Charlie Hunnam, that emotionally flatlined British heartthrob whose career (at least thus far) has been more about style than substance, portrays the legendary Leader of Knights of the Round table in Guy Ritchie's convoluted historical fantasy bomb, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. It's an umpteenth re-telling of the King Arthur legend, but it has to be the first one where any coherent narrative is secondary to former Mr. Madonna's chaotic editing and over-the-top kinetic directing style (even the special effects look as if they were designed on someone's laptop computer hastily, and at last possible minute).
This is allegedly the first in a series of what Ritchie and his co-writers/producers hope will be a six-part movie franchise, but the overwritten/overproduced movie in question actually feels like six features crammed into one. Imagine The Lord of the Rings trilogy, all nine hours plus of its running time, trimmed down to a two-hour feature film: it's a drag for the eyes and the ears, but especially the audience's minds, which by the end will surely be fried.
Had Ritchie concentrated on developing Jude Law's villainous Vortigern, or even given Hunnam a human element worth following - instead of practically racing through the entire narrative as if holding the fast-forward button at full capacity - Legend of the Sword may still have been a mess, but perhaps it would've been a memorable mess. As is, it's an overstuffed turkey that, at a reported budget of $175 million, feels and looks like the cheapest expensive movie ever made.
D
No comments:
Post a Comment