Tag Archives: Charlie Hunnam

Review: King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword

Thumbs up or thumbs down? Simple, spoiler free reviews.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is an epic fantasy film directed by Guy Ritchie starring Charlie Hunnam as Arthur with Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Jude Law and Eric Bana in supporting roles.

Where do I even begin? This film was absolutely terrible. Completely rubbish. Awful.

I disliked pretty much everything about this film and I mean everything. The tone, the pacing and calling the characters ‘thinly written’ would be too generous to what they actually are. Style over substance leaves the film completely all over the place and at no point does it feel like there is an actual point to anything, things just happen, people say things. I went into this movie thinking, there is no way this film can be as bad as the critics are saying it is. Its worse.

Why can’t Hollywood just make a regular King Arthur film? Why does it always have to have a new twist and new lore created. In 2004 we had an awful attempt at making him a Roman and ‘real’, now he’s a geezer from London with the lads. As a casual viewer the story I want to see would be described as a more classical King Arthur tale, not a rewritten and re-imagined version. I want the Knights of the Roundtable, gallantry and chivalry if Hollywood don’t think audiences want that King Arthur, why do they think they want any version at all?

Also, other than a brief flashback there is no Merlin to be had at all or even Sir Lancelot. What is this nonsense? Instead Merlin is replaced by The Mage played by Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, who controls a few animals, gives Arthur some visions and then promptly gets captured. Rubbish.

One of the main problems with this movie though is Charlie Hunnam. He just doesn’t work for me. When he tires to come of a confident he only comes of as smug. I don’t want a smug King Arthur I want a noble King Arthur! In general he comes across as a little bit wooden and a little bit flat. This is actually the second film I’ve seen him in this year, the other being The Lost City of Z, and I said exactly the same thing for that too. Come to think of it you could say the same thing about his role in Pacific Rim as well.Unfortunately though this means that both leading candidates for worst film of the year, star the same man.

When you’re leading role isn’t on point then you are always going to struggle to keep me on board with the story. Jude Law however in his defence, is probably the best thing about the entire movie. He actually showed a little bit of emotional, character depth and confliction in his actions while yearning for ultimate power and control. Everyone else with their barely sketched in characters has nothing really to play with at all and so just float from scene to scene following Arthur because ‘he’s Arthur’.

There were two things I did like about this film. Firstly, Excalibur’s magical powers and use in the fight scenes was pretty awesome. Secondly and this one is bitter-sweet as it actually gave me hope that the film had minor potential not to be awful. One of the first few scenes is Arthur and the lads talking to the captain of the city guard and the whole scene is excellent Guy Ritchie-esque dialogue and banter. Unfortunately the reason this is bitter-sweet is because this is the only time in the film this style actually works.

In short, don’t waste your money or your time. Maybe one day we’ll get a good King Arthur film on the big screen but this is not it. Oh and also David Beckham’s cameo was crap too.

Verdict: Thumbs down

Review: The Lost City of Z

Thumbs up or thumbs down? Simple, spoiler free reviews.

At the dawn of the 20th century, British explorer Percy Fawcett journeys into the Amazon, where he discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilisation. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment, which views indigenous populations as savages, the determined Fawcett returns to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case.

Long, drawn out, flat, dull…boring. All words I would use to describe The Lost City of Z. At 140 minutes, it feels even longer while you watch it. You might be able to tell that I was not a fan. I’m actually surprised over the number of positive reviews this has. Maybe I’m in the minority, although the people leaving the cinema all seemed to agree with me from what I overheard.

the-lost-city-of-z-posterThe story and history of the events are quite fascinating but the movie itself just wasn’t a very exciting or interesting watch. Far too much time was spent not adventuring. For a film about an explorer, you would have thought he’d be exploring in it.

Charlie Hunnam as Colonel Percy Fawcett, is wooden, one-dimensional and generally uninspiring. Tom Holland as his son is awkward and unconvincing. Sienna Miller however is quite good as Mrs Nina Fawcett and Robert Pattinson is probably the best I’ve ever seen him.

Fawcett’s obsession with finding Z was merely hinted at as well, rather than focused on. In this film it seems more like a casual hobby to do on a Sunday afternoon than anything else.

There were a few good moments strung throughout though, finding an opera in the middle of the jungle and a tense exchange with a slave dealer for example. Not enough to keep me interested though unfortunately.

Verdict: Thumbs Down