Swords, stones & geezers.

I think it’s fair to say Guy Ritchie’s career has been a mixed bag. After exploding out of the gates with the one-two punch of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch; things soon turned sour with a string of critical and financial failures that saw Ritchie’s star rapidly fall. The cockney shtick and visual bravado that had initially charmed so many, were beginning to grate with audiences and, as the British gangster genre began to collapse in on itself, so too did the director’s career.

When the news dropped, therefore, that Warner Bros. had handed hired Guy Ritchie front their big budget revamp of Sherlock Holmes, the collective sound of jaws hitting floors was positively deafening. Not only was it a bold left field career move for Ritchie to shift from his gangster comfort zone into blockbuster territory, but it exhibited an admirable level of faith on the studio’s part in a director whose best years were seemingly behind him.

Critical and financial success duly followed and, as things finally began to look up, it became clear that, like all great directors, Ritchie had to push himself creatively to retain relevance. 2015’s The Man from U.N.C.L.E. felt like a consolidation of this bold new direction but, even then, when the announcement came that he’d be taking on the legend of King Arthur - swords, stones, round tables, and all – people’s already raised eyebrows were elevated to new heights. Ritchie is clearly revelling in undermining expectations, but this surely had to be a stretch too far? Does the Excalibur myth particularly want or need the Guy Ritchie treatment? In short, not really.

When Arthur’s father is murdered brutally murdered during a coup, his power-hungry uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) seizes control of the crown. As Vortigern’s iron grip tightens on his kingdom, Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) is left to raise himself on the cruel streets of Londimium. Robbed of his birth right and with no idea of his true identity, Arthur rapidly develops into a skilled fighter and a man of the city, but when circumstances lead him afoul of the authorities, he’s forced to flee. It doesn’t take long, however, before he’s accosted and ordered to pull a mysterious sword from a stone. Succeeding where many have failed, Arthur removes the sword but, upon doing so, his life is quickly turned upside down. However, in order to wield a weapon of Excalibur’s magnitude, Arthur must recognise his true legacy, whether he likes it or not.

Before diving head-first into the films many problems, there’s one thing about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword that’s absolutely beyond question – for better or worse, this is every inch a Guy Ritchie film. From the swirling camerawork to the stop-start editing to the stylised dialogue, the director’s fingerprints are all over the King Arthur and it all adds up to an utterly bizarre, yet wholly unique viewing experience. After 2004’s rather straight-laced take on the Arthurian legend, and with waning public demand for the subject, you can certainly understand the desire to bring a fresh approach to the tired fable and, if nothing else, Ritchie’s King Arthur is certainly different. But, while I’m sure handing Guy Ritchie the keys to Camelot felt like the right move at the time, the end result is a rather uncomfortable and confused mess.

Awkward and incoherent, the film’s tone never quite feels right and, while the action sequences are impressive, utilising the full range of the director’s signature techniques, not much else is. While the action bares all of Guy Ritchie’s hallmarks, unfortunately so does everything else, as the film’s woefully out of place mockney dialogue and inappropriate East End gangsterisms lead to some truly toe-curling moments.

After the initial fun of the Lord of the Rings-aping opening scenes (complete with giant CGI elephant monsters, naturally), things swiftly settle into classic Guy Ritchie territory with a sequence involving Arthur and mates that feels as if the cast were sent an early draft of the Snatch script by mistake. The convoluted banter between characters like Wet Stick, Back Lack and Jack’s Eye would feel far more at home in a back-street Mile End boozer than an ancient, mythical realm and the resultant mishmash of writing style and location just feels wholly unnecessary.

As the film’s star, Charlie Hunnam certainly looks the part; possessing the necessary stature and action man swagger to befit a blockbuster of this size, but it’s long before he ends up weighed down by the leaden script. Clearly giving it his all, Hunnam never truly convinces as Arthur Pendragon and his incompatibility with the role isn’t helped by some terrible writing as the actor never appears convinced by the lines he’s been fed.

Underdeveloped and awkward, Arthur’s poor writing serves to undermine the character’s bravado at every turn, leading to a rather underwhelming portrayal of such a legendary figure. With his work on Sons of Anarchy, Hunnam clearly has it within him to make it as a leading man but he clearly requires the right material to complement his style, something King Arthur continually fails to provide.

Conversely, Jude Law appears to be revelling in his role as the hilariously reprehensible Vortigern. As he chews every inch of scenery, Law at least seems attune to the King Arthur’s inherent silliness and, while his dialogue is as terrible as the rest, he nonetheless owns it. As a delightfully pantomime Claudius, Vortigern is perhaps the only aspect of Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur that makes a lick of sense and, it’s through Law’s game approach to such a ridiculous villain that the film manages to find some footing amidst the whirlwind of cockney nonsense.

Love him or loathe him, Guy Ritchie is one of the few true auteurs left in Hollywood but, while this filmmaking independence is commendable, it means he must take ultimate responsibility for the mess at hand. Having auteurist ambitions in such a risk-averse industry is no easy trick to pull off, but the difference between Richie and a contemporary like Danny Boyle, for example, is his distinct lack of self-awareness. There’s a stubborn, inflexible streak to Ritchie’s filmmaking that feels completely unwilling to bend to a particular tone or genre and it’s in this bullish insistence on forcing his style upon any film that comes his way, that continually lets King Arthur down.

The attempt to reinvigorate the legend of King Arthur is undoubtedly a bold move on both the director and studio’s part, but when you live by the sword, you must die by it and when your film clearly hasn’t worked on any level, serious questions need asking. With Ritchie’s live-action remake of Aladdin approaching on the horizon, it’s suddenly looking a tad iffy for the director once again and, if another career meltdown is to be avoided, a little restraint and stylistic flexibility may be in order.

As noble a venture as it is and despite Jude Law’s wonderfully camp villainous turn, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a mess on almost all fronts. With direction, writing, character, and tone all missing their target by some considerable distance, the film is a wholly unsatisfactory viewing experience from start to finish. With Guy Ritchie so eager to force his style upon any movie he can get his hands on, the director has produced a film that really shouldn’t work and unequivocally doesn’t. No matter how hard he tries, the ‘geezers and guns’ approach that served Ritchie so well in his early career, just doesn’t compute with the mystical legend of King Arthur and the final result ends up packing all the punch of Monty Python and the Holy Grail’s Black Knight…with absolutely none of the fighting spirit.