that is missing from King Arthur.

It's the filler things in between those that are the film's biggest problems and there are some creative decisions here that I feel like someone should have raised their hand to say: why is that character doing that? What is that in there for? Wait what?

By the end of it all, I felt the same way about King Arthur as I did about Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films. They're a fun twist on a classic tale and character, but I wouldn't need to see it again. There's not enough there to lure me back. That's quite a bit different from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. which is something I'd definitely check out again and it is a small tragedy because I love this cast of characters and the thought behind this Arthur film and I feel like it got really close to being something special.

Most awkward waver ever ^^

Arthur has moments of very high peaks and decently low valleys in nearly every regard. The plot in particular is simple, but so much of it is navigated so swiftly that you're left with questions about who, what, where, and why. It's not confusing, it just feels like several things are lacking explanation and not fleshed out as much as they should be. The main culprit of this issue is the film's choice to go into the supernatural pretty heavily. I think it could have comfortably resided in a film where mages exist and there is some form of magic, but almost every time a mythical creature was presented or just a really big version of an animal I thought it was, to put it bluntly, stupid. They often had some of the worst special effects and it just feels hokey next to a film that had the potential to be a badass swords n' arrows adventure. 

Hey aren't you guys supposed
to be in Lord of the Rings?!

Same story happens with the action. There's quite a bit of generic action throughout which is surprising for Ritchie. But then certain scenes have his "flair" and they're all the better for it. Absolutely less realistic, but in a very cool way -- similar to the way that Sherlock Holmes would have his "calculated battle" segments. Given the insane amount of release date pushes with this one (it was supposed to come out early last year I believe), part of me wonders if they hesitated to reshoot some parts or if they were just really struggling that much to find an open weekend. 

Luckily, the cast and general proceedings are largely enjoyable. I still like Hunnam quite a bit, though not as much as his previous outing, and I do think he can be a good leading man. Jude Law has fun as the villain too and a supporting cast of characters, a few of which are from Game of Thrones, lend their talents and fit right in. The movie sings when it feels like a Guy Ritchie movie, particularly in a couple scenes that feel like a heist job or something of the sort. There's some awesome dialogue here, and then there's also the generic nonsense that gets coupled with a lot of the supernatural aspects. 

Where King Arthur absolutely shines though is the music choice and creation. Very rarely is the original score something I'd say is "generic" and more often than not its the music that is breathing an incredible amount of life into the film. Song choices are few but fit perfectly and the original score has such a breathless pace to it that I dare say it "saves" the film.

"I just wanted to be in Pacific Rim 2!! Arghhh!"

Again I come back to that initial intro credits text that is just so God-awful but paints a larger picture for what happens in the film. Guy Ritchie had/has a premise here. It could have been a very good one. The film ends up being what feels like a collection of good ideas, cool scenes, and a fun vibe, filled in with other "stuff" just because they didn't know how to bridge the rest of the gaps.

"Oh we need intro credits! What text should we use for that?"
"Who gives a s**t, Dave! Just pick one!"

And that's how you get a poor end result.

CONS

• Feels like a missed opportunity because there's so much great stuff here, it's just the obvious other scenes/decisions that were done so carelessly
• The supernatural aspect outside of mage's magic was dumb and didn't seem to fit with the film once
• Many story elements feel unexplored or just being there for the sake of the legend
• Handful of generic action scenes where dudes are just hacking and slashing at one another
• Pockets of odd decision making

PROS

• Jude Law was a good, menacing villain and Charlie Hunnam was a stoic "outlaw" turned hero-king
• Whenever the film "feels" like a Guy Ritchie film, it's at its best. That can include stylish action, witty dialogue, and uniquely edited scenes with intriguing imagery
• Has a lot of potential if they decide to move forward with it as a series. They just need to be more thoughtful about the film outside of the key ideas and cool parts
• Probably some of the best-paired and utilized music for both a soundtrack and original score that we've seen this year. Truly breathes life into the film and saves it considerably

Rath's Review Score | 6.5/10