Richie We Lost: Review of The Sword of King Arthur
King Arthur has been inspiring directors and producers for decades to create new interpretations of the life of the legendary leader of the Britons, the Knights of the Round Table and other Merlin and Guinevere. This time, the honored Guy Ritchie of the United Kingdom of Great Britain did not resist the temptation to tell his story.Middle Ages. Arthur , the future king of Britain, was very young when he lost both parents, miraculously survived and found shelter in one of the Londinium brothels. Years passed, Arthur grew, matured, acquired friends and scars, gradually forgetting about his origin. However, King Vortigern , who seized power with the help of black magic, knew that the rightful ruler of Britain could come to him at any moment. He ordered his soldiers to drive all the men of the country to the sword of Excalibur, which protruded from a huge boulder. Like, whoever manages to pull out the legendary sword, he will turn out to be a threat to the totalitarian monarchy. However, Arthur had little interest in politics and everything connected with it. For the time being ... Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) and Jude Law starred in King Arthur's Sword . Background: Djimon Hounsou (Guardians of the Galaxy), Eric Bana (Troy) and Aidan Gillen (Game of Thrones).  Before proceeding with the preparation of the new film Guy Ritchie , let us recall that this director had two periods in his career. The first gave the world a talented hooligan artist who shot the amazing "Lock, Stock, Two Barrels", "Big Jackpot", etc. And in the second, which started with Sherlock Holmes, Richie went into all the blockbuster serious. And King Arthur's Sword did not return to the roots. Of course, Richie 's handwriting is immediately guessed: camera raids from above, clip editing, freeze frames, flashbacks, rig effects. And the positioning of the young Arthur as the leader of an almost criminal gang is an unequivocal hello to the nosy bandits from the first films of the director. The atmosphere of the film also tends to fifty shades of gloom - Richie tries to bring as much dirt into the frame as it can fit in the PG-13. However, after the release of historical and fantasy series, in which all the charms of the "adult" rating rule the show, this raises certain questions. But against the background of the previous film Richie , bathed in the sun and gloss of "Agents A.N.K.L.", the gray palette looks advantageous. Not done without "Sword" and without the trademark humor of Richie . And this applies not only to dialogues. There is a brothel pupil who became king, and David Beckham as the commander of the guards, and a kung fu school, which at the time of Arthur was not yet in Europe, and many funny gags on the topic of the genetic code under the magic sauce.  From the cast, Jude Law and Aidan Gillan should be singled out. Lowe looks great in the role of the antagonist: almost the main conflict of the picture was precisely the internal contradictions of this hero. He does not just go to the intended goal, sweeping out of the way everyone who can interfere with him in this - he makes deals with his conscience and suffers madly from the choice made. By the way, Richie shows the moments of the conclusion of these deals quite symbolically: he resorts to the help of an octopus - a symbol of the hellish gates of the Celts. As for Aidan Gillan , he has become so familiar with the character that there is much more depth in the looks, words and movements of his character than it seems, was written in the script. The large-scale battle scenes in Sword , although there are not so many of them, are oversaturated with CG-effects. When the episodes begin, in which his sword Excalibur comes to the aid of Arthur , then Richie is at odds. It would not be an exaggeration to say that no one has ever shown combat scenes in such an interpretation. The fact is that the name of the sword refers to the Welsh wordcaledfwlch, a combination of the wordscaled("battle") andbwlch("break integrity") ... Richie decided to show how he sees the violation of the integrity of matter at the time of the battle. Together with the dynamic and harsh music of Daniel Pemberton, it turned out very impressive.  A whole heap of topics that the director raises deserves special mention. The theme of power and the sacrifices made for it becomes central. But Richie focuses his attention on the fact that everyone has their own altar. Someone, on a whim, sacrifices everything for the sake of achieving a set goal, someone's circumstances take a lot, killing the desire to stay on the sidelines. Where one acted on his own, the other was forced. What is a consequence for one person is a cause for another. For one, the end justifies the means, for the other, circumstances determine the end. Where the goal is, there is motivation. About motivation. From this angle, the film is very stormy, because only the character Lowe is deeply motivated. As for the title character, everything is much less balanced and very contradictory. Legends introduce us to Arthur - a born king who defeated the Saxons, saved many beautiful ladies and, in general, did a lot of good deeds. The film Richie presents a hero who is not attracted to a hero in any way. He is a constant victim of circumstances. They are forcing him to change his point of view and goals several times during the film. The authors initially declare Arthur as an unbending and strong-willed person, but as the plot develops, he becomes too emotional, and sometimes just stupid. He is overly dramatic when this is absolutely not required, and flaunts a lot. It's clear business The guilt of Guy Ritchie is also that, creating Arthur , for some reason he used his own notes from the filming of Sherlock Holmes . Two diametrically opposed heroes are created in similar ways. But if the stories in which the hero of Robert Downey Jr. found himself successfully harmonized with the selfish detective, then the story of Arthur seriously conflicts with his character, goals and ideals. Adds to the piggy bank of disappointments and "wooden" Charlie Hunnam , which is especially strange after the "Sons of Anarchy" and the recent "Lost City of Z". This time, the actor does not manage to find something for which the viewer can fall in love with his hero. And it seems that all the components are nominally in place that make you feel empathy, but there is still no response in your soul. Hero  It makes no sense to speculate about what kind of films Guy Ritchie would be making now if he hadn't taken a blockbuster track. Yes, he found the formula by which he creates cinema. This formula attracts the audience just enough so that producers keep calling and inviting him to new projects. This time he filmed a frivolous statement with elements of folklore. But if I hadn't removed it, nothing would have changed. Because in the phrase "blockbuster Guy Ritchie " is again much more blockbuster than Guy Ritchie . The Topic of Article: Richie We Lost: Review of The Sword of King Arthur. |
