King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Guy Ritchie’s transformation from gritty, innovative filmmaker to by-the-numbers purveyor of explosions continues with King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, with the progressively uninvolving narrative shadowing Charlie Hunnam’s title character as he attempts to defeat a villainous ruler (Jude Law’s Vortigern) bent on total domination. It’s worth noting, admittedly, that King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, before it becomes a colossal bore, boasts an impressively engrossing initial stretch, as Ritchie launches straight into the action with a broadly-conceived yet oddly compelling opening that’s immediately followed by a somewhat exhilarating credits sequence detailing Arthur’s rough-and-tumble childhood and adolescence. The originality of this portion of the proceedings is ultimately in no way indicative of the blandness that comes after, as the movie quickly segues into a midsection that feels like an almost prototypical example of an origin story – with the progressively less-than-captivating vibe compounded by Hunnam’s competent yet charisma-free turn as the iconic protagonist. There’s little doubt, as well, that the emphasis on the characters’ relentless plotting and scheming wreaks havoc on King Arthur: Legend of the Sword’s momentum, as it remains impossible to care about the success (or failure) of any of the movie’s many one-dimensional figures and the viewer can’t help but wish Ritchie would just get on with it already. (Not that the film fares much better when stuff does happen, as Ritchie infuses the many action sequences with an ADHD-like perspective that drains them of any and all energy.) King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is, in the end, a movie designed to alienate virtually every single audience member it comes across, with the film’s pervasive needlessness eventually canceling out its few positive attributes and confirming its place as an especially soulless contemporary blockbuster.

*1/2 out of ****