top of page

Directed By: Guy Ritchie

Released By: Warner Bros  

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Eric Bana and more.


Review By: Fridae Mattas

Friday, May 12th 2017 12:32AM





 Promised not to make this review a mini-series even though there is a lot to say! Managed to edit this down from 1500 words to 792ish. Was lucky enough to catch the Toronto Premier of Guy Ritchie’s take on, King Arthur, May 2nd 2017. The month has flown by, thought there would be more time but two weeks is over and here is release day! King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the tale of a man who was robbed of the throne and won it back using a sword he pulled from a stone in an epic battle. Everyone should be familiar with the story, Disney even had their animated adaptation "The Sword In The Stone". Did not think I would make it for the start of the film, was running late from another event and completely missed the red carpet but made it to catch the opening scene.

The film started with an action-packed battle, filled with incredible graphics grabbing your attention immediately. From what my brain collected was the battle was being fought by Arthurs' Father, Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) and his army to protect his Kingdom from his brother Vortigern. Normally, you think horses in the middle ages, right? Nope, there were these ginormous Elephant looking things fighting with them in the opening scene. At first I thought they were enormous dragons. From a creative perspective, it was obvious Ritchie drew inspiration from the fantasy aspects of the many different versions of Arthurian tales

 You will see a number of familiar faces up on that big screen like; Jude Law who plays the perfect, likable, villain as King Vortigern. Another recognizable face in the film is: Charlie Hunnam who plays King Arthur. Both did a fantastic job! Law could make you actually like him, even though sometimes you wanted to punch him in the face...That's acting, fully becoming the character, connecting with the character’s emotion and relaying that to the camera for the audiences. Hunnam is a great actor, still needs some refining, but we all still need to keep learning and honing our crafts. Charlie's accent is fine, I know a lot of the British and a few other critics don't approve of Hunnams’ muddled English accent. For someone who has played predominantly American characters for the majority of his career, his accent is still English enough, actually much more genuine because that is uniquely him. 

There is a cameo in this film that has caused quite a panty twist amongst many critics. Most of his screen time is the scene where Arthur, discovers his lineage by eventually getting his hands on that magical, powerful sword know as Excalibur. Don't know what the big deal is? It was just a few humorous lines written as per the tone of the film and it fit the scene without throwing off the balance of the story. It was slightly off in the cohesion of the story, what should have been said was not, due to a very reworked script with many missing pieces. A few questions linger, especially after the kingdom overthrow and river sending of baby Arthur. How did this random martial arts training camp, in the ghetto of medieval Britain come about? I don't ever mind seeing Hunnam topless and fighting in films, but that idea was executed poorly. There was no dialogue introduction to the scene, only visuals. This solidified my theory of Ritchie following the show me, don’t tell me method. There were moments in the scene that reminded me a lot of Charlie's training scene in Pacific Rim. Again, I remind you that, we ladies do not mind seeing Charlie fight topless in every film. 

 Trying not to spoil any of the movie before everyone gets to see it, hopefully I have done a good enough job. Many reviews are going on about how bad and historically inaccurate this film is because there is no "Merlin" or "Guinevere" but there is the mysterious "Mage", (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey). Bergès role change was a pretty good idea, she performed well and was very into her character. Who knows, maybe there will be a flick just about “The Mage”, maybe then we will get more of her back story. But, as mentioned above this film was from the start, a show more, talk less redesign. I did not see any credits that stated it was based on a true story, thus for historical accuracy is not what this film is about. This is art, Guy Ritchie’s brain concocted an action packed telling of folklore based tales of King Arthur. Some say there is no evidence there was an actual King Arthur in real life, so who is to judge how this adaptation is told. I enjoyed Ritchies alternative aspect, there is something for everyone eye candies for the ladies and plenty of action for the men. Go see it, you be the judge! Opens today in North America. Buy Tickets

bottom of page