Review #1,243: 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' (2017)

Guy Ritchie may just one of the luckiest film directors in history. After making his name with Cockney gangster movies Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, he released a double-bill of stinkers so bad that even the utterance of their titles provokes sniggers. Swept Away and Revolver almost killed the career of the Brit before it truly took off, with his highly publicised relationship to Madonna proving far more interesting to the tabloids than any of his desperate output. He returned to his roots with RocknRolla, a motor-mouthed crime comedy which, although sitting well within his comfort zone, was good enough to remind us of why we liked him in the first place. Since then, he's found big-budget success with the Sherlock Holmes films and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (although the latter tanked at the box-office, it was generally warmly received by those who saw it), and has been handed the keys to his very own franchise, the eternally rebootable story of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.

It's unclear just how much more input Ritchie will have on this new take on Arthurian legend, as he has just started production on Disney's live-action remake of Aladdin, starring Will Smith as the genie. That, combined with the box-office failure of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, would surely suggest that this series was dead on arrival, or at least will see it taken in a new direction by Warner Bros., who had been trying to get something off the ground ever since the more grounded 2004 version starring Clive Owen. If this is true, then thank the cinema gods, as this annoying, sickly and exposition-heavy turkey was never going to interest a new generation of cinema-goers in a legend that has fascinated many for years. It trips up during its very first moments, as giant, CGI elephants knock down CGI buildings and send CGI people to their death, removing all the elements that make this old-fashioned myth so endearing by employing a contemporary attitude. Haircuts, fashion and dialogue all fit Ritchie's lad's mag aesthetic.

Everything needs to be big and shiny, and King Arthur opens with a set-piece most movies would choose to climax with. King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) is locked in a war with warlock Mordred and an army of mages, with the kingdom of Camelot under threat from their magic. Assisted by his magical sword Excalibur, the King triumphs, only to be betrayed by his evil, pampered brother Vortigern (Jude Law), who arranges a coup to usurp the throne. Only Uther's son Arthur escapes with his life, pushed down a river to be raised by prostitutes in, as you would guess from a Ritchie film, Londinium. He grows up to look like Charlie Hunnam and practises hand-to-hand combat. He also dabbles in petty theft with a small gang of cheeky chappies while unaware of his true heritage. When Uther's sword reappears stuck in a rock near the castle's ground, Vortigern rounds up all the men in the nearby areas to attempt to pull it free. He who succeeds is the true heir to the throne, and therefore destined for the chopping block.

This all sounds like a classic hero's journey set within the medieval fantasy genre, but Ritchie is so intent of shoving modern-day sensibilities down your throat that it's easy to quickly forget the true essence of the story. There are endless visual gags involving a story narrated in the present while we flash back to the actual event, a gimmick employed by Ritchie many times before (but was done far better in Ant-Man), and an abundance of camera-swirling action scenes that resemble a video game cutaway scene. At times, it is the cinematic equivalent of that G-force ride at the fairground, in that you cling to whatever you can and hope it ends before you vomit. At the centre of it all is Hunnam, who follows his turn in Pacific Rim with another charisma-free performance. He is drawn as a tough- working-class hero who would be more comfortable in a pub brawl than ruling a country, but comes across as the kind of meat head seen on a night out starting fights while others insist he's a good guy really. A dick head with a magical sword and royal blood is still a dick head. Many of its flaws could be forgiven were it not such a massive bore. Instead, this will likely induce a headache more than any sense of wonder.


Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Jude Law, Djimon Hounsou, Eric Bana, Aidan Gillen, Neil Maskell, Annabelle Wallis
Country: USA

Rating: **

Tom Gillespie

Review #980: 'Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows' (2011)

In 2009 Sherlock Holmes was re-imagined by Guy Ritchie as an ass-kicking and mentally unstable private investigator with a weakness for a variety of mind-altering substances. Played by Robert Downey Jr., Holmes was Iron Man without the vast fortune, super-suit and fashionable beard, but with the same genius-level intellect, capable of predicting the exact outcome of a fight with a foe before the first punch is thrown. Though heavily compromised by Ritchie's sledgehammer subtlety and love for annoying Cockney geezers, it was still an entertaining take on an extremely familiar character, with Downey Jr. at his twitchy best and demonstrating a convincing English accent.

A Game of Shadows, the bloated sequel rushed into production after the international success of its predecessor, turns the doctor from idiosyncratic eccentric to a babbling pantomime. When we meet Holmes, he is rescuing his flame Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) from a bomb intended for somebody else. The package was given to her by the scheming Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), and after her next meeting with him, she disappears. On the eve of his wedding, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) arrives at Baker Street to find Holmes deep into investigating a splurge of seemingly unrelated murders and business acquisitions linked to Moriarty, and at Watson's bachelor party, the two encounter a gypsy woman named Simza (Noomi Rapace), the intended recipient of the letter that accompanied the bomb.

Without any sign of the storytelling flair of the books, A Game of Shadows becomes little more than a series of punch-ups, shoot-outs and inane exchanges between Holmes and his trusted Watson. At one point, the heroes are fired at by an increasingly ridiculous arsenal of machine guns as trees shatter and fireballs explode around them in ultra slo-mo. Any resemblance to one of literatures most beloved characters is lost, and it feels instead like you're watching a movie about The Transporter's British granddad, albeit with a touch more style. Mad Men's Harris is impressive as Holmes's most challenging foe, but Rapace's character is so redundant that she is reduced to just a pretty face for the poster. Shockingly, the main problem is Downey Jr., whose hyperactive shtick is as tiresome as the plot he is caught up in.


Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris, Rachel McAdams, Stephen Fry
Country: USA

Rating: **
Tom Gillespie

Review #600: 'Sherlock Holmes' (2009)

Said to have been portrayed by over 70 actors in over 200 adaptations, it was only a matter of time before Sherlock Holmes received a modern-day revision. The BBC cast Benedict Cumberbatch as the titular loose-cannon, with Martin Freeman as his sidekick Dr. Watson in the series Sherlock, but director Guy Ritchie wanted to revert back to the source novels for his Holmes, and who better than Robert Downey, Jr. to star as the bohemian detective-for-hire with a penchant for self-starvation and cocaine. Only this being rated 12A, the cocaine and needle abuse is somewhat glossed over in favour of a more 'teenage-friendly' preference to alcohol, though the unpredictable and near-schizophrenic personality is maintained, and his famous and iconic deerstalker hat (though never mentioned in the books) ridden of altogether.

After foiling the ritualistic sacrifice of a young girl at the hands of the aristocratic Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), Sherlock Holmes retreats into a state of isolation while he awaits his next case. His good friend and colleague Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is getting married, and his invitation to Holmes to meet his bride-to-be finally brings Holmes back into the world. With Blackwood awaiting execution, his last wish is to talk with Holmes, who is warned of three more deaths to come. Blackwood is hanged and assumed dead, until his body goes missing and is replaced by a man reported missing by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), an American thief who has managed to escape Holmes in the past. Holmes' investigations leads them to the Temple of the Four Orders, a secretive magical organisation who seem terrified by Blackwood's apparent resurrection and eventual resurfacing.

I've never really been a fan of Guy Ritchie. Since his breakthrough début way back in 1998 with Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, he has done little of note, or at least nothing to develop on the promise of his début. Lock, Stock was an amusing and quite clever little throwback to the Cockney gangster films of the 1980's, featuring memorable dialogue and a funky score. He then made Snatch (2000), which is still lauded by its fanbase but offered nothing different apart from a new and annoying self-awareness, and Alan Ford calling himself "an 'orrible cant!". He then was almost forced to pack it in for good after making the embarrassing double-whammy that was Swept Away (2002), a love-letter to his then-wife Madonna, and Revolver (2005), a pretentious, insulting piece of shit starring Jason Statham and Ray Liotta. Seeing his dreams fading, Ritchie went back into his comfort zone - the criminal underbelly of London - and made RocknRolla (2008), which although being over-familiar, wasn't half bad and featured some nice cinematography.

With Holmes, Ritchie has gone mega-budget and handles it well. Though for all its CGI backdrops and grand set-pieces, Ritchie has stuck with the Cockney wide-boy dialogue and slow-motion fight scenes. From the very first scenes, his intentions are clear, as Holmes envisions his opponents weak-spots and we are narrated through the damage that each blow will inflict, all caught in that time-altering way he championed way back in '98. This is Holmes at his most action-heavy. I don't recall ever seeing Basil Rathbone taking out someone's knee-cap or getting involved in bare-knuckle boxing fights. But isn't that was revisions are all about - taking a beloved character and taking them to places never seen before? Well of course, but in this case, it's to take their character to the top of the box-office by attracting a less-demanding audience, and make a lot of money.

The Ritchie-isms aside, Sherlock Holmes is still entertaining, which is its primary goal. Although the story is weak, everything looks fake and like a computer effect, and the aspect that made Holmes such a popular read - the investigation and his almost supernatural ability to unravel the smallest of clues - isn't particularly clever, and is brushed aside in favour of Downey, Jr's admittedly excellent comedic performance. He is perfect for this Holmes, showing a lot of the cocky charm and general strangeness he injected into Tony Stark in the Iron Man films (2008-2013). After all, Downey, Jr. practically is (or was) Holmes, almost spurning his talent in favour of drug abuse. It's enough to make me watch the sequel someday, but not enough to make me warm to Ritchie. But it's 128 minutes of breezy, easy-watching entertainment.


Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong, Eddie Marsan
Country: USA/Germany

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie