King Arthur: Legend of
the Sword is a film by Guy Ritchie. It is rated PG-13 for sequences of
violence and action, some suggestive content and brief strong language. Admittedly,
I had only seen one Guy Ritchie film to date, and that was Swept Away starring his then wife Madonna. I actually quite liked
it, possibly one of a very few people who got what they were trying to say in
the film.
I learned of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table
when I was a kid or teenager. I can only imagine the attention the legend
commands in its native England. From watching the trailer, I knew this film would
have monsters in it and would be more supernatural than the tale I had first heard.
As for King Arthur, aside from the monsters, which I really
don’t care for, I soon became entranced by the way Ritchie tells a tale. It is
established early on that Arthur narrowly escapes with his life as just a toddler,
and ends up in the city where good-hearted women who work in the brothels take
him in.
I really enjoyed the way we see Arthur grow up, in little
segments showing how he gets his street smarts and fighting skills as he
matures. This wasn’t the only time the director used this technique and it
worked to full advantage.
Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) is soon an adult, is captured and
transported to the kingdom where his uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) lives and
rules. The famous sword, Excalibur, waits in the stone for the heir to the throne
to arrive and pull it out. Men are traipsed through there and of course, no one
is able to lift it free, until Arthur comes on the scene.
The magic begins, but not without Arthur denying who he
really is. His search for himself and his lineage progresses with the help of
The Mage (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), a fearsome woman who is ruthless in her tutelage
of Arthur.
Basically, I liked the film, although tiring of the fighting
sequences as it progressed. This is allegedly the first installment of a six
film series. I would like to see the round table and the knights again, not so
much the monsters and the fighting. Surely they must have just talked once in
awhile. And then there’s the love interest with Guinevere.
King Arthur was said to live in the late 5th,
early 6th century and led the defense of Britain against Saxon
invaders. Scholars debate his historical existence, but it makes for a good
story. He is said to have established an empire over Britain, Ireland, Iceland,
Norway and Gaul (a region of Western Europe).
The legend lives on and has been rewritten many times over
the centuries, storytellers taking great license in the retelling of the
gallant tales. This version, King Arthur:
The Legend of the Sword, is no exception. I saw it in the dollar theater, and
that’s where it’s probably best seen.
Hi Sue - the legend sure lives on ... we have lots of tales here - also numerous films and tv programmes ... I see it's an epic fantasy film made recently ... I'm glad you enjoyed it ... cheers Hilary
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and commenting! I suspected there would be many tales coming out of Great Britain about the famous King Arthur. Good to hear from you.
Delete