The COARD: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

The COARD kicks into gear with our second film on this summer's slate. King Arthur, one of the oldest legends in existence, gets another Hollywood reboot. Led by Charlie Hunnam and directed by Guy Ritchie, this film goes back to the beginning to tell its own version of Arthur's rise to kingship. We shall start with the non-spoilery parts of the film and give you ample warning before entering into the Darklands, aka spoilers.

Cody: Now this, this is what summer blockbusters are all about. Two hours of pure adrenaline and action! I give this a firm B-. It was not close to perfect, but it did just enough good things to stay respectable. I don't believe I'm straying too close to spoilers to say this film kicked off with a fantastic action sequence paired with a thrilling opening score. It's time to admit something. We totally blew it on haikus this week. One could argue that it's entirely my fault, but this is a partnership. Where I am at fault, Roy is at fault. Anyway, had we written the haikus, I would have painted a picture of strong apprehension. I went into this expecting it to be either bad or really bad. The first few minutes proved I had been worried for nothing. Guy Ritchie kept the pace up from minute one, and I was just along for the ride. Sometimes movies in this mold can lull and get bogged down in trying to build a story. One of the best compliments I can pay King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is that it did not feel like two hours. Time just breezed right by as I enjoyed one action packed scene after another. The only thing in between the action was solid banter between key characters. I'm surprised, but pleased, to say I enjoyed this one.

"I wonder how long it will take me to respect myself again?" 

Roy: Yeeeeahh... The haikus. This was totally my week to get the ball rolling and it never materialized. My haiku was going to paint a clever picture how there was no way this would live up to Monty Python's version of Arthur Pendragon. From the trailer it looked like this story wasn't going to stay too close to the famous legend. Which isn't a surprise. We have had three modern day re-tellings of this tale and all three had significant problems. Let's begin with Excalibur. If you've seen it I don't have to remind you that it definitely took some early 80s liberties. Then we have First Knight where Richard Gere plays a long haired Sir Lancelot. I think that proves my point. Lastly, we have the Clive Owen and Keira Knightly's laughable attempt in King Arthur. The largest shared problem with the last two attempts at this story is magic was left out of them entirely. How can you tell the tale of King Arthur and just ignore the magical foundation? Guy Ritchie did not make this mistake. That being said, if you go to Arthur expecting a carefully crafted re-telling, you will be completely disappointed. Ritchie took the foundation of this story and re-imagined it, with all of the devices that one would expect from a Ritchie movie. It totally worked. The dialogue was snappy, it was well cast and acted, and most importantly the story was interesting. I kept expecting it to be predictable. These sorcery and sword tales follow a familiar formula. However King Arthur kept making unexpected left hand turns. Just when I thought I knew what plot device was coming next, the story moved forward in an unexpected way. It was refreshing. You will hear many negative things about this movie. Words like "flop" and any other adjective that explains how much money this film lost. It may even be tied to that three syllable word Hollywood won't even utter at night when it's alone.... Waterworld. But I never understood Hollywood's aversion to that film either. Don't get me wrong, it had its problems, much like King Arthur does. But neither film deserved the shellacking it got or is in the process of getting now.

Cody: We here at The COARD are certainly capable of our fair share of pretentiousness; however, we're also not afraid to have fun. That's the problem with most critics, they're afraid to have a little fun. Well that, and that they're all sheep. Once one has decided a movie is trash, they all fall in line. Don't succumb to their high brow opinions. As Roy stated, this is clearly the best of the King Arthur movies over the last three plus decades. Guy Ritchie does deserve most of the credit for making this an enjoyable ride, but my favorite part of the whole thing was the score. I already stated that it sucked me in immediately, and it did not let up from there. It does follow some cliche action/adventure themes (e.g. heavy drumming). I'm willing to look past that if you can pull me in with other unique additions. Daniel Pemberton has 115 IMDb composer credits, and I've somehow seen exactly zero. The vast majority are TV shorts and documentaries, but still. This guy is on my radar now. I really hope this movie ends up breaking even/making a little money. It doesn't deserve to be a complete flop (unlike that eye roll worthy film that Roy so recklessly brought up). I liked it enough that I would even give it a second watch on Blu-ray one day. I'm not sure why our opinions have to be so much better than everyone else in the cinema world. They just are. It's a heavy burden we carry, Roy. A heavy burden.

Roy: You Cody Potter, are a smug, little man. Fine.... You've successfully baited me. Let's talk flops. First of all, Waterworld definitely deserved better than you rolling your eyes at it. It's biggest mistake? Being 10 years or more ahead of its time. If that movie was released today it would have gotten such a big pass for its environmental message even though it never really had one to begin with. However, it would be viewed as an "important film" because of the polar ice caps completely melting. And here is the secret no one likes to talk about. Waterworld made money. You heard me correctly. It did pretty well overseas and ended up 29 million in the black. Kevin Costner's next foray into the post-apocalyptic world did not go so well. If we adjust for inflation The Postman lost 104 million dollars. But guess what? I like that one too. It has an interesting premise and it's Costner. It also didn't deserve its bad reputation. If we begin going down the list of biggest flops of all time we see a miraid of movies that should have never been made. Let's play a quick game. I always wonder how movies like the ones on the following list get out of the pitch meeting. I am going to give the tag line that I like to imagine closed the deal.

John Carter - "It's Tim Riggins fighting Martians! Mars Forever!"
Jupiter Ascending - "It'll be great! We're going to give Channing Tatum elf ears and cool space roller blades!"
The Adventures of Pluto Nash - "It's Eddie Murphy! How big of a miss can it be?"
The Lone Ranger - "Think Captain Jack Sparrow. But Native American Captain Jack Sparrow. Also he makes clicking noises to his horse."
47 Ronin - "Keanue Reeves as a white Samurai. It worked for Tom Cruise?"

Here is my point. King Arthur absolutely does not deserve to be listed next to these movies. Cody was right. It was fun.

And with that, we enter the badlands. The place where all young knights must go to forget who they were and become who they were born to be. Or something like that. The scene was pretty rushed, okay. Anyway, spoilers!

This would have been way cooler if the lion was building sized

Cody: I have a confession. I totally would have signed off on Tim Riggins fighting Martians if I was a studio executive. We all have our blind spots. A lot of little moments in King Arthur stood out to me, more than any big spoilerific themes. I've said a lot of good things about this movie, now it's time to bring up something that I didn't like. It brings me great pleasure to welcome the return of deus ex animal! For those of you paying attention, Tarzan last summer was rife with deus ex animal moments, so much so that it ruined the whole thing for me. Thankfully, King Arthur didn't overdo it, but it couldn't get by without one such moment. Blue was captured, Arthur has to turn himself over to Vortigern, and hope is no where to be found. Enter a 50 foot mage controlled viper! Honestly, deus ex machina, or my so cleverly named deus ex animal, happens all the time in movies like this, so while I rolled my eyes, I'm not holding it too seriously against it. I'm just happy it was an insanely large animal that did it. Good show, I say!

Roy: Apparently no one is allowed to have a carefully crafted plan involving animals without Cody crying deus ex animal. Has anyone seen Cody ever play fetch with his dog? Let me answer that for you. No. Because he spends most of his time scolding his dog for catching and returning the frisbee because the frisbee is unable to find its own way back to his hand. Look, I could go over the disappointing aspects of this movie. Because there were moments were things felt unnecessary or could have been explained more thoroughly. But the good moments out shined the bad. And this movie is getting enough bad press without us piling on. One aspect I liked in particular was Charlie Hunnam's portrayal of King Arthur. If there is one thing we know Hunnam can do, it's wrestle with a destiny that he feels burdened by. He did this to great effect in the seven season of Sons of Anarchy. However it wasn't just Arthur's struggle to accept his future that I enjoyed. After Arthur defeats uncle Vortigern and has been declared King of the Britons, he can be found sitting at a table with his boys. He's not on a throne or a dais. He's at a table. Some of his boys are sitting on said table, some have their feet up. It was a small touch that I enjoyed very much. It tells us that Arthur is not changing who he is. At his core he's a man who just wants to enjoy life with those closest to him. There's no reason being a king should get in the way of that.

Cody: Until a giant crocodile shows up and eats them all! I'm just assuming... What we really learned is that it is always good to have the mage on your side. And a weird underwater lady ghost who forces you to fulfill your destiny after you throw your magical sword away like a little pansy. But mostly the mage helped. Charlie Hunnam really did make the movie, though. So much so that I might even consider one day trying Sons of Anarchy, which would make Roy's head explode. Of course I would rather just see him in King Arthur 2: Legend of the Crocodile Who Ate the Round Table, but you take what you can get.

King Arthur or Jax Teller? Both. The answer is both.

Roy: I've made a few mistakes in my life that continue to haunt me. I'm no different than any other man I suppose. One of these mistakes was initially over selling Sons of Anarchy to Cody. He was already borderline turned off because he hates motorcycles. And fun. Eventually this game has become a staring contest that Cody is having with himself. He likes good TV. And he acknowledges that he has a Sons of Anarchy gap. Charlie Hunnam can help our cause by continuing to perform well in the good roles he's getting. Eventually Cody will crack. Unfortunately, Hollywood probably won't. So don't expect a sequel to King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Which is more of a bummer than any number of Sons of Anarchy spoilers I could throw out there but won't. I refuse to help Cody win his staring contest.