Big Picture Big Sound

"King Arthur" is a CGI Disaster

"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" offers both Arthur and a sword, as the title might suggest, but the movie is not too worried about being steeped in the classic tale's well-known mythology. Guy Ritchie's interpretation of "King Arthur" is not going to be shown in middle school history classes anytime soon - not even on those fun half days when the substitute teacher might be convinced to lighten up a little, kick back and put on a movie.

This is very much a Guy Ritchie film - for better, but mostly, for worse. Ritchie's vision has the story and character guzzling Monster energy drinks and about a half-dozen protein shakes. All of that would be fine, a new fresh take on the story, if "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" wasn't the worst kind of movie. Hollow and soulless, Ritchie throws every bit of CGI at the screen with the hope of generating any kind of excitement or attraction but he fails in his mission every step of the way.

We get brief glimpses into Arthur as a child (which makes me nervous this is constructed as some kind of origin story and we might see more on this topic from Ritchie) but the director is eager to bring us to his adult life. The adult version of the titular character is played by Charlie Hunnam, who roams the backstreets of London without much purpose. He is later tasked with avenging the death of King Uther (Eric Bana), who perished at the hands of the evil Vortigern (Jude Law). Oh, he gets that shiny sword along the way, too.

The cast does what it can with the empty screenplay by Ritchie and co-writers Joby Harold and Lionel Wigram. Hunnam, who delivered a consistently impressive performance and arc on "Sons of Anarchy," is striving to be the next big action star but continues to attach himself to projects that require no range whatsoever. His brows are furrowed and he's hungry for revenge, but there's not much more to this Arthur.

"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is Ritchie's ninth feature film as a director and he has picked up a moderate cult following along the way (I would guess that is thanks to his earlier work including, "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch"). His "Sherlock Holmes" films have been popular and it looks like he is aiming for another hit with his latest outing.

It's perplexing to try to determine who this movie is aimed at because it has so little to offer anyone. If your movie diet consists of mostly action films, you may want to look elsewhere. While "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword," is not without excitement or compelling action, it's akin to watching someone play a video game for over two hours. There's nothing here to immerse you in Ritchie's world that is unique or compelling; the visuals are garish and borderline on chintzy. There was never a point I felt I was transported like good movies have the ability to do - I always knew I was watching a green screen, with cardboard cutouts of characters superimposed on a digitally created background.

Worst of all, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is just boring. Flat-out boring. If you're going to make a movie which relies heavily on CGI and action, it's a major disservice to your audience to do so as blandly as it is done here.