Let's be clear: this contains very few aspects of the actual Arthur legend. They probably should have just gone for a wacky original medieval fantasy film instead. That being said, I didn't expect Ritchie's style to work this well here. And he hasn't been this crazy since Snatch. Some montages are so breathless, fast and innovative as far as editing and soundtrack go, it's a pleasure. Sure, the plot follows the genre conventions more or less, and the finale is a bit heavy on CGI. On the other hand the assassination attempt sequence is fantastic and the portrayal of magic pretty cool. Hell, I had fun with this.
968 Reviews
Great fantasy adventure
masonsaul31 March 2021
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a great fantasy adventure that's stylish and funny with a fresh and interesting take on the King Arthur mythos. Charlie Hunnam gives an incredible and extremely charismatic lead performance. Djimon Hounsou and Aidan Gillen are both great and Jude Law is a terrific villiain. Guy Richtie's direction is fantastic, combining his classic trademarks and style with a grander scale. The music by Daniel Pemberton is amazing. However, it's brought down by some poor CG but it's impressive for the most part.
Game of Thrones + Lord of the Rings story lines with Snatch + Lock Stock dialogues and editing
ngkos11 May 2017
Will keep it short and simple. If you don't get/understand the (British) humour (i.e you don't think the jokes are funny), dialogue and fast "flashbacky" editing style presented in Lock Stock and Snatch, you will hate this movie. Easy as that. For us who understand what constitutes a Ritchie movie will be more likely than not, like the movie.
An Entertaining Adaptation of King Arthur & Excalibur Sword
MichaelNontonMulu11 May 2017
Wow, this is one heck of a movie. I was overwhelmed with some of the scenes, especially the fighting scenes in the beginning, the middle and also in the end. There was a wonderful opening credit scene which I felt was very awesome. It lasted probably only 5 minutes but it really impressed me. And, the movie also had some brief parts which were fun to see, like the scene when Arthur was telling the story about the Vikings. Out of the whole fighting scenes, the one that I enjoyed most was in the middle which I felt was rather breathtaking and having an ultimate amazing ending.
Apart from the cool action sequences, the movie also had some dramatic moments and surprises. I really think that the way Guy Ritchie directed this movie made it very enjoyable. I did feel some similarities with other movies that he directed like the 2009 Sherlock Holmes movie and its sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows in 2011, especially in the part of using pieces of flash backs to explain something.
I think the special effects to the movie was very good, which should not be a surprise considering it has a USD 175 million budget. My only worry is with such hefty budget, it may not be having a large profit since the movie itself might not appeal to some hardline fans of the folklore of King Arthur, Excalibur, mages and so on, due to the rather unusual way of story telling. Some people might also feel that the movie lacks the cruelty & violence of a medieval era war kind of movie such as Kingdom of Heaven or Game of Thrones TV series. For my personal view though, this movie was just nice since its attraction is certainly on the way the story being told, and again, its fighting sequence.
The sound effects of the movie were very good. Some background music truly gave extra sense of suspense or sadness and so on. The duration of 2 hours was just perfect to me, and I honestly felt there was no dull moment. There was no post-credit scene for you to wait, except if you enjoy listening to the soundtrack song & music. Before I forgot, there was a cameo appearance of the popular soccer player David Beckham. Let's see if you noticed him.
So for those who want to enjoy a nice action adventure film in the medieval period with some sword and sorcery plus the background of King Arthur with the knights of the round table, then you would definitely enjoy this one (especially if you are a fan of Guy Ritchie's works). Now if you are not a fan of this kind of movie or you prefer a more bloody/violent movie, then perhaps this one would be a bit soft.
For my complete review, pls have a look at michaelnontonmulu.blogspot.co.id
Apart from the cool action sequences, the movie also had some dramatic moments and surprises. I really think that the way Guy Ritchie directed this movie made it very enjoyable. I did feel some similarities with other movies that he directed like the 2009 Sherlock Holmes movie and its sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows in 2011, especially in the part of using pieces of flash backs to explain something.
I think the special effects to the movie was very good, which should not be a surprise considering it has a USD 175 million budget. My only worry is with such hefty budget, it may not be having a large profit since the movie itself might not appeal to some hardline fans of the folklore of King Arthur, Excalibur, mages and so on, due to the rather unusual way of story telling. Some people might also feel that the movie lacks the cruelty & violence of a medieval era war kind of movie such as Kingdom of Heaven or Game of Thrones TV series. For my personal view though, this movie was just nice since its attraction is certainly on the way the story being told, and again, its fighting sequence.
The sound effects of the movie were very good. Some background music truly gave extra sense of suspense or sadness and so on. The duration of 2 hours was just perfect to me, and I honestly felt there was no dull moment. There was no post-credit scene for you to wait, except if you enjoy listening to the soundtrack song & music. Before I forgot, there was a cameo appearance of the popular soccer player David Beckham. Let's see if you noticed him.
So for those who want to enjoy a nice action adventure film in the medieval period with some sword and sorcery plus the background of King Arthur with the knights of the round table, then you would definitely enjoy this one (especially if you are a fan of Guy Ritchie's works). Now if you are not a fan of this kind of movie or you prefer a more bloody/violent movie, then perhaps this one would be a bit soft.
For my complete review, pls have a look at michaelnontonmulu.blogspot.co.id
Not the type of movie Guy Ritchie should make.
deloudelouvain8 September 2018
Guy Ritchie should stick at what he's best at. Movies like Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Rocknrolla. Those are the style movies he should make and not one about King Arthur. King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is a big budget movie, no doubt about that, with alot of effort with the special effects, CGI's, costumes and extras. But the problem is the story and the acting. The story is just weak, and sometimes makes no sense at all. Even with all the special effects, that are nicely shot, it still remains boring to watch. The acting was just mediocre, it looked like they were reading their script all the time. Charlie Hunnam can only play Jax, his character in Sons Of Anarchy. I was literally waiting for him to step on his bike and drive away. I don't know what women see in him, his acting is very monotone and average. The acting of Astrid Bergès-Frisbey playing The Mage was also just mediocre. It looked all fake, just like the whole story. With such a high budget you would expect quality, but besides the filming and the special effects it's just below average. Disappointment!
It's King Arthur through Guy Ritchie's filters
Ramascreen9 May 2017
The biggest problem with #KingArthur #LegendOfTheSword is that it puts more emphasis on trying to be a Guy Ritchie superhero film than it is about King Arthur. I understand that mythically, Arthur's sword supposedly bears powers of its own, but this films makes its effects work the same way spinach boosts Popeye's strength. Another problem is that instead of watching a movie, some of the time it feels more like you're watching "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor" video game walkthrough.
Charlie Hunnam stars as the born king, Arthur whose father is murdered as Arthur's uncle, Vortigern (Jude Law) seizes the crown. The film traces Arthur's journey from the brothel life all the way to the throne. Robbed of his birthright, Arthur pulls the sword from the stone and finds himself become the king's threat number one.
At the very least, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" does have a clear story, so this is not as messy or as incoherent as a Zack Snyder presentation by any stretch of the imagination. And if you're a die hard Guy Ritchie fan, this too carries his usual brute montage style that often explains a subplot in a very quick, very humorous manner, so in that sense, it is a more dynamic film than any of the other versions of King Arthur you've seen on the screen.
Charlie Hunnam essentially plays a reluctant hero who's having difficulties coming to terms with his destiny but after a while, his continued reluctance becomes frustrating and downright annoying. Not to mention the fact that for whatever reason, this film is so obsessed with wasting time on VFX hallucinations and pointless creatures, there really is no good reason why this film's runtime has to be 126 minutes long. And the supporting characters aren't well-developed either which is why you'd get easily stoked at David Beckham's easily spotted cameo. Jude Law is probably this film's only redeeming quality, as the villain, Law is as incredible and reliable as he's ever been which makes his character, Vortigern, a formidable foe. Overall, I'm not saying that "King Arthur: Legend of The Sword" is not an entertaining film if you're a style-over-substance kind of an audience, but just be aware that you'll be viewing Arthur through Guy Ritchie's filters.
Charlie Hunnam stars as the born king, Arthur whose father is murdered as Arthur's uncle, Vortigern (Jude Law) seizes the crown. The film traces Arthur's journey from the brothel life all the way to the throne. Robbed of his birthright, Arthur pulls the sword from the stone and finds himself become the king's threat number one.
At the very least, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" does have a clear story, so this is not as messy or as incoherent as a Zack Snyder presentation by any stretch of the imagination. And if you're a die hard Guy Ritchie fan, this too carries his usual brute montage style that often explains a subplot in a very quick, very humorous manner, so in that sense, it is a more dynamic film than any of the other versions of King Arthur you've seen on the screen.
Charlie Hunnam essentially plays a reluctant hero who's having difficulties coming to terms with his destiny but after a while, his continued reluctance becomes frustrating and downright annoying. Not to mention the fact that for whatever reason, this film is so obsessed with wasting time on VFX hallucinations and pointless creatures, there really is no good reason why this film's runtime has to be 126 minutes long. And the supporting characters aren't well-developed either which is why you'd get easily stoked at David Beckham's easily spotted cameo. Jude Law is probably this film's only redeeming quality, as the villain, Law is as incredible and reliable as he's ever been which makes his character, Vortigern, a formidable foe. Overall, I'm not saying that "King Arthur: Legend of The Sword" is not an entertaining film if you're a style-over-substance kind of an audience, but just be aware that you'll be viewing Arthur through Guy Ritchie's filters.
Forget about king Arthur
bobzzy12 May 2017
Few months ago when I watched the trailer and considering the fact that Guy Ritchie is directing this I knew one thing for sure - this movie will NOT BE a King Arthur story. What happens here is that Ritchie took the concept of the King Arthur and Excalibur's myths and made a movie out of them in a way only he can (reference - Sherlock Holmes).
So what you should expect and what you will get from this movie is: - Charlie Hunnam (excellent actor with huge potential) - Jude Law (no need of comment here, this movie won't be the same without him). Hunnam and Law were one of the reasons I wanted to watch this movie - Hell of a good soundtrack - Excellent overall atmosphere and FX - 100% Guy Ritchie movie - Fun
What you should NOT expect from this movie is regular King Arthur story - quite the same if you had expected a regular WWII story from Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards. And the only thing I felt missing to get a 100% fun from the new Ritchie's movie was Vinnie Jones :)
I hope you'll enjoy it as I did on my Friday's cinema evening!!!
So what you should expect and what you will get from this movie is: - Charlie Hunnam (excellent actor with huge potential) - Jude Law (no need of comment here, this movie won't be the same without him). Hunnam and Law were one of the reasons I wanted to watch this movie - Hell of a good soundtrack - Excellent overall atmosphere and FX - 100% Guy Ritchie movie - Fun
What you should NOT expect from this movie is regular King Arthur story - quite the same if you had expected a regular WWII story from Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards. And the only thing I felt missing to get a 100% fun from the new Ritchie's movie was Vinnie Jones :)
I hope you'll enjoy it as I did on my Friday's cinema evening!!!
All style, no substance
soundoflight28 May 2017
Perhaps this movie means more to people who have some kind of attachment or attraction to the King Arthur legend already. That's the only way I can explain how so many people are giving this movie gushing 10/10 reviews.
For me, it was a largely vapid CGI-fest completely devoid of realism or reality. It's pretty much on par with your latest superhero / Avengers type of movie, with fast cut action sequences, explosions, things flying around the screen, and stylized slow motion. I expected more than this from Guy Ritchie.
I also didn't expect it to be so much of a "fantasy" film. I was expecting / hoping for a historical action movie but there is almost no history here. Everything is stylized and made up. The armour and weapons are all made up, the castles are unbelievable and fantastic (huge towers, arches, 1000 ft bridges, etc), African and Asian characters have been inserted, and there are almost no historical references.
So it all kind of mashes together into 2 hours of fantasy-action featuring characters you don't really care about and that have no grounding in any reality that seems to make sense. And you can tell they want to turn this into a franchise with several more sequels. Thankfully we may be spared this horrible future as I hear it's bombing at the box office (there were 2 other people in my theatre). It's a bad film I would never want to see again.
For me, it was a largely vapid CGI-fest completely devoid of realism or reality. It's pretty much on par with your latest superhero / Avengers type of movie, with fast cut action sequences, explosions, things flying around the screen, and stylized slow motion. I expected more than this from Guy Ritchie.
I also didn't expect it to be so much of a "fantasy" film. I was expecting / hoping for a historical action movie but there is almost no history here. Everything is stylized and made up. The armour and weapons are all made up, the castles are unbelievable and fantastic (huge towers, arches, 1000 ft bridges, etc), African and Asian characters have been inserted, and there are almost no historical references.
So it all kind of mashes together into 2 hours of fantasy-action featuring characters you don't really care about and that have no grounding in any reality that seems to make sense. And you can tell they want to turn this into a franchise with several more sequels. Thankfully we may be spared this horrible future as I hear it's bombing at the box office (there were 2 other people in my theatre). It's a bad film I would never want to see again.
Underestimated
Deloron12 May 2017
This Movie was so much better than everybody told me. The fight scenes, the shots and the music was gorgeous. I really don't now why this movie receives that much hate. For me it was just Guy Ritchie at his best. Give this movie a try, its worth it! No joke, it was the best movie in this year, just stunning and epic. I loved it and i think that a lot of people will love this movie too! 7/10.
Positive reviews from Richie fans only. Movie is tripe
mjsreg18 May 2017
I like films about King Arthur and have done ever since being a child many, many years ago. I find it interesting to see different takes on a classic legend from my part of the world.
However, this movie is the ONLY one I have seen where I have cringed from beginning to end.
It is big - has lots of CGI - and that is about the only thing I can say about it.
The story is ridiculous and the acting is worse than imagining Daffy Duck perform Shakespeare (although that would be far more entertaining).
Then there is the awful, dreadful, dire, and ridiculous appearance by David Beckham.
It does not follow that because Beckham is a mate of Richie's that he can act - he obviously can not - and will never be able to.
Of the thousands and thousands of films I have seem in my lifetime there are very, very few I would like to get a refund for if I could. This is one of them.
However, this movie is the ONLY one I have seen where I have cringed from beginning to end.
It is big - has lots of CGI - and that is about the only thing I can say about it.
The story is ridiculous and the acting is worse than imagining Daffy Duck perform Shakespeare (although that would be far more entertaining).
Then there is the awful, dreadful, dire, and ridiculous appearance by David Beckham.
It does not follow that because Beckham is a mate of Richie's that he can act - he obviously can not - and will never be able to.
Of the thousands and thousands of films I have seem in my lifetime there are very, very few I would like to get a refund for if I could. This is one of them.
Less than legendary, still better than expected
TheLittleSongbird1 July 2017
'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' left me somewhat on the fence. It is much better than some critics have said, being nowhere near among the worst films seen so far this year, but it to me doesn't quite warrant the vehement defence it's garnered too.
Guy Ritchie's best? Not by a long shot. His worst? Nowhere near, nothing is worse than 'Swept Away'. 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' could have been much better but it's hardly a film with no redeeming qualities and there are far worse films around. Then again this is coming from somebody who tries to observe and talk about redeeming qualities even in really bad films (for instance 1 and 2 out of 10 ratings are pretty rare, and am generally giving out 10/10s a little less).
There are strengths with 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword'. The costumes, scenery and production design are pretty audacious while never having a fake or too clean look, one does get sucked into the atmosphere and setting of the film and can feel the authenticity. The rousing, rich in energy and thrilling music score is a strong contender for the film's best asset.
Some nice humorous lines, some exciting and innovatively choreographed action and a mix of coarse realism and a mythic touch are further things to like. The story is never dull, actually mostly having a vibrant energy, as such and is just about easy to follow if not perfect in execution, do admire it though for putting a new spin on a timeless but old story sometimes in need of more freshness when adapted.
Charlie Hunnam has an easy-going and steely charisma in the title role, and he is perfectly matched by dignified Dijimon Hounsou and particularly a sinister but surprisingly rootable Jude Law as the villain of the piece.
However, Ritchie's direction has a tendency to be chaotic and overdone, while the shaky camera work is some of the most excessive of any film to use it seen recently and the editing has an awkward jerkiness that can feel nauseating. Special effects are a mixed bag, some are good, others are very artificial looking and reminiscent of a low-budget video game.
While there are good performances here, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is pretty wasted in an underwritten role and David Beckham is dreadfully out of place with his amateurish acting standing out like a sore thumb. Generally the characters could have been better written, some needed more development and others needed their motivations expanded upon and made much clearer (particularly the titular character). The most interesting in fact is Vortigen.
Parts of the story do work well, but there are other times where the pacing could have slowed down and that there could have been less going on, some of it felt too frenetic and bloated.
In conclusion, better than expected but less than legendary. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Guy Ritchie's best? Not by a long shot. His worst? Nowhere near, nothing is worse than 'Swept Away'. 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' could have been much better but it's hardly a film with no redeeming qualities and there are far worse films around. Then again this is coming from somebody who tries to observe and talk about redeeming qualities even in really bad films (for instance 1 and 2 out of 10 ratings are pretty rare, and am generally giving out 10/10s a little less).
There are strengths with 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword'. The costumes, scenery and production design are pretty audacious while never having a fake or too clean look, one does get sucked into the atmosphere and setting of the film and can feel the authenticity. The rousing, rich in energy and thrilling music score is a strong contender for the film's best asset.
Some nice humorous lines, some exciting and innovatively choreographed action and a mix of coarse realism and a mythic touch are further things to like. The story is never dull, actually mostly having a vibrant energy, as such and is just about easy to follow if not perfect in execution, do admire it though for putting a new spin on a timeless but old story sometimes in need of more freshness when adapted.
Charlie Hunnam has an easy-going and steely charisma in the title role, and he is perfectly matched by dignified Dijimon Hounsou and particularly a sinister but surprisingly rootable Jude Law as the villain of the piece.
However, Ritchie's direction has a tendency to be chaotic and overdone, while the shaky camera work is some of the most excessive of any film to use it seen recently and the editing has an awkward jerkiness that can feel nauseating. Special effects are a mixed bag, some are good, others are very artificial looking and reminiscent of a low-budget video game.
While there are good performances here, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is pretty wasted in an underwritten role and David Beckham is dreadfully out of place with his amateurish acting standing out like a sore thumb. Generally the characters could have been better written, some needed more development and others needed their motivations expanded upon and made much clearer (particularly the titular character). The most interesting in fact is Vortigen.
Parts of the story do work well, but there are other times where the pacing could have slowed down and that there could have been less going on, some of it felt too frenetic and bloated.
In conclusion, better than expected but less than legendary. 6/10 Bethany Cox
The reviews does this movie no justice. it doesn't have to be the old story with no creativity.
mohamed-elbahnasawy12 May 2017
I believe this movie would have been a master piece of a series due to
the huge amount of event packed into 2 hours, but this is no criticism
on how great the movie is and how the numbers of this site doesn't do
it justice. 90% of the negative reviews comes under the lame excuse of
"that's not how king Arthur is supposed to be". If you actually want a
movie where you know everything already starting from the story,
characters and twists then I'd call you the stupidest ever. Yes this
isn't your typical king Arthur movie, and that adds even more to the
awesomeness of it.amnt saying the movie is flawless, no movie is, but
it was great starting from acting, animation, story, music tracks,
everything. Again would have been better off it was a series and I
hope there would be a sequel including the knights of the round table,
sure Lancelot and some dramatic betrayal or even Arthur's betrayal
himself to the kingdom.
I recommend you see it on the big screen, while you still can!
Hellmant17 May 2017
'KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)
Director Guy Ritchie's new updated take on the King Arthur legend. He directed the film and co-wrote it, with Lionel Wigram and Joby Harold. Charlie Hunnam stars in the title role; and Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen and Eric Bana costar. The movie has received mostly negative reviews from critics, and it's bombed at the Box Office so far as well. It was made on a budget well north of $100 million, and it was supposed to be the first film planned in a six movie series! I loved it.
In the film young Arthur (Hunnam) rules the streets of Londinium, with his loyal followers, and he's completely unaware of his royal lineage. One day he's stopped by the King's men, and sent to attempt to draw the legendary sword Excalibur from the stone it's been lodged in. When he's successful, King Vortigern (Law) sees Arthur as an immediate threat. So he attempts to have him executed, before a large audience. The Resistance, lead by Sir Bedivere (Hounsou) and The Mage (Berges-Frisbey), rescue him though. Arthur then must learn to use his newly discovered powers, master the magical sword, and accept his true destiny; of stopping Vortigern's evil reign, and replacing him as the rightful king of England.
The movie has been heavily criticized by critics (but it's mostly loved by movie fans) for it's extremely fast pace, and very quick editing style (plus it's excessive shaky camera usage). These are all things Ritchie is well known (and loved for) though. I think it's a lot more entertaining, and a better made film, than the 'SHERLOCK HOLMES' movies (which were loved by critics for some reason, despite the fact that they're made in a similar style). This movie is a little like 'THE LORD OF THE RINGS' mixed with 'SNATCH'. I think it's immensely entertaining, and I had a blast seeing it on the big screen. I recommend you do the same, while you still can!
Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/b6j-_hcq7Wo
Director Guy Ritchie's new updated take on the King Arthur legend. He directed the film and co-wrote it, with Lionel Wigram and Joby Harold. Charlie Hunnam stars in the title role; and Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen and Eric Bana costar. The movie has received mostly negative reviews from critics, and it's bombed at the Box Office so far as well. It was made on a budget well north of $100 million, and it was supposed to be the first film planned in a six movie series! I loved it.
In the film young Arthur (Hunnam) rules the streets of Londinium, with his loyal followers, and he's completely unaware of his royal lineage. One day he's stopped by the King's men, and sent to attempt to draw the legendary sword Excalibur from the stone it's been lodged in. When he's successful, King Vortigern (Law) sees Arthur as an immediate threat. So he attempts to have him executed, before a large audience. The Resistance, lead by Sir Bedivere (Hounsou) and The Mage (Berges-Frisbey), rescue him though. Arthur then must learn to use his newly discovered powers, master the magical sword, and accept his true destiny; of stopping Vortigern's evil reign, and replacing him as the rightful king of England.
The movie has been heavily criticized by critics (but it's mostly loved by movie fans) for it's extremely fast pace, and very quick editing style (plus it's excessive shaky camera usage). These are all things Ritchie is well known (and loved for) though. I think it's a lot more entertaining, and a better made film, than the 'SHERLOCK HOLMES' movies (which were loved by critics for some reason, despite the fact that they're made in a similar style). This movie is a little like 'THE LORD OF THE RINGS' mixed with 'SNATCH'. I think it's immensely entertaining, and I had a blast seeing it on the big screen. I recommend you do the same, while you still can!
Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/b6j-_hcq7Wo
Deconstruction and Reinvention of a Legend
claudio_carvalho30 July 2017
The legend of King Arthur and Excalibur has been been told many times by the cinema and television. John Boorman's "Excalibur" and Walt Disney "The Sword in the Stone" are certainly among my favorite versions of this legend. The versions that I have seen have different stories but the storyline are similar; therefore, most of the worldwide viewers have a similar view of King Arthur and Excalibur.
Guy Ritchie has decided to deconstruct and reinvent the legend using an unpleasant character and based on CGI in most of the scenes. The result entertains as an adventure especially for young generations that like special effects. However it is absolutely frustrating for those that are familiar with the legend and that likes cinema as something more than CGIs. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Rei Arthur: A Lenda da Espada" ("King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword")
Guy Ritchie has decided to deconstruct and reinvent the legend using an unpleasant character and based on CGI in most of the scenes. The result entertains as an adventure especially for young generations that like special effects. However it is absolutely frustrating for those that are familiar with the legend and that likes cinema as something more than CGIs. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Rei Arthur: A Lenda da Espada" ("King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword")
A disappointing mess.
shawthingproductions18 May 2017
There are very little redeeming qualities about this mess of a film, and it really is a mess. If I had to walk away with a positive though, I would say the music was pretty good for the most part.
So where to start.
The acting from Charlie Hunnam (I loved him as Jax Teller) is laughable. Almost as laughable with how "pretty" he was in one of the final fight sequences of the film even though he had just taken a pasting. He is so wooden, so unbelievable that it is hard to take him seriously or believe anyone would follow him. It helps then that the rest of the acting is shoddy too. The female mage is so flat she may as well be horizontal. David Beckham's cameo is out of place and painful and... Well what did you expect when they saw fit to employ "Denny from Eastenders"? The lad can't act in the soap, let alone a movie. Any time a soap actor appears in a "blockbuster" I get that sinking feeling... Let's not forget that Charlie started in Byker Grove though but we can't hold that against him. We can hold this film against him.
Jude Law was decent enough, stepping away from his usual type of character. One of the only characters you could believe in but one you're not supposed to like. The problem being, as he is the only believable character in the film - you can't help but root for him.
The rest of the performances were paint by numbers, collecting a pay check and if this was the best Guy Ritchie could get from them - perhaps he isn't fit for being a director? And - to be fair - he probably isn't. At least, this type of film. He nailed Snatch and Lock, Stock - that much is a given and there are traces of that directorial style in this film (characters recalling stories and flitting between them talking and flash back sequences for example) but the problem is - it felt forced and out of place here. Put with that the fact Guy simply cannot direct action - you have a problem. It felt like two films. One film where you can get suckered in with the stories the characters are telling and the other, you're wishing your life away watching rubbish CGI, limp acting and a muddled mess of a fight sequence. Seriously - why so many slow motion shots of Charlie cutting through wood?!
In one scene where he uses the sword, it happened so fast that I still don't really know what happened. And the fight at the end? I still don't know who hit who for the best part of it. Although, given how pristine Charlie looked afterwards, I am guessing he had time to pop off to a spa whilst the Big Bad fought alone.
The script is as much to blame as the cast and crew though. It's a mess, jumbled up with too many dialogue sections spliced with flashbacks that aren't necessary. For this kind of film - perhaps a more linear story would have made more sense? As mentioned above, it felt like a film of two halves because of the constant jumping back and forth and switching to medieval sword play. It was also trying to be funny when that too missed the mark. The audience laughed a couple of times (a couple more than myself) but that was it.
This is the first time I have stepped from a Guy Ritchie film and felt such bitter disappointment. Had this been someone's first film, I doubt they would ever work again.
So where to start.
The acting from Charlie Hunnam (I loved him as Jax Teller) is laughable. Almost as laughable with how "pretty" he was in one of the final fight sequences of the film even though he had just taken a pasting. He is so wooden, so unbelievable that it is hard to take him seriously or believe anyone would follow him. It helps then that the rest of the acting is shoddy too. The female mage is so flat she may as well be horizontal. David Beckham's cameo is out of place and painful and... Well what did you expect when they saw fit to employ "Denny from Eastenders"? The lad can't act in the soap, let alone a movie. Any time a soap actor appears in a "blockbuster" I get that sinking feeling... Let's not forget that Charlie started in Byker Grove though but we can't hold that against him. We can hold this film against him.
Jude Law was decent enough, stepping away from his usual type of character. One of the only characters you could believe in but one you're not supposed to like. The problem being, as he is the only believable character in the film - you can't help but root for him.
The rest of the performances were paint by numbers, collecting a pay check and if this was the best Guy Ritchie could get from them - perhaps he isn't fit for being a director? And - to be fair - he probably isn't. At least, this type of film. He nailed Snatch and Lock, Stock - that much is a given and there are traces of that directorial style in this film (characters recalling stories and flitting between them talking and flash back sequences for example) but the problem is - it felt forced and out of place here. Put with that the fact Guy simply cannot direct action - you have a problem. It felt like two films. One film where you can get suckered in with the stories the characters are telling and the other, you're wishing your life away watching rubbish CGI, limp acting and a muddled mess of a fight sequence. Seriously - why so many slow motion shots of Charlie cutting through wood?!
In one scene where he uses the sword, it happened so fast that I still don't really know what happened. And the fight at the end? I still don't know who hit who for the best part of it. Although, given how pristine Charlie looked afterwards, I am guessing he had time to pop off to a spa whilst the Big Bad fought alone.
The script is as much to blame as the cast and crew though. It's a mess, jumbled up with too many dialogue sections spliced with flashbacks that aren't necessary. For this kind of film - perhaps a more linear story would have made more sense? As mentioned above, it felt like a film of two halves because of the constant jumping back and forth and switching to medieval sword play. It was also trying to be funny when that too missed the mark. The audience laughed a couple of times (a couple more than myself) but that was it.
This is the first time I have stepped from a Guy Ritchie film and felt such bitter disappointment. Had this been someone's first film, I doubt they would ever work again.
Ignore the negative reviews
veinbreaker13 May 2017
I went in a few hours after reading horrendous reviews on rottentomatoes and other places... My expectations were low. I've watched several others works of film and TV about King Arthur and Excalibur so didn't expect much. ... This movie was awesome. ... I loved it. I want to see it again and I really hope it makes enough money to warrant a few sequels. The characters are well cast. Hunnam finally gets his 'leading hero role' which hopefully can turn into a proper franchise. The music was amazing. The effects are a bit video game-ish but frankly I didn't mind cause they served their purpose. Lots of epic moments... Overall tons of fun.. Great movie... Please go see this so we can have a sequel
Like mixing hot chocolate with orange juice
cricketbat28 December 2018
I don't get it. I like Guy Ritchie's directing style. I am a fan of Arthurian legend. But putting the two of them together is like mixing hot chocolate and orange juice -- it just doesn't work. The movie undercuts any emotional impact it may have with its constant flashbacks and flashforwards. This movie may be fast-paced, action-packed and has some some fun visual effects, but it's still sadly one big mess.
A film that tries to sacrifice style over substance yet achieves neither
iwanselway-4418012 January 2020
Akin to another member of English folklore, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword acts a little bit like Robin Hood. It steals your time and money, but instead of giving it to the poor, it gives it to Guy Ritchie - who I'm assuming has began to run out of money from his past successes like Snatch and Lock Stock, thusly this film is born.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a boring, stale, and turgid mess of a film. Not a 'so-bad-it's-good' type film either. The million dollar budget insures that the movie has all the hallmarks of a big blockbuster title; fancy effects and big names. But watch it for yourself and it's mask instantly slips - revealing a confused and convoluted film bound to leave you feeling unsatisfied and angry.
Guy Ritchie's telltale style of witty British gangster types and quick-cut comedic dialogue sequences are lost on this film's half-baked historic/fantasy setting. Not even ""acting powerhouses"" such as ""David Beckham"" can pull this movie up from the pit of awful to that of mediocre. Never before have I seen a movie so unsure of it's own style.
The plot barely exists, and when it does it's as lame as a stray dog. The entire film feels more like a vehicle for Guy Ritchie's new love affair with Charlie Hunnam rather than something that the audience wants to see. Most of the scenes are comprised of Hunnam being a witty, rugged, yet charming street-wise lad cutting about a strange detached version of medieval England. It's as if any one character from any of Guy Ritchie's previous films, or perhaps some kind of hive-mind amalgamation of the lot of them, has gone back in time to be a loveable rogue. It's repetitive, it's boring, it's void of any impact, and unworthy of remembering.
Of course, I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, and count myself one of the unlucky few who were tricked into seeing it by Guy Ritchie's previous stellar movies. Perhaps it's time we add Ritchie to the growing list of Directors fallen from grace. Time will tell.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a boring, stale, and turgid mess of a film. Not a 'so-bad-it's-good' type film either. The million dollar budget insures that the movie has all the hallmarks of a big blockbuster title; fancy effects and big names. But watch it for yourself and it's mask instantly slips - revealing a confused and convoluted film bound to leave you feeling unsatisfied and angry.
Guy Ritchie's telltale style of witty British gangster types and quick-cut comedic dialogue sequences are lost on this film's half-baked historic/fantasy setting. Not even ""acting powerhouses"" such as ""David Beckham"" can pull this movie up from the pit of awful to that of mediocre. Never before have I seen a movie so unsure of it's own style.
The plot barely exists, and when it does it's as lame as a stray dog. The entire film feels more like a vehicle for Guy Ritchie's new love affair with Charlie Hunnam rather than something that the audience wants to see. Most of the scenes are comprised of Hunnam being a witty, rugged, yet charming street-wise lad cutting about a strange detached version of medieval England. It's as if any one character from any of Guy Ritchie's previous films, or perhaps some kind of hive-mind amalgamation of the lot of them, has gone back in time to be a loveable rogue. It's repetitive, it's boring, it's void of any impact, and unworthy of remembering.
Of course, I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, and count myself one of the unlucky few who were tricked into seeing it by Guy Ritchie's previous stellar movies. Perhaps it's time we add Ritchie to the growing list of Directors fallen from grace. Time will tell.
A Pleasant Surprise!
champjohnson2918 May 2017
The first trailer had me very excited to see this film. The genre is right up my alley. But negative reviews made me think twice and I was just going to wait for it to go to redbox or watch it online (just being honest LOL). But then I started seeing positive reviews and I knew I had to form my opinion. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised and glad I went because I really enjoyed this film from beginning to end. IT's not without it's flaws but will get into that in a minute.
Of course the tale of King Arthur, Excalibur, Camelot, etc. has been told so many times in Hollywood. However, Guy Ritchie's unique storytelling ability made it a fun ride to watch. I will admit that his signature exposition cut-aways got a bit repetitive and lost it's spice around the third time -- meaning, let's devise a plan, while showing the plan happening in order to save time, but explain to the audience what's going on without long monologues, etc -- it's a really cool way to tell a story but he used it a bit too much.
Other than that, the rest of the movie was fairly enjoyable. It went a good pace and had the right amount of fantasy elements while showing Arthur go from a petty scammer to a King. I will say that the castings of Jude Law and Astrid Berges-Frisbey were the more questionable ones for me. They both were pretty monotone and did nothing for their characters. Charlie Hunnam is a decent actor as well. He didn't do anything Oscar worthy but I definitely believed him as Arthur.
The moments when he actually used the sword in battle were my favorites. I think this is the first time in years where someone actually had a clear vision of how to showcase what exactly made Excalibur special. The final battle was a bit underwhelming with all the quick cuts and camera tricks. It was cool to watch from an aesthetic perspective but being just a regular person in the audience, I just wanted to watch them fight.
Overall the movie is an 8 out of 10, but I gave it a 9 because it does NOT deserve a low score at all. It's a really good film that is actually re-watchable. Don't believe the negative viewers, it's a well made film!
Of course the tale of King Arthur, Excalibur, Camelot, etc. has been told so many times in Hollywood. However, Guy Ritchie's unique storytelling ability made it a fun ride to watch. I will admit that his signature exposition cut-aways got a bit repetitive and lost it's spice around the third time -- meaning, let's devise a plan, while showing the plan happening in order to save time, but explain to the audience what's going on without long monologues, etc -- it's a really cool way to tell a story but he used it a bit too much.
Other than that, the rest of the movie was fairly enjoyable. It went a good pace and had the right amount of fantasy elements while showing Arthur go from a petty scammer to a King. I will say that the castings of Jude Law and Astrid Berges-Frisbey were the more questionable ones for me. They both were pretty monotone and did nothing for their characters. Charlie Hunnam is a decent actor as well. He didn't do anything Oscar worthy but I definitely believed him as Arthur.
The moments when he actually used the sword in battle were my favorites. I think this is the first time in years where someone actually had a clear vision of how to showcase what exactly made Excalibur special. The final battle was a bit underwhelming with all the quick cuts and camera tricks. It was cool to watch from an aesthetic perspective but being just a regular person in the audience, I just wanted to watch them fight.
Overall the movie is an 8 out of 10, but I gave it a 9 because it does NOT deserve a low score at all. It's a really good film that is actually re-watchable. Don't believe the negative viewers, it's a well made film!
Unwatchable
treborbasset27 December 2021
African man with a thick accent leading an army with elephants in ancient Britain. Why do they do it? I can't even watch it. It's just so ridiculous. No attempt has been made to be authentic to the period or the legends. I had to turn it off after 20 minutes, I couldn't take any more.
Guy Ritchie at his best!!
yesterdayman20029 May 2017
Saw this at a Promo Screening last night and have been shocked by the harsh reviews from the critics.
I went in expecting to see a by-the-numbers generic fantasy like the ones Disney churns out regularly. But instead I was surprised to find that Guy Ritchie has applied to King Arthur the same style and technique that made his Sherlock Holmes films so beloved.
In this film is the witty dialogue and creative editing we've (at least some of us) have come to love from Guy Ritchie. There was never a boring scene throughout. The action is good, the effects are good, but it is the manner of delivery of it all that brings this to greatness.
The acting is solid, some characters are less developed than others but I did not feel that this hurt the movie at all.
I've seen King Arthur movies before but have never seen it told in this manner, it is to King Arthur what Batman Begins was to Batman.
Should you see it? If you did not enjoy Guy Ritchie's other works, especially the Sherlock Holmes films then you may have issues with his style, but if you were entertained by any of his other films then there should be no reason for you to not be entertained here also.
I went in expecting to see a by-the-numbers generic fantasy like the ones Disney churns out regularly. But instead I was surprised to find that Guy Ritchie has applied to King Arthur the same style and technique that made his Sherlock Holmes films so beloved.
In this film is the witty dialogue and creative editing we've (at least some of us) have come to love from Guy Ritchie. There was never a boring scene throughout. The action is good, the effects are good, but it is the manner of delivery of it all that brings this to greatness.
The acting is solid, some characters are less developed than others but I did not feel that this hurt the movie at all.
I've seen King Arthur movies before but have never seen it told in this manner, it is to King Arthur what Batman Begins was to Batman.
Should you see it? If you did not enjoy Guy Ritchie's other works, especially the Sherlock Holmes films then you may have issues with his style, but if you were entertained by any of his other films then there should be no reason for you to not be entertained here also.
King Arthur movie in millennial time
jeannefrancoise16 May 2017
Dear readers, yesterday I have watched King Arthur movie, directed by Guy Ritchie. This is not the first movie about King Arthur that I had ever watched, so here I want to share to you my perspective of this movie. Firstly is of course about the title. The title is "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword", so that these movie is all about the relation between Arthur as a king and his magic sword, there is no other legend surrounded besides King Arthur, for example King Arthur and round table, King Arthur and Dragon, or King Arthur and Holy Grail. The movie is really focused on the story of the sword from the beginning of the scene, but we can see the process of life or Arthur of being "a king". This is interesting. Secondly I want to review about the role of King Arthur himself as the role-center in this movie. Not likely other heroes movies, that destructed by Love and family, in this movie, King Arthur is mostly like "lone traveler" and "one man show" hero. You can see the whole plots that it is King Arthur who decides everything, nevertheless he has several best friends, armies, and a witch beside him to help him, but King Arthur is shown not as a play mate, not as a handsome lover, not as a generous king, but as an ordinary man to gain power. Third issue is about the plot or the story that leads this movie. Connected with the role of King Arthur, this movie does not include the hero-side of King Arthur while he is becoming a great king, in contrary, this movie shows the ordinary Arthur living in slum areas before he is becoming a king, and magically this ordinary-Arthur being forced to have an extraordinary adventure to receive his destiny to become a King. Maybe for realist movie-maker critics, this is the weakest point of this movie, because the plot is can be easily done by intervention of other events of the plots and also there is no director's own point of view for the figure of King Arthur. It seems that Guy Ritchie just making the legend of King Arthur, as everybody wish on how they see King Arthur legend, not based on director's imagination or creativity. But lastly, like other Guy Ritchie's movies, the backward-forward scenes, high musics, and proper actors/actress could entertain all millennial generations to see the handsome and muscles King Arthur and his legend of sword. Recommended movie to be watched with your family or your spouse!
Is this the beginning of a new Hollywood franchise?
ayoreinf15 May 2017
I'm not going to dwell long over the plot itself. After the Audacity of Antoine Fuqua and co at 2004, when they declared their pseudo historic version is "The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend", none can complain. King Arthur is obviously the biggest English myth, and has more than one version, so it does allow for some literary liberty regarding the plot line. This one took it very far, Not as far as the 2004 version did, but since they never claimed to present us with the true version, how can we complain.
If we're not dwelling on the plot, that does leave a lot to be desired, the rest is fairly well done. The acting is professional by most. The recent Hollywood tendency for multiracial cast even at a period when multiracial presence was unlikely, is repeated here, but it's a fantasy, so let's imagine it was possible. As I already said, nobody is trying to sell it as historical truth. Jude Law is excelling as a great villain, the rest of the cast are very professional. And since it's mostly an action and CGI movie, professional is good enough. Guy Ritchie, is making his presence felt with dramatic use of camera angles and jumpy editing, at certain scenes. It suits the action scenes all right, it's borderline confusing at other scenes. But I felt it remained within sensible borders.
Bottom line is, it's not bad, it's entertaining, and as my title says: it feels like they started with the very beginning of the myth, so they could add a sequel or two, if the box office results are good.
If we're not dwelling on the plot, that does leave a lot to be desired, the rest is fairly well done. The acting is professional by most. The recent Hollywood tendency for multiracial cast even at a period when multiracial presence was unlikely, is repeated here, but it's a fantasy, so let's imagine it was possible. As I already said, nobody is trying to sell it as historical truth. Jude Law is excelling as a great villain, the rest of the cast are very professional. And since it's mostly an action and CGI movie, professional is good enough. Guy Ritchie, is making his presence felt with dramatic use of camera angles and jumpy editing, at certain scenes. It suits the action scenes all right, it's borderline confusing at other scenes. But I felt it remained within sensible borders.
Bottom line is, it's not bad, it's entertaining, and as my title says: it feels like they started with the very beginning of the myth, so they could add a sequel or two, if the box office results are good.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a Mixed Bag but it Has Definite Strengths That Shouldn't be Overlooked
CANpatbuck366417 May 2017
*Minor Spoilers Ahead* The movie beings at the start of a big battle. The Mage army is smashing through King Uther's defences. Uther (Eric Bana) decides to take the battle into his own hands, despite his brother Vortigern's (Jude Law) reservations. Uther jumps onto the leading war elephant and slays the Mage king, ending the battle. After the battle, there are conflicting arguments on how to deal with the fallout. Previously the feuding kingdoms lived in harmony so some of Uther's generals: Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou) and Bill (Aidan Gillen) want to seek peace while Vortigern proposes hunting down the Mages and killing them. Uther agrees that a temporary peace should be reached and while some leave the meeting happy, others are angry and will not back down. Uther senses this and packs up his wife and his son Arthur (later played by Charlie Hunnam) to leave the castle at night.
If you've looked at the reviews for this movie, they're really scathing. I would never argue that this movie is a complete success but critics have been too quick to slam this movie. There's some really good stuff in here. I tend to like most of Guy Ritchie's movies and one of the biggest reasons is that his characters have tons of camaraderie. This is often helped by some stellar dialogue too. They make you laugh but it also helps you believe in the relationships between the characters. That was the strongest part of King Arthur for me. My favourite scenes weren't the big action set pieces, they were the parts where Arthur and his crew were taking care of business in Londinium or sabotaging the villain's operation. Other than the occasional slip up with modern day phrasing (I don't think anyone said razzle-dazzle in the medieval ages?) it reminded me of Jason Statham's dialogue in Snatch. It was generally solid and I laughed throughout the movie.
Guy Ritchie has been at this long enough that he's developed his own way doing action. In some of his projects it works great (Sherlock Holmes has some really great action scenes) and in other projects it doesn't. I thought the actions scenes in Legend of the Sword were good in some areas and they weren't so great in others. I saw this with a friend and she said the action reminded her of video games. She's not wrong. When Arthur uses Excalibur, its like unlocking a special ability in a video game. The CGI is decent (it better be with a $175 million budget) but the movie also can't seem to decide how far into fantasy it wants to go. So the action is a mixed bag, the ending goes too crazy but it didn't affect the overall grade too much.
The acting is also pretty mixed. I actually really liked Charlie Hunnam as Arthur. He's had a tough road transitioning to movies but he had the charisma and the right physicality to pull this role off. I also really liked some of the actors in supporting parts: Aiden Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, Neil Maskell and Kingsley Ben-Adir are all respectively funny and they were believable as a crew. Getting into some of the performances I didn't like as much, I don't want to blame Jude Law because he was trying but Vortigern was a lacklustre character for me. I also thought Astrid Bergès-Frisbey was weak. Her character seemed like something that could have been cut out and she was really wooden as The Mage.
This movie reminds me of 2 other Warner Bros. releases from last year that had a mixed measure of success; The Legend of Tarzan and Suicide Squad. Both of those movie were completely trashed by critics and were flawed products. But they also had some really cool parts and strong aspects that people just threw aside when judging the movie. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword falls into that category for me. The action is mixed, the acting is mixed and the story takes some pretty big liberties from the King Arthur legend and the historical period. But you have some great dialogue, interesting characters, a decent leading performance and some big action set pieces that are impressive. This wasn't the train wreck that I expected and if you're interested in seeing this, don't be afraid to give it a shot. I would be closer to a 6.5/10 but I'll round up to a 7/10.
If you've looked at the reviews for this movie, they're really scathing. I would never argue that this movie is a complete success but critics have been too quick to slam this movie. There's some really good stuff in here. I tend to like most of Guy Ritchie's movies and one of the biggest reasons is that his characters have tons of camaraderie. This is often helped by some stellar dialogue too. They make you laugh but it also helps you believe in the relationships between the characters. That was the strongest part of King Arthur for me. My favourite scenes weren't the big action set pieces, they were the parts where Arthur and his crew were taking care of business in Londinium or sabotaging the villain's operation. Other than the occasional slip up with modern day phrasing (I don't think anyone said razzle-dazzle in the medieval ages?) it reminded me of Jason Statham's dialogue in Snatch. It was generally solid and I laughed throughout the movie.
Guy Ritchie has been at this long enough that he's developed his own way doing action. In some of his projects it works great (Sherlock Holmes has some really great action scenes) and in other projects it doesn't. I thought the actions scenes in Legend of the Sword were good in some areas and they weren't so great in others. I saw this with a friend and she said the action reminded her of video games. She's not wrong. When Arthur uses Excalibur, its like unlocking a special ability in a video game. The CGI is decent (it better be with a $175 million budget) but the movie also can't seem to decide how far into fantasy it wants to go. So the action is a mixed bag, the ending goes too crazy but it didn't affect the overall grade too much.
The acting is also pretty mixed. I actually really liked Charlie Hunnam as Arthur. He's had a tough road transitioning to movies but he had the charisma and the right physicality to pull this role off. I also really liked some of the actors in supporting parts: Aiden Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, Neil Maskell and Kingsley Ben-Adir are all respectively funny and they were believable as a crew. Getting into some of the performances I didn't like as much, I don't want to blame Jude Law because he was trying but Vortigern was a lacklustre character for me. I also thought Astrid Bergès-Frisbey was weak. Her character seemed like something that could have been cut out and she was really wooden as The Mage.
This movie reminds me of 2 other Warner Bros. releases from last year that had a mixed measure of success; The Legend of Tarzan and Suicide Squad. Both of those movie were completely trashed by critics and were flawed products. But they also had some really cool parts and strong aspects that people just threw aside when judging the movie. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword falls into that category for me. The action is mixed, the acting is mixed and the story takes some pretty big liberties from the King Arthur legend and the historical period. But you have some great dialogue, interesting characters, a decent leading performance and some big action set pieces that are impressive. This wasn't the train wreck that I expected and if you're interested in seeing this, don't be afraid to give it a shot. I would be closer to a 6.5/10 but I'll round up to a 7/10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews