A senseless retelling
I’M a sucker for nostalgia.
Anything from the 1960s really perks my interest, so when I heard there was going to be yet another “King Arthur” film, my memory immediately hearkened back to the cute 1963 WaltDisney cartoon fantasy “A Sword in the Stone,” where a bumbling teenager actually pulls the magical sword Excalibur from the stone and become the king of all England.
Those were gay, happy moments.
Well, buster, you can tear up your Disney DVD collection as one of the gaw awful, stupidest movies of all time is also one of Hollywood’s biggest of big-budget flops — a.k.a. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.”
Or, how to take a blow torch to US$175 million.
The official synopsis says: “After the murder of his father Uther (Eric Bana) young Arthur’s power-hungry Uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) seizes control of the crown. Robbed of his birthright, Arthur grows up the hard way in the back alleys of the city, not knowing who he truly is. When fate leads him to pull the Excalibur sword from stone, Arthur embraces his true destiny to become a legendary fighter and leader.” Great Caesar’s Ghost! Take it from this film critic who spends most of his life in the dark, watching grimy movies like this one, this version of King Arthur is absolutely dead on arrival, one of the most poorly acted films in modern memory with cinematography that comes from a failing high school art student. And dark? When you enter the darkened theater, you’ll need to power up your mobile phone, folks, and turn on the flashlight — not to find your seat but to help the on-screen actors read their dialogue. What little mindless drivel there is! “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” must have been filmed in a driving rainstorm, in the mud, in London, in December, at midnight, in pitch darkness, by a sightless, physically challenged cinematographer his secondhand 35 mm 1965 Kodak Instamatic Point and Shoot Camera with the lens cap on.
This movie is so dark it is impossible to watch without Superman’s x-ray vision to see who is on the screen and what is going on.
This “film” should have been distributed in black and white. Then overdubbed in Russian. It wouldn’t have made any difference!
“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” starts with a laughingly bad, gigantic elephant-looking, CGI monster tearing up a castle fortress during a battle scene right out of “Harry Potter” that I thought was won by the good guys. My vision must be failing me. Then followed an immediate (and sporadic) rape/love scene — I honestly couldn’t see without squinting — after which we move very fast through the years to watch Arthur (I suppose he was the creation of the impetuous union by Uther and whomever) being beaten to a pulp his friendly next-door neighbors.
All young Arthur knows of life is wanton murder, rape, greed, rape, horrific violence, theft and rape.
A jolted and freakily bizarre time jump depicts the young boy growing into manhood — finally stopping when we are introduced to the adult (30+ something) Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) — the future king of England. Who is a thug. The worst of the worst. As he runs from the local police through one back alleyway after another, we find ourselves immediately asking, “Why would I care what happens to this morally bankrupt, pathetic loser?”
Yes, Arthur eventually finds redemption, defeats his evil Uncle and I think he kisses a girl.
I may be mistaken; I couldn’t see very clearly.
Maybe he kissed his horse instead?
Arthur does find Excalibur and pulls the legendary magical sword from the stone, and life is again wonderful and lovely. AGGG! What a pile of stinking horse hokum.
This movie, which was trying for a “Harry Potterish” theme, has already crashed and burned in theaters throughout America during its domestic release.
It should be banned from every movie house in the Philippines. Just because. The Book of Moses recounts: “It came to pass that fear exceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of Hell.” Oh, yeah. Well, buster, it doesn’t mean I have to spend my hard-earned pesos to take a free holiday there.
Watching “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is akin to latching yourself into the front seat of a ruined roller coaster as it spins out of control and chucks you and everyone else on board, straight down into the ninth level of Hades — right into the nethermost form of human degradation.
This “King Arthur” is a really bad guy, has absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever and to be totally honest, this is a lousy “action adventure” film.
After the credit ran, I felt all scummy and dirty.
Like I needed a 30-minute hot shower to wash off all of the muck and filth I just witnessed.
Written and directed for the screen by Guy Richie (“Snatch”) and supposedly filmed in Wales — I have no idea since it was too dark to see anything even during the daylight scenes — “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” will have a warm and tender spot at the end of the year for our CEBU DAILY NEWS’ “Year in Review.”
Holding Excalibur high into the air, “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” has who the randubious out of honor batteries as for being the worst film of this or any year.
Ever! Questions, comments or travel suggestions, write me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
THIS IMAGE released by Warner Bros. Pictures shows David Beckham (extreme right) in a scene from “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.”