Anyone who follows Guy Ritchie’s films knows he has a very specific style. Ever since the Sherlock Holmes director shot to fame some two decades ago with films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000), he has made a series of kinetic fast-paced action films that value style over substance. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is no different in this regard. In fact, it is the most Guy Ritchie film the Englishman has made in a while.

This, unfortunately, isn’t a good thing.

Ritchie’s style is something of a double-edged sword for King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. On the one hand, the fantastical elements and the world that has been developed are enjoyable to behold, especially for fans of fantasy. In particular, the imaginative magic battles with the exotic powers on display are as good as you’ll see, at least in any film of this kind. On the other hand, the visuals can be annoyingly chaotic.

‘Those who live by the sword die by the sword’ rings eerily true in the case of Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword simply cuts too fast for us to find ourselves invested in the characterisation. The editing is choppy and haphazard, leaving the whole film feeling a bit rushed. At 126 minutes, you feel that a fantasy epic such as this could have benefited from a runtime of at least 40 more minutes, and dare I say another director at the helm. There are simply far too many irritating sequences where Ritchie, in his signature style, zips through pivotal moments where we would have liked to have seen what happened rather than be told.

But what really exemplifies the film’s inconsistency is the uneven CGI. As mentioned before, some of the fantastical scenes are beautiful to watch. Yet there are plenty of moments where the CGI is laughably poor, almost reminiscent of a dated video game. It is perplexing how the quality of the special effects in a film can vary so deeply between scenes and I can only guess that after some major scenes were prioritised the production ran into budgetary constraints. And although the gritty cinematography by John Mathieson is good here, I really didn’t enjoy the dreary black, brown, blue and grey colour palette the film had to offer.

Whereas the action has its moments, the dialogue and overall narrative is distinctly third-rate. The story tells the age-old tale of King Arthur, who as a child was raised by a group of prostitutes after they found him drifting away in a boat far from events that led to the death of his father, King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) at the hand of his brother Vortigern (Jude Law). Eventually, Arthur grows up, commands a magic sword called Excalibur and the plot follows every fantasy hero clichй in the book, though to be fair the folklore of King Arthur from centuries ago did set the blueprint for fantasy tales.

Similar to other aspects of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword the performances are a mixed bag. Eric Bana is adequate as a betrayed king, though perhaps that’s because he is killed off before he can realise how bad the movie is. Jude Law for the most part makes for a menacing villain but the script lets him down tragically as the film progresses. The worst is Charlie Hunnam as the titular hero, who acts with all the energy of a man who knows that this is one legend not worth retelling.

Strangely, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword tries to set up a sequel at the end. With the film having tanked badly at the box office, that would really take some magic.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, action, suggestive content and brief strong language

Published in Dawn, ICON, May 21st, 2017