Sometimes the simplest movies can offer the most profound life lessons. The new movie Arthur the King, starring the devoutly Catholic Mark Wahlberg, is a prime example: it turns a true-life story of a man and a dog into a tale that teaches viewers about against-all-odds inspiration and the incredible value that God places on even the most downtrodden.
The movie follows the story of Michael Light (Wahlberg), who is a die-hard competitor in adventure racing in some of the roughest terrain on the planet. Adventure racing is a sport that goes way beyond Iron Man triathlons that focus on running, biking and swimming to include climbing, kayaking and, in this case, the most nerve-wracking zip-lining you can imagine.
Michael has never managed to become #1 in the world, and his consistent Top Ten finishes for his teams tear at his confidence and spirit. After a 2015 race in Costa Rica in which he and his team wound up getting their kayak hopelessly stuck in mud, his team member Leo (Simu Liu) humiliates him worldwide with embarrassing videos of their predicament across social media.
Mike tries to leave the sport behind and settle into working as a realtor for his father, but he feels utterly crushed–especially as he considers his father’s much-heralded military past. Three years later, he convinces his wife to let him try again; he sets out looking for sponsors to cover the great expense of travel and training for his four-person team en route to the Dominican Republic for the latest race.
They only manage to get half the budget they’d hoped for, but the team vows to make the most of it. But while they’re getting ready to kick off the race, viewers are also shown a bedraggled dog living without love and human care on city streets in the nation’s capitol.
Michael and his team, which also includes navigator Chick (Ali Suliman) and Olivia (Nathalie Emmanuel), an expert free climber whose dad is dying of cancer, run into difficulties at nearly every stage of the race. Yet Michael is also noticing that the dog is improbably appearing everywhere they go, from lowlands to mountaintops.
When the dog saves them from a harrowing near-disaster, Michael decides to adopt the dog as a team member and names him Arthur the King. As they race against time, endurance and past injuries, Arthur provides inspiration again and again.
Arthur the King was reportedly shot using no CGI special effects, which makes its most dangerous segments utterly astonishing. Director Simon Cellan Jones particularly stuns with a sequence in which the racers zipline far above the jungle while having their bicycles strapped to their bodies.
When Olivia gets stuck and dangles for dear life, Michael has to figure out a way to save her—and it sucks viewers into feeling the danger at hand. As a diehard fan of the “Mission: Impossible” series, this scene is more impressive than anything I can recall in that series.
I don’t want to give away any of the other many impressive action sequences, but the movie has some downsides. At 93 minutes, the movie could easily have added 15 to 20 more minutes to allow more needed character development and maybe an idea of how Arthur keeps miraculously showing up.
But perhaps the real-life Michael had no idea where Arthur came from either, and its guiding presence may very well have been a miracle of God and a stirring example of God’s providence and gentle hand on our lives at our most troubled times.
While Arthur isn’t a classic (more on its weak spots in a moment), it sticks with you when it’s over. The next morning as I tried to discern the film’s messages, I realized that this tale of love between man and animal is a reminder of St. Francis of Assisi’s devotion to animals and the profound way that God has bonded humans and canines throughout history.
Arthur also reminds us to keep our eyes, hearts, and spirits open to helping and showing love to the most downtrodden in society. Scenes that reveal the sad and lonely life that Arthur has endured before meeting Michael are very touching.
As mentioned, the movie has a few problems. Aside from Wahlberg and Liu, the human cast is one-note–a fault that lies with screenwriter Michael Brandt (adapting a memoir by the real-life Michael, Swedish racer Mikael Lindnord). Too much of the race is also described rather than shown, with over-the-top exposition from a TV sports announcer.
At the end, the movie shows a strong family that lovingly engages in prayer together. But there is one red flag that, unfortunately, is all too common in Wahlberg’s movies: foul language. There are some uses of strong vulgarity and other milder swearing throughout.
Arthur the King bombed at the box office upon its debut last weekend, but audiences (as of this writing) have given it an extremely rare and amazing favorable rating of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. Just like Arthur the dog himself, this overlooked movie is beloved by those who give it a chance.
If you don’t catch it in theatres, make sure you bring this lovable dog story into your home when it streams later.
• Related at CWR: “I like to do things that inspire people to dig a bit deeper.” Mark Wahlberg talks about acting, family, faith and his new film (March 14, 2024) by Kathy Schiffer
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
With respect (and agreement) with the author of the critique about using bad language, I have to say that since I converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, I hear more “bad language” from Catholics than I ever did from Evangelical Protestants. I was raised to think that even saying “darn” was swearing (they called it “wooden swearing”. However, I think that the use of bad language is in the movie to make it more believable to a mainly non-Christian and probably older audience. (From the description, little children would probably find this movie frightening.) I think they would hoot and jeer if the characters used expletives like, “Oh, fudge!” “Rats!” and “Phooey!”.
Those are very good points, thanks for reading!
Thanks for that preview of this movie. I saw the promos and, since we like MW, wondered if it was good. The one thing we know about the movies he seems to be in is that he uses a lot of foul language. Some of them, it is over the top, to the point of being ridiculous – the “f” word in every sentence, sometimes more than once. I’m old enough and have been around enough not to be offended by that sort of thing but it makes me laugh when I see that he and his handlers present him as a wholesome family man. Chances are, he is more like that in life than he portrays in his roles but if I still had young sons, I would think twice before using him as a role model.
“While Arthur isn’t a classic … it sticks with you when it’s over.”
I’ve been watching movies for most of my nearly nine decades, and I’m still not sure what constitutes a “classic”. But I absolutely know what makes a film memorable, that carries a strong life lesson and bears watching again..and again. “Arthur The King” nails it, box office — pfft!