By Mica Wilhite
Director, producer, and screenwriter Guy Ritchie answers the question about why we like Arthur by saying, “He knows how to straddle the line between being hungry without being corrupted by that hunger.”
Indeed, the classic twelfth century story of King Arthur is legendary. Tracing its roots back to the Arthurian literary cycle in “Matter of Britain,” its scripts the quest for two majestic ideals: Camelot and the Holy Grail.
But another question could be posed about of the age old tale: do we really need another movie about King Arthur? While Madonna’s ex-husband clearly said yes to that inquiry, the results following the May 12th release of this twenty-first century cinematic retelling of the story would argue no.
The film is intended to be the first of a six-film series. Ritchie says he wanted to bring the story to a contemporary audience portraying a street fighter style Arthur. Later installments plan to build on this origin story and continue to fill out the legend of Arthur and Excalibur for a new generation of young viewers.
So far, though, “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” has fallen on its sword at the box office with only $15 million in receipts after burning up a $175 million production budget. The film focuses too much on visual effects while leaving out the essential literary elements that make the story so enduring.
“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (126 minutes) is showing at the Marshall Cinema with a PG-13 rating for action, violence, and language. Call (903) 935-5662 or visit www. Jimplecute1848.com for a full list of show times. Then consider planning to see it if you must. However, a repeat viewing of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” will yield a higher entertainment ROI for your time.
Do you enjoy movies? Would you like to write movie reviews for the Jimplecute? Contact us at Jimplecute1848@ gmail.com
(Please contact us today for a print or email subscription to the Jefferson Jimplecute! — (903) 665-2462, JIMPLECUTE1848@GMAIL.COM)