KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD Review

I like Guy Ritchie, I like his style, and I enjoy his approach to storytelling. The writer/director understands the unique ways in which one can convey something as simple as a montage and how such interpretive change can alter the reception and/or investment of an audience in something as simple as a montage. If you've seen any of Ritchie's s previous films, such as Snatch, RocknRolla, or either of the two Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes adventures, then you'll certainly recognize the marks of the director in his latest film; another re-telling of the King Arthur story. It was inevitable the legend of Arthur and his knights of the roundtable would eventually get their own gritty re-boot, but when it was announced Ritchie would be the one bringing said gritty reboot to the big screen the trend all of a sudden didn't feel so tired. Too bad we spoke too soon for despite the fact Ritchie gets a director, co-writer, and producer credit on this $175 million flick-it reeks of studio intervention and countless pacing issues due to as much. Before we get too far into this though, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword isn't an outright train wreck and has some rather inspired and interesting moments whether that be in character and set design, some of the performances, or of course the notable editing and inventive storytelling. Still, at the end of the day, this is a film whose parts are greater than its (overlong) summation and unfortunately that leaves a rather forgettable taste. Bland. Bland is the word I'm looking for. And while one might have advised Ritchie and the gang against rebooting a brand name no one seemed to be particularly interested in (the last incarnation of King Arthur came just over a decade ago and only delivered $200 million worldwide) there was always that hope Ritchie might put enough of a directorial stamp on the material that this new version might come to be more than justified. There are hints of Ritchie's British blue collar mentality and sense of humor that pop up throughout that hint at what could have been, a medieval Lock, Stock if you will, but more often than not King Arthur: Legend of the Sword becomes a bloated, CGI-fest that is more hollow spectacle than engaging character drama.

VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN Review

The first thing that took me by surprise concerning Victor Frankenstein was it's soundtrack. Of course, it could have been any number of things-the artificial environments of the early 1800's or the horribly arrogant narration dialogue Daniel Radcliffe was given that makes his Igor more irritating than endearing. But of course, as opposed to those last two things the soundtrack made me optimistic we might actually be in for something of a treat here. Chris Morgan's score, while traditionally orchestral, has a distinctive flavor to it at least in the early scenes. There is something almost wholly fantastical to it that suggests it may bring the darkness of this story a new layer of marvel and fun that has always been interpreted more along the lines of dark and grimly serious. Even the arrival of James McAvoy's titular character elicits something of a magical moment and whether or not this is due purely to the recognition factor or not, Morgan's score elevates this instant to something that instinctively elicits actual excitement. These optimistic thoughts could only prevail for so long though as Victor Frankenstein quickly devolves into a by the numbers retelling of the Frankenstein story that we've seen numerous times before. There are hints here and there of the script wanting to pull out more caveats of our core characters origin stories as it does in the beginning, but given we all know how things end up it seems screenwriter Max Landis (Chronicle, American Ultra) felt he had nowhere else to go and thus ultimately delivers exactly what we expect rather than subverting those expectations and giving us something new to chew on and ponder. We've heard it all before and despite a hugely credible cast as well as Landis spearheading the project there ultimately seems no need for it. With each incarnation of this story the question will always be what new or original aspect can be brought to the table and if there is nothing new to bring then why tell it again at all?

First Trailer for VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN Starring Daniel Radcliffe

There are a few things concerning this latest incarnation of the Frankenstein story that have me interested despite my better judgement telling me it doesn't have much chance of being good. The first two factors are that of leads James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliffe. Despite the fact actors have little influence over the final product, both of these guys tend to choose projects they're legitimately drawn to rather than simply for the sake of having a possible hit to their name. It doesn't hurt that screenwriter Max Landis (Chronicle) is behind the script for this one either. There is of course the look of the film that paints it as another ugly cousin to the likes of I, Frankenstein or Dracula Untold, but I can only hope that director Paul McGuigan (Sherlock) is only employing this aesthetic for the sake of the time period while utilizing the rather above-par factors that are his actors to convey something new and fresh. As Hollywood is virtually unable to leave properties alone these days the least we can hope for is some kind of twist or interesting take on the material and that seems to be the basis for this production. The trailer focuses in on the relationship between Dr. Frankenstein (McAvoy) and his faithful assistant Igor (Radcliffe) which could turn out to be fun as it's clear the two actors have a nice rapport in the introduction for the International trailer. If nothing else, the film will at least clarify to a few generations that Frankenstein is the the name of the scientist who brought the monster to life rather than the monster himself. Victor Frankenstein opens on November 25th and also stars Jessica Brown Findlay, Andrew Scott, and Freddie Fox.