Thoughts on King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

Image courtesy of hdqwalls.com

I recognize that this is a little bit late, but I have been busy during the past couple weeks. Having said that, on with the first of several new posts.

After I posted my thoughts on The Maze Runner, I saw King Arthur: Legend of the Sword the following weekend. This is the latest adaptation of the King Arthur story.

Warning: As with The Maze Runner, this post will contain as few spoilers as possible, and what spoilers there are will be mild ones.

In this version, directed by Guy Ritchie, Vortigern (brother of Uther, king of the Britons) plans a coup, which results in Uther's son, later named Arthur, being orphaned. As an adult, Arthur has learned to fend for himself. Meanwhile, Vortigern sends a group of his henchmen (known as the Blacklegs) to gather all men similar in age to Arthur himself and force them to try to extract Excalibur, a powerful sword, from a stone near his castle. When Arthur tries it, he succeeds. Uther's general, Sir Bedivere, has organized a band of rebels hoping to stop Vortigern from taking over all of England. After Arthur has extracted Excalibur, Bedivere believes he can help their cause. Arthur will soon come to realize that a mere band of rebels is not enough.

Here are my thoughts:

What Worked: I thought the cast was believable. Charlie Hunnam looks like how one may picture Arthur, as does Eric Bana with Uther. Some casting choices really surprised me, namely Djimon Hounsou as Sir Bedivere and Aidan Gillen as his friend, Sir William "Goosefat Bill" Wilson. The main reason is because they usually play villains, and here they're good guys. Another surprise is Jude Law as Vortigern, who is usually a good guy (example: Watson in Sherlock Holmes), and yet here he's the villain.

The majority of the visuals look convincing here, and the action works. With the action, there is slow motion, but it served as a benefit, especially since Guy Ritchie has used it before with Sherlock Holmes. His direction also works since his style of humor is present here and is effective, so they can be seen as going hand-in-hand. There is one thing I loved: it had an awesome song ("The Devil and the Huntsman") that played in both the third act and the credits. In a fantasy movie such as this, whether it's a portion of the score or a song with actual vocals, its key purpose is to get you excited. With this song, it not only does that, but it also sounds like you could set something like Conan to it and it would work.

What Didn't Work: The opening has the backstory explained in a block of borderline unreadable text also applied to the opening credits. Because of this, it's hard to see what you should be looking at in the first few minutes. While the intention of making stylistically appropriate font is understandable, a narration akin to the one by Charlie Hunnam that opened Pacific Rim would have sufficed.

Some of the alterations to the King Arthur story here may not make sense. On top of that, people may think this version is trying so hard to be like The Lord of the Rings in some parts (namely the first few minutes, as well as some of the music and visuals) and different movies in others, like The Lion King, 300, and to an extent Thor. At least one very unwise decision is made, and this is one of those movies where the outcome of said decision is predictable.

Overall: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a fun movie and an interesting take on the King Arthur story. Most of the story's key aspects are there and others are at least mentioned. Those who know it but can accept a fair amount of changes should give this version a chance. Those who were unsure from the trailer might also be surprised upon watching the movie. See this in theaters if you can, but if you end up having to wait for rental or Netflix, that's also fine.

Thoughts on The Maze Runner (2014)

Image courtesy of emaze.com

Warning: Mild spoilers ahead.

I watched The Maze Runner on TV last night. For those who are unfamiliar, here is the plot:

A young man named Thomas wakes up with no memory of who he is. He has been sent to the Glade, a place that is basically a small society made up of other young men, which is surrounded by walls. It turns out the walls actually are part of a maze, and the others have built their society while trying to find a way out and discover why they were put there.

Here are my thoughts:

What Worked: I found more positives than negatives with The Maze Runner. Since the performances are a key aspect of any movie, the first question to answer is whether or not they work. In this case, yes they do. The actors show they can convey what the characters are feeling at certain points. The setting also works because it looks like something that could exist rather than a backdrop on a green screen. The editing is effective overall.

There are two things I especially enjoyed here. The first is the effects, specifically the design of the maze itself and the creatures inside. They looked very practical to me. The second is one thing that I love in movies: it sets rules. Whenever a movie decides to do that, I am always interested to see how the characters deal with the limitations placed upon them. I appreciate the decision to set rules even more if they are followed the entire time. However, I am fine with them being broken at any point, provided the way in which they're broken is clever. In this movie, more rules are broken than followed, but they are broken in clever ways and for good reason, yet there are still consequences. Finally, there are so many twists and turns that by the end, you want to learn more.

What Didn't Work: My main issue was that some of the characters' decisions may not make sense. There are two things I can especially understand being major issues for those who are themselves interested. The first thing is that in the first few minutes, key parts are being set up left and right with no room to think about the information you have just been given. The second thing is that a certain part of the last 20 minutes, which is briefly addressed in the ending, may leave them confused. However, while I will not spoil it here, those particular viewers will understand what I am referring to when they watch the movie for themselves.

Before I get into my overall thoughts, there is something to address. Unless they know it's a different story prior to watching it, people are likely going to end up comparing The Maze Runner to The Hunger Games (an example being they are both based on a popular series of young-adult novels). I recognize that some similarities are there, but it's how each movie presents those parts that show the differences. A prime example of this is the bigger picture: with The Hunger Games, it was rebellion against the system. With The Maze Runner, it might actually be more intriguing, as it feels like a mystery with a conspiracy.

Overall: The Maze Runner was actually a surprise for me when I first saw it in theaters, and since then (especially after seeing it again last night), I can say this: out of all of the young-adult novel adaptations out there, this, like The Hunger Games, is one of the better ones. It's a very fun movie that also is great at world-building. You want to know what's beyond the maze, which is one of a few questions both asked and answered here, with many more to be answered later.