Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not.
A dark force threatens Alpha, a vast metropolis and home to species from a thousand planets. Special operatives Valerian and Laureline must race to identify the marauding menace and safeguard not just Alpha, but the future of the universe.
The last Gunslinger: Roland Deschain, has been locked in an eternal battle with Walter O'Dim, also known as the Man in Black, and determined to prevent him from toppling the Dark Tower that holds the universe together. With the fate of the world at stake, good and evil will collide in the ultimate battle, as only Roland can defend the Tower from the Man in Black.
An alternative version of the King Arthur legend. As a boy, Arthur is left orphaned after his father, King Uther Pendragon, and mother are killed in a war waged against them by Vortigern, who then assumes the throne. Arthur flees and is raised in a brothel, knowing very little of his birthright. Vortigern wants Arthur dead, to ensure there is no claimant to the throne. The legends foretell that only the next king will be able to draw Excalibur, Uther's sword, from the rock where it is lodged. So, in an effort to identify Arthur, Vortigern forces all the young men of Arthur's age to attempt to draw out the sword. Now it is Arthur's turn.Written by
In the beginning of the film, young Arthur and Catia (the daughter of Vortigern) are relatively the same age (both appear as young children in the beginning of the film - aged 2). After the characters "age" that there is a rather large age gap in age, while Catia only appears to have aged ten/fifteen years, Arthur appears to have aged twenty or more years in the same amount of time. But he has had a rough, hard scrabble life which can be said to have aged him prematurely. See more »
Leave him with me, boss.
Put your ring back on honey-tits, you haven't had enough porridge this morning to talk like that. And if you want that sword so much, your lordship, you can keep it... to peel your grapes.
Now, that would have hurt a lot more if I'd left the ring on.
See more »
The Warner Bros, Village Roadshow, Ratpac Entertainment and Weed Road Pictures logos are made of newly-forged metal and appear in reverse. See more »
The elephant in the room is... well, there are lots of elephants in the room; let's be honest.
Before I expound further, let me say this: if you like the movie's trailers, like a fair bit of action but don't particularly care about how every bit of it fits into a story, don't particularly care about the traditional legend(s) of King Arthur, like a bunch of fantasy mixed in, and plenty of (now run-of-the-mill) CGI, you might like this movie. Reading further may unnecessarily dissuade you from watching it.
Of course, if you've seen the trailers, you know that there really are (ridiculously large, CGI) elephants in the film. The other, proverbial, elephants in the room are how far the movie strays from the legendary King Arthur story.
Now, in fairness, legends (King Arthur, in this case) being what they are, it is difficult to know where reality ends and fantasy begins. Nonetheless, even though the legend has changed somewhat over the years (as legends are wont to do), this movie bears little resemblance to the story that moviegoers familiar with Arthur will expect.
Merlin? Rendered unimportant and replaced by a (gender-PC?) beautiful female mage, who remains nameless. (I suppose the lack of a name was supposed to lend some air of irresistible mystery to her. It failed, miserably.) (sigh)
Bedivere, the handsomest of Arthur's knights (almost in the entire land), one-handed, he of the muscular build? Well, at least he had the build. Some, including Bedivere, were obviously cast in a fit of PC multiculturalism. Please. Save it for where it makes sense.
Guinevere? Lancelot? Missing. David Beckham managed to land a spot, though. Go figure.
I read Ritchie's bio here on IMDb. It's stated there that Ritchie thought film school graduates made "boring and unwatchable" films. His disdain for the work of others seems to go beyond those who've studied film art. Huh. That doesn't stop Ritchie from leaning on the creations of others to sell a flick.
Ritchie has a flashy -- often manic -- presentation style. I'll give him some benefit of doubt in presuming that he does so in an effort to create a sense of action. Unfortunately, it often serves more to make stories incoherent.
In watching Richie's Sherlock Holmes re-imaginings, I couldn't shake a feeling of Ritchie's lack of respect for Doyles' Holmes. I get the same sense of lack of respect for traditional tales of King Arthur.
I could go on and on, picking the film apart, but all of it boils down to the simple appearance that Ritchie is simply capitalizing on the popularity of someone else' story -- King Arthur and the legend of Excalibur -- by using the name in the title, then remaking the entire story to suit a flight of his fancy.
Ritchie might as well have just left the sword out of the story and dropped the name of Arthur from the story -- and title. Then he could have gone anywhere he wanted with the story without disappointing moviegoers drawn in by the title. It might have stood on its own as a fair (by no means great) action/fantasy film. As a retelling of the King Arthur legend, it is a disappointment.
On second thought, considering Richie sold the idea to the movie studio as King-Arthur-meets-The-Lord-of-the-Rings, perhaps he should have just named the movie accordingly. Then the Tolkien influence (and the use of Tolkien's oliphants) would make much more sense. Then, too, moviegoers would know better than to expect a movie simply about the King Arthur legend, which the current title implies.
79 of 125 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this