Are you talkin’ to me?
A film column by Jamie Hill
There are some films that you just have to ‘get’. I remember 16 years ago sitting down and watching Baz Luhrman’s Moulin Rouge and for the first ten minutes you’re kind of thinking ‘what the hell am I watching?’ and then suddenly it clicks and you’re into it. And the rest is just brilliant. Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur is like that. You either ‘get’ what the film-maker is trying to do or you don’t. And I know Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur isn’t going to be to everybody’s taste. In fact in the screening I went to on a Saturday night in Swindon there were at least two couples who didn’t ‘get’ it and simply walked out. (This is something I’ve never understood. I’ve seen plenty of awful films, ‘Immortals’ with Mickey Rourke dressed as Mr Crabs being the immediate one that springs to mind, but I’ve never walked out of anything especially having taken out a small mortgage to be in the cinema in the first place. This comfy seat in a darkened room is mine for two hours and I paid for it.) I can understand the frustration. Especially if you’re expecting a high fantasy romance film full of the dramatics of the world of King Arthur with clanking knights honorably going about doing honorable things like saving damsels in distress. This isn’t that. In fact this film has more in common with ‘Snatch’ and ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ than any King Arthur film before. And it doesn’t take itself too seriously at all. This film is one of the most curious films of modern times - a truly original bit of cinema that is about as ridiculous as a bit of movie-making can get. And when I say ridiculous I mean ridiculous. They’ve got giant bloody elephants for one thing. It’s probably the most ridiculous King Arthur film since Monty Python’s Holy Grail. Let’s just say that if you’re expecting anything half serious this film is not for you. This film has humour in spades and is about as tongue in cheek as you can get. And I loved it. Alright, it has its flaws. Charlie Hunnam being one. He might have made a great hell’s angel in Sons of Anarchy but a cheeky chappie Cockney King Arthur maybe not. He looks the part and although he’s game he does seem to stumble over some of Ritchie’s fast-talking script. But with a supporting cast of people who know what they’re doing this slight weakness can be easily overlooked. Look out for the ever brilliant Neil Maskell as Back Lack. You might remember him from Utopia and Kill List and although his part is small he really does lend a bit of emotional heft to proceedings. Jude Law as the villain is simply fantastic to watch. He’s sinister, power-mad, and psychotic. Just what you want in a good villain. At times, and this is a criticism of a lot of Ritchie’s films, there was just too much going on and it can be a tad confusing. And the less said about David Beckham’s cameo the better. But these are minor flaws for what was a relentlessly ridiculous romp of a movie. There’s been a bit of a backlash against this film already with newspapers and websites proclaiming it to be a bomb even before its UK release. Although that is more to do with the studio’s decision to give it a global release a week before the UK one, which is really its home audience being King Arthur and Ritchie, meaning it went up against the behemoth of the rather good Guardians of the Galaxy Two. But newspapers and websites like a failure so don’t expect it to stop anytime soon. Critically, Ritchie’s films have never done too well, sometimes deservedly so, with the director having to face a lot of snobbery out there from film writers who simply don’t like his kind of bombast but forget that this type of film-making isn’t meant to be high art but entertainment. And entertaining it certainly is. But, for me, it was gloriously ridiculous. Leave your serious side at the door. Expect silliness and just smile and enjoy. King Arthur as a Cockney gangster film. Brilliant. All that was missing was a bit of Jason Statham and this would have been the perfect Ritchie film.