Everything in these movies seems to be for Snyder alone. It’s as if the only point of four and half hours of movie runtime is for him to prove that he can spend all this money to capture his meticulous little scenes on his camera, refracted through his gauzy vintage lenses. Never before has the act of filmmaking felt more like someone painting Warhammer figures in their basement.
Read MoreNow comes King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, the newest (but twice delayed) film from Ritchie and the first major release based on the Arthurian tales since Antoine Fuqua’s 2004 film starring Clive Owen. True to form, Ritchie approaches the Knights of the Round Table with his signature flourishes, doubling down on the magical underpinnings of the source material. This is a movie with Mûmakil, giant snakes, and a hulking skull-headed necromancer. It’s almost a direct contradiction of Fuqua’s “What if Arthur was a real military leader?” concept, and one that feels more authentic to those familiar with names like Merlin, Mordred and Camelot.
But Legend of the Sword is also a naked attempt to re-forge King Arthur into a medieval superhero. The legendary king is given otherworldly powers not unlike those of the Flash, and thus the audience is entreated to sign up for yet another merchandisable multi-film cinematic universe - or would it be cinematic kingdom? Even that wouldn’t be so bad, if the film wasn’t also one of the most confusingly edited movies of 2017. Over and over, the movie scrambles up its scenes, leaving the distinct impression that Ritchie’s first draft wasn’t good enough for Warner Bros. (after Suicide Squad, who’s surprised?) and the editing was passed on to a committee. The Arthurian tales are flexible, but they’re no match for studio meddling.
Read More
