Why King Arthur is one of the year's best films

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures. Acquired from Warnerbros.co.uk

King Arthur was a major flop with audiences and critics, but’s ironically one of the best films of the year.

On May 12, 2017, Guy Ritchie’s latest film King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was released. Like Ritchie’s 2009 film Sherlock Holmes, it’s a tightly paced, anarchic take on a British cultural icon. Unlike the earlier film, Arthur was a commercial disaster. While it’s abysmal 28% Rotten Tomatoes rating certainly didn’t help, Arthur’s failure is only partially due to its perceived quality.

Despite being the star of the hugely popular FX drama Sons of Anarchy, lead actor Charlie Hunnam is not a box office draw. Arthur was also saddled with a very poor release date. Sandwiched between established franchise blockbusters Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Alien: Covenant, the film was overshadowed and quickly forgotten. Still, in spite of its terrible reception, King Arthur is one of the best films of the year. Here are a few reasons why.

It’s brilliantly paced

More from Hidden Remote

Although the film runs 126 minutes, it feels half an hour shorter. Although lightning quick editing is a hallmark of Richie’s directorial style, none of his early films move as fast as King Arthur. Large chunks of Arthurian Legend are burned through in montages that are no longer than a good pop song. Much of the film’s world building is laid out in rapid fire dialog exchanges. In an era when blockbusters are burdened with overly elaborate mythologies or near 3-hour run times, Arthur’s fleetness is refreshing. Unfortunately, many film critics were repelled by the film’s unconventional storytelling style.

The film was painted as being “confusing” or “lazy” because it eschews tedious exposition and overused narrative tropes. The truth is, Ritchie made a film that presumes a media saturated 21st-century audience doesn’t need its hands held. Instead of beginning with a lugubrious voiceover or a tedious wall of text, Ritchie drops the viewer right in the middle of Arthur’s world. The film opens with an epic set piece. In it, warlock Mordred (Rob Knighton), leads a horde of skyscraper sized elephants in laying siege to Camelot. Arthur’s father Uther (Eric Bana) directly engages the enemy with Excalibur in hand. All the while, Uther’s brother Vortigern (Jude Law) looks on enviously.

The sequence is utterly breathtaking and has a greater sense of wonder and scale than any blockbuster film released this year. Anyone over the age of 12 will quickly twig the character relationships. The scene is so good it barely needs sound, let alone a bunch of tedious exposition to be understood. But for many critics who are used to blockbusters that are packed with momentum killing info dumps, King Arthur’s immediate, thunderous opening was found wanting. But a spectacle this awe-inspiring doesn’t need explanation.

Arthur is a man of the people

Another way in which King Arthur is differentiated from modern blockbusters is that its protagonist is just a normal guy. He’s not a genius by any stretch. He doesn’t immediately recover from being brutally beaten. He makes dumb jokes to antagonize his enemies and he flirts with unearned confidence. Like many of the fast talking gangsters seen in Richie’s earlier films, he’s focused on making black money and protecting his people. He is, until late in the film, uninterested in toppling the current government.

As opposed to earlier portrayals, the film’s version of the Born King is proud of his common roots. Even after he pulls the fabled sword from the stone, Arthur still resists his heroic destiny. When his royal lineage is uncovered, he offers to give Excalibur to Vortigern and to vanish into obscurity. He only feels the need to challenge his uncle once his people start getting killed. Hunnan’s Conor McGregor-influenced incarnation of Arthur doesn’t wield the authority of a divinely empowered monarch. Instead, his rule is an extension of the will of the people, specifically the disenfranchised and dispossessed.

This notion is best communicated is a scene near the end of the film where he negotiates with a Viking leader he tangled with before his ascension. The rapacious warrior demands Arthur honor a deal Vortigern made with his leaders to condemn thousands of young Britons to slavery. The King refuses the Viking’s demand and reminds him that he when he speaks to him, he speaks to the embodiment of England. As such, any threats to its citizens will be recognized as an act of war. Realizing he is dealing with a true man of the people instead of another self-interested politician, the Viking bends at the knee.

A Multicultural England

Yet another unusual aspect of King Arthur is the way it deals with race. Guy Ritchie’s vision of medieval England is a fairly multicultural place. Arthur’s childhood mentor is a Chinese man and the ex-knight who recruits him into the anti-Vortigern resistance is a black man. Instead of simply being ignored or used a source of antagonism, these racial differences are slyly acknowledged without explanation. But the way the film presents its multiracial society, no explanation feels necessary.

Though filled with fantastic monsters and magicians, Ritchie establishes the film’s setting as being the same as his earlier films, just at an earlier point in its history. As such, his version of 5^th century England is just as vibrant, violent and diverse as it is in the late 20^th century. Because King Arthur’s outlaws act and talk just like Snatch’s gangsters, the film’s anachronistic depiction of Londinium doesn’t feel off.

Also, the film’s diversity helps underscore one of its core themes; a person’s heritage is not as important as the identity they forge for themselves. Being with Uther Pendragon son allows Arthur to wield Excalibur, but it doesn’t make him a leader. The support of his makeshift family does. Those non-familial but nevertheless incredibly deep bonds play a key role in the Born King’s victory over Vortigern. And when the new king orders his friends to be knighted, he bows down alongside them in honor of their brotherhood. The fact Arthur doesn’t share a common ancestry with his tribe is irrelevant.

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures. Acquired from Warnerbros.co.uk

Vortigern is an amazing villain

Lastly, I wanted to highlight just how fantastic Jude Law’s Vortigern. Although he isn’t given a lot of screen time, he leaves a much stronger impression than most blockbuster movie villains. He’s decadent, petty and extraordinarily cruel, but never in a way that comes off as silly. He’s an exceeding practical villain who manages to outwit Arthur at several points. But he’s ultimately undone by two fatal flaws; bottomless envy and an unquenchable lust for power.

While that’s a really pat motivation for a movie villain, Law does something really interesting with it. Vortigern’s need for dominion over everything that surrounds him is palpable. And Law’s makes his lust for power and control understandable. In one of the film’s most captivating scenes, the false king waves his hand across the assembled populace of Londinium. As his hand passes over the crowd, the people bow in supplication. The sheer vastness of the crowd and Law’s ecstatic expression perfectly convey the intoxicating rush the character feels at commanding others. It’s easily Law’s finest film performance since 2011’s Side Effects.

Ritchie also uses Vortigern’s lust for power to make him Arthur’s true opposite number. Whereas Vortigern burns his entire life to gain power, Arthur repeatedly rejects his birthright. While Vortigern sacrifices those closest to him to gain more power, Arthur’s primary motivation is to save his people. This throwback style of characterization goes a long way in defining the conflict between the two characters. It’ also helps make a Vortigern feel like more of a convincing antagonist than any recent comic book movie.

Next: ‘Buffy’ at 25: Remembering Joss Whedon’s most fun movie

The kind of blockbuster we need

Because it was such a critical and commercial flop, they probably won’t be any more on auteur blockbusters like King Arthur coming down the pike anytime soon. That fact is incredibly disappointing since it features all the grandeur and idiosyncrasies that once made Hollywood blockbusters so enjoyable. Thankfully, free of box office expectations and mainstream critical evaluation, the film can be appreciated for what it is. A bold, modern and thoroughly fun fantasy action epic.

Home/Movies

Why King Arthur is one of the year’s best films

By Mario McKellop | Aug 9, 2017