To take the liberty to assert that “the Sword of king Arthur” best work of guy Ritchie, would be to declare himself a heretic, be subjected to eternal banishment from kinomanskie circle of lovers of his first films, and then they also to be burned at the stake. But to say that this movie I liked much more the previous it works, it is my right. And I dare to say it: Yes, I’m in the wild delight of “Arthur,” and now I will try to explain my admiration.
Richie wind rushed into world cinema and immediately captivated everyone with his ability on a personal script to remove cool movie, with a peculiar humor, great dialogues, corporate video editing, and even with a low budget. The history of the English muggers and bandits, taking place at London’s gates was loved by the audience and critics that in his second film, the Director got the actor of the first magnitude, which, face it, not everyone is able. On my first films Ritchie certainly made an impression, but very far from the order in which I will visit from the discussion of the tape. For when several hours later, after watching, still want to scream and frantically pounding his chest, copying the main character, and the next day to go on viewing a second time, and a week later a third movie, I think, succeeded.
“The sword of king Arthur” tough all over. That’s nine (!) huge sets, great acting, excellent work of the costume designers, the same installation, the humor and the music is so powerful that from the hall you come out with pathetic face, and then a long time can’t make it any easier. And now, it seems, there is a whole brand set of guy Ritchie, so why is this movie better? Yes, because the hooligan image of Arthur and his band of modern talking and fighting to such an extent fit into the middle Ages that, in my opinion, even the “Sherlock Holmes”, which was chips and techniques Ritchie, is behind in this regard. Many blame Richie for what he “hollywoodize”. I think that large budgets and opportunities opened up its enormous potential and, in General, went only benefit. His films are beautiful, they are ironed and aesthetic, of which Hollywood, of course, a lot. But for all that the filmmaker has not lost his uniqueness, his work is still recognizable, still with the guts to betray his Creator. The author also skillfully saves time, not concentrating attention on the extra. So we, for example, will very quickly show the childhood and youth of Arthur, and thanks to the flashback and flashforward on the screen will be two and even three steps at a time. Thus, the film has a frantic dynamics, under the influence of which just grow in the seat. Shoots and fights, the benefit of a lot of them here, you can savor long, as their show of completely slacking off the remarkable camera work.
If we talk about the cons, I recall some lapses in the script. It is not something that would be lazy in some places, but in the legend there is the magic, and in a tense situation, in which once again you demonstrate the intelligence and wit of the characters, and along with writers, interfered with the magic. And intervened rather roughly. In addition, in one of the cut scenes the characters probably drank the elixir of youth, because none of them for all time until Arthur grew up-grown up, not old, not sat and winced. The way Arthur liked it. He’s human, not a power-hungry and fair, and Charlie Hunnam, the actor with expressive eyes, stunningly conveyed the complexity of the internal struggle of his character.
Incomparably cool when the Director has her own handwriting, which no one will confuse. And doubly cool when the Director understands how important his creations with quality. In short, lowest fees unfairly and undeserved negative reviews from critics. My advice: go to the movies until late. And forgive me, Jude law, got serious about it only after the role of Karenina. Great, Oh how great!
9 out of 10