Long have I considered the appeal of Arthurian legend. And when I say “long,” I mean “since this morning,” but don’t let that dissuade my thesis. Unable to comprehend what might distinguish Arthur himself from, say, Prince Charles, I focus on the usual elements of the tale: the holy grail, Excalibur, and the knights of the round table. I have discovered the following truth – the Arthur legend is intrinsically about throwing the ultimate dinner party. Think about it – the grail is a cup that never runs dry … like some everlasting beer keg, what is plucking the sword from stone if not wielding the greatest carving knife known to man? After that, it’s all about the guest list and the seating arrangement. Yes, King Arthur’s round table is simply about lively conversation and good acoustics. I can safely conclude that we all love Arthurian legend for the same reasons we visit IKEA on weekends.
One almost has to admire the vigor with which Guy Ritchie explores his Sword-in-the-Stone tale. He even gives this epic search for cutlery a backstory I never knew involving Arthur’s father, King Uther (Eric Bana). A generation later, usurper Vortigern (Jude Law) queues up all the eligible hotties in the kingdom to see which one is man enough to wrest the sword from rock. You just know at some point during the pre-filming 
that Guy looked around and said, “You know what this scene needs? To be more like Cinderella.” My guess, however, is that the “winner” doesn’t get to marry the prince. Awww.
Outside that particular indulgence, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword didn’t much remind me of Cinderella. But it didn’t much remind me of Arthurian legend, either. You know what it did remind me of? Robin Hood. Raised in a brothel, PC champion Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) is far more in touch with the common man than any facet of magic or nobility. He and his band of merry men set about … ummmm … set about, well, honestly, it’s a little hard to tell what this film is really saying – Jude Law claims the kingdom early on and then stamps out possible throne challengers in the least efficient way possible – by forcing them all to line up a tug at a sword stuck into a rock. That brings him to Arthur, who takes the sword and faints. Later, he takes the sword again, and again faints. Did they have :facepalm: in the early-medieval ages?
When Arthur does finally get his sword issues moving in a different direction, magic happens. Literally. The thing erupts with uncontrollable force. So, if you’re seeing what I’m seeing, there’s this guy who comes of age and is introduced to his sword. He doesn’t understand its power; he keeps having problems with it – he can’t control this tool and whenever he handles it, the thing goes off and the guy ends up on his back. If I’m being honest, I cannot believe one can invest over $100 Million on a penis metaphor, can you? Oh, I got that wrong? Are you sure? Every.single.time Arthur touches his “sword,” the scene gets out of control and ends in shame. Sounds like a teen boy to 
me. You want to tell me the Guy who was married to Madonna for eight years doesn’t equate his schlong with a magic sword? Sure. And “Like a Virgin” was about olive oil.
Ever since Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Arthurian legend has longed to be told properly. It’s still longing. Maybe it’s the expectation of lethal bunnies; maybe it’s the failure to understand the connection between divine right of power and pulling a sharp stick out of the ground or maybe, just maybe, the legend isn’t worth the telling. For whatever reason, King Arthur and his wacky pals get described on film a lot without an accompanying amount of satisfaction. Guy Ritchie added some style to this telling; I’ll give him that much – but the deliberately skewed editing and FF sequences are much more at home in his Sherlock Holmes world where there are puzzles to be solved. King Arthur isn’t a “whodunit?”
I’ve now seen hours of Charlie Hunnam of film and the next adjective I can find to describe him will be my first. I nominate King Arthur: Legend of the Sword as my “Soporific Transformers Fantasy/Sci-fi Award” winner of 2017, going to the epic CGI-laden film most likely to put you to sleep before you can unravel the plot. [I put “Transformers” in the award title to make that particular franchise ineligible.] Past winners include Warcraft, John Carter, and Hunnam’s own Pacific Rim.
As a warrior, Arthur proved able
But motivation lacked in this fable
ID’ing his spur
Would as ready occur
As finding corner on the round table
Rated PG-13, 126 Minutes
D: Guy Ritchie
W: Joby Harold and Guy Ritchie & Lionel Wigram
Genre: Another attempt at English “history”
Type of person most likely to enjoy this film: Magic sword bearers
Type of person least likely to enjoy this film: Usurpers
