King Arthur: Excalibur Rising (2017) User Reviews

King Arthur falling-I dub thee worst movie in modern times

[Oldschooldoom · 2/10 · 19 July 2017]

I consider myself to be another among the duped RedBox renters. Should of came here first to read reviews then I would have taken heed that this King Arthur-Excalibur Rising May 4 2017 was not the similarly entitled King Arthur-Legend of the Sword May 12 2017 I was looking for. Back I go to the rental realm in search of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972591/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Sadly, I could not grasp the story line as everything except the soundtrack was horrid. Bad: casting, wardrobe, choreography, acting, writing, directing and more distracted me from the subject matter. This movie oozes in that low budget feel. I also preferred the 1981 Excalibur with it's lack of CGI era. I feel no shame for taking a nap mid way through this King Arthur.

Other than the grand musical score, the other positive is the actor who played Merlin. Simon Armstrong http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1409802/?ref_=tt_cl_t5 was nearly a ringer for Ian McKellen's Gandalf. Coincidence? I dub thee 2.5 star movie to be the lowest rated IMDb movie of all time.

Warning! This King Arthur movie contains Graphic violence and profanity.

[crosswalkx · 3/10 · 8 August 2017]

As you know I'm a big fan of King Arthur stories and I've read books, watched movies and played video games about King Arthur.

I have seen this movie and I felt disappointed in this version of King Arthur Now to summarize the story plot. This movie is about King Arthur who gets killed in battle and later on Owain gets arrested by Mordred and killed and thrown in the lake. The Lady in the water gives the Excalibur to Owain and he goes on a quest to over throw Mordred and the Witch in the castle and he seeks help from Merlin the Wizard.

I was surprised with the amount of bloody violence and strong profanity this movie contains.

Parents and sensitive people, Be warned this movie has mature content and it is violent, has disturbing content, contains strong profanity compared to "Game of Thrones" or "Braveheart" and this movie is not for kids so you've been warned.

It's too bad this movie "King Arthur: Excalibur Rising" was very bloody, violent, has so much swearing. It could've had more story in it and been done better. This could've been a great "King Arthur" movie even for a low budget movie. The music score was very beautiful and exciting like you would expect from a movie soundtrack.

If you want a good "King Arthur" movie then I suggest watching "The Sword in the Stone" or "First Knight" or "Knights of the Round Table" 1953, "Quest for Camelot", or "Camelot" 1967.

Don't bother!

[philiplangdon · 1/10 · 28 March 2017]

I watched this movie hoping for an imaginative re-working of a legend which enthralled me as a kid . . . but I was appalled at how badly this one was put together. Although the story-line was encouraging, the acting, editing and direction was absolutely abysmal. My wife and I were laughing during the supposedly climactic moments, watching third-rate actors stumble through lines that were truly forgettable, scenes that were embarrassing in their stupidity, and ultimately left us wondering why - Why would anyone allow this movie to be released?

Truly awful - avoid !

[davidrcraig · 1/10 · 24 March 2017]

Truly awful. I was hoping with a 2017 production that this would be a gripping tale with good acting and great special effects. What a waste of time. It felt like a very poor episode from a third rate TV series rather than a movie in its own right. The concept of the story was quite good, but completely let down by poor production, awful camera work, bad acting and truly awful special effects. AVOID AVOID AVOID !

Read the other reviews

[davefalcon · 1/10 · 13 July 2017]

I wish I had read the reviews before I watched the movie.

I can not add to what everyone else has commented on.

I gave a 1 star rating only for the music. Too bad the acting and script and plot were not as good. Was this done as a high school art project?

Totally awful

[johnhhawkins · 1/10 · 21 April 2017]

The worst 2 minutes of my life, as that's how long it took me to skip through this travesty of a film. I can honestly say that you should avoid this trash and watch something much more fulfilling and worth using your remaining lifetime, like anything else ever made...

To be honest with you I can't believe I've taken the time out to review this cinematic experience, except to warn others of their impending doom of and wasting their eyesight on it instead of something worthwhile, like complete darkness.

Don't waste your time

[markwcousins · 1/10 · 2 April 2017]

This film is absolutely dreadful. The sword fighting scenes are overly choreographed and are similar to what you would expect in an amateur pantomime. If you watch this film you will laugh at the appallingly bad CGI wolf. I cringed and shook my head with embarrassment for those involved with this offering. Surely the actors, production staff, producer and director will have been acutely aware that this is a very poor film indeed.

Its worse than awful, you've been warned

[jezhypno · 1/10 · 16 May 2017]

What a terrible movie. I give it every opportunity, but after 40 min's I had to turn it off. Low budget, poor acting, don't waste you time folks. There are plenty of movies out there, This will waste an hour and 40 Min's of your life, you have been warned. Sorry but its a thumbs down for me guys.

Don't be tempted

[markgibsonuk-04768 · 1/10 · 12 March 2018]

It's really hard to find anything at all to say apart from - don't bother .

What do people expect?

[mjweston · 10/10 · 26 February 2020]

This is a low budget film. It's well done, engaging and imaginative. It also has the benefit of being largely Welsh. There's no way that the ridiculously low scores some have given it are justified. I've seen far worse offerings with much larger budgets. OK it's not a 10, but deserves that score to offset unreasonably lower scores. Certainly a 6. I wonder whether people have seen so many blockbusters with multi million budgets that they simply expect too much. I suspect those involved in making this film were pleased with the result and rightly so.

Not that bad. Lead actor I found likable. Deserve a chance!

[dougbutner · 7/10 · 5 November 2019]

I actually thought I was watching the other King Arthur movie from 2017. I kwpt watching this one because I thought it was worth finishing.

Sure, its not a great movie, pretty shallow, predictable, and things could have went worse before they went better. But it was a decent movie, worth a few more than 2.5 stars.

I liked the lead, he was relatable and his character was sincere. I would like to see him in other roles. The scenery and props were pretty good, except the white houses (why white??)

Also the blood coming from the mouth was cheesy and almost made me dislike the movie.

Overall, I think the crew did a good job and deserve a few more stars!!

The terrible Excalibur rising

[TheLittleSongbird · 1/10 · 4 April 2018]

Didn't actually want to dislike 'King Arthur: Excalibur Rising' and didn't watch it with the deliberate intent to. Although not novel. there was an intriguing idea here that did have potential to work. something novel in any kind of media but it was hard not to be intrigued by it. Part of me was nervous though considering the less than favourable (putting that kindly) reception.

A reception that, after seeing 'King Arthur: Excalibur Rising', is justified. Was hoping to find some kind of value, being an encouraging generally reviewer, but 'King Arthur: Excalibur Rising' really is that bad. The concept is completely wasted, brought down terribly by the amateur hour execution and that not enough is done with it.

'King Arthur: Excalibur Rising' looks bad and that's being polite. The costumes wouldn't even pass for fancy dress, even bargain bin quality clothes look better. The effects and such are shoddy. Worst of all are the utterly chaotic photography, with an overuse of annoying techniques, and editing that is enough to make one physically ill.

The script is really embarrassingly cheesy and stilted, with them constantly being mumbled making it barely coherent too. Even more incoherent is the story, which is dull and disjointed with very little idea what it wanted to be, what direction to take and who to aim it at thanks to the kitchen sink of under-explored tones and ideas. The action is far from exciting. The profanity, violence and nudity were gratuitous in quality and abused in quantity.

Found nothing interesting or endearing about any of the characters, all of which have no traits other than dull or obnoxious. The acting is wooden and passionless, lumbering even and like they didn't know what to make of their lines and characters.

Merlin comes off best, and, along with the at least listenable if instantly forgettable music score, the best thing about the film. The less said about the direction, the better.

Overall, really awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox

MST3K potential

[kjm1501 · 1/10 · 5 September 2019]

This viewing was a real struggle. There was little mystery, poor film direction, and the action and dialogue were badly contrived. I tend to not blame actors since they too can be victims, but most could have tried to have given their roles some character. I mean, Merlin was casted because he looks like Ian McKellen's Gandalf...talk about being desperate for viewers. And Arthur's evil son was filmed hooded and from behind because...wait for it...he had a nasty scar on his cheek...sigh. I think if this was viewed under MST3K setting, it could provide humor, something I had trouble finding as it currently stands. Just doesn't have enough outrageousness, like Hawk the Slayer, to obtain cult status.

Wow, and not in a good way

[david-39958 · 1/10 · 10 July 2017]

First, I am pretty forgiving of movies. I watch to enjoy myself. I can deal with mediocre movies and still enjoy myself.

Second, I don't mind the re-telling or re-imagination of a tale. For example Excalibur 1981 is amazing. I also enjoyed the 2004 version of King Arthur with Clive Owen. 2 very different approaches to King Arthur.

Now, about this movie. As I said in the title, wow, and not in a good way. The acting isn't just bad, it's laughable. The story is an interesting idea that gets lost in the horrible script and horrible CGI. And making Merlin look like a cut-rate Gandalf was a bad idea. The Lady of the Lake lives in a scum filled pond.

One good thing is the movie is 99 minutes; about 30 minutes less than a real movie. One other good part was the opening scene of the Battle of Camlann. After that, it is all down hill.

Thanks Redbox for the bait and switch. You see, I only saw this movie because I thought I was renting a different movie. Who knew there were 2 movies in 2017 named King Arthur. I guess I should have paid closer attention to the subtitles. There is no reason Redbox should have this horrible of a movie to rent. The only reason I can think is they wanted my $1.50 now and then pay again when King Arthur Legend of the Sword is released.

So, watch this movie if it is cheap or free but be prepared. Set your expectations very low and you might do alright.

Wow .....I never thought life or film could get this bad .....Sir my liege !!!

[dilsonbelper · 1/10 · 5 October 2018]

Hi there film lovers, A quick review on this travesty of a shambles of two shams of a mockery, how could anybody in their tiny mind think that this film was good enough to release, in a few years from now a scientist will discover that all the wasted pixels used on UTTER garbage like this will be responsible for the demise of the human race, So I urge all film makers who after a few courses in film, actors with a bit of extra work behind them, TO STOP !!! making absolute tripe like KA:ER (2017) as you are damaging the future of mankind. Think about it ... Does this review contain spoilers? NO.... as this movie is so predictable it would take a moron not to work out the storyline after two pages of script. One more IMDM please we need a minus rating if so this would have received -10

Maybe the worst king arthur adaption.

[theromanempire-1 · 1/10 · 10 December 2018]

This time I urge you not to ignore the other reviews which were right. this movie sucks big time. u must be very polite to rank this crap more than....1 star and that's generous. I think only those who made this movie gave it more than 1 star. There is no need to tell you what's wrong with this movie. the other reviews said many of those stuff but I will tell you this to understand how bad this is. So far the only person I know who "watched" this film and he did not said anything wrong about the film was a person who in real life is simply...BLIND. that's the only way to....."watch"....this film and not bothered by it.....LOL

Just terrible

[stevenremmington · 1/10 · 18 September 2020]

I could only endure the first 20 minutes of this tragic disaster of a movie. During that time I realised just how appallingly bad this tripe is. It's like the director, camera operators etc. didn't even bother turning up during the filming, so presumably the actors just stuck a camera on a tripod and hoped for the best. This film should never have been released. I pity anyone who spends time watching this, as doing so will inevitably cause you to experience intense feelings of hopelessness, despair, and an overriding sense that in many ways humanity must take full responsibility for every evil in this world.

slow and boring

[steveswangler · 1/10 · 23 July 2017]

do not waste your time, I wish i had read the reviews before viewing. this is a plain awful film, and unfortunately, not even one of those films that is so bad you can enjoy how awful it is.

first, this was not a King Arthur film, it was a film about his sons. second, the story was slow moving which in turn just made the film flat out boring. I didn't find the acting as bad as some reviewers, just that the writing was so poor. to the reviewers who enjoyed this awful film, to each his/her own, but i'm not sure we viewed the same film. I have no problem with "re-imaginings", but this was not a re-imagining, this was more of a continuation of the Excalibur story, post Arthur. it was a good idea, but poorly executed.

WOW Great REVIEWS!!!

[lokifv · 30 September 2017]

OK, so I have not seen the movie yet. But considering how many bad reviews I have just read, I have definitely got to watch this movie to satisfy my curiosity.

I am giving this 10/10 before watching it assuming I will get the pleasure of experiencing the terribleness that has been advertised by other reviews.

...and I doubt one 10/10 from me is going to skew the true rating much...hahahaha.

.... OK, so, 30 minutes have gone by and I managed to get this far only because I was also playing (2 simultaneous instances of ) Final Fantasy Brave Exvius on mobile phone.

Yup, definitely worth 1 star!

A very good movie

[martinbrygger · 8/10 · 1 September 2017]

I think this movie is really good to watch in case you are interested in Arthurian Legends. There are some really common mythologocical themes in this movie, which I believe are quite accurate which gives the movie depth. This movie starts in the Iron Age, as Ovid would have called it, where even father and son are enemies. King Arthur has died and the sword has been returned to the Lady of the Lake by one of King Arthurs loyal knights. Mordred is on the throne, like an evil sheriff of Nottingham, while Owain is on his path to fulfill his destiny and bring justice back to the kingdom. The story has many similarities to other myths. Owain is the "once and future king". It's his destiny to wield Excalibur as the son of Arthur. It's possible to compare him with Robin Hood. What I like about this movie is that it shows the mythological struggle between good and evil and it shows that egoic behaviour and greed in the end only creates suffering until people understand the virtues of compassion and rightious action. In that sense, Owain is a true knight, like his father. The movie also has similarities to Star Wars, in that Owain is like Skywalker and Modred is Darth Vader. Both these characters have their magic ally in Merlin (Yoda) and Morgana (the emperor) respectively. I would watch this movie just to get an understanding of this timeless myth, although Excalibur (1981) is a much better movie. I particularly like the fact that this movie brings back the true virtues of being a knight, like honesty and compassion.

Interesting B movie take on the Arthurian legend.

[jbfilm-08769 · 7/10 · 12 November 2020]

People sometimes look for the wrong things in films. Fx and cgi don't matter a great deal if the purity of intention is right. This is not a big budget film and it would once, in a different era, have been a B-movie. As far as B-movies go it's pretty good. It re-works the Arthurian legend a little and takes influence from john snow and other aspects of Game of thrones and maybe Merlin has chunk of Gandalf in him and maybe there is a hint of Highlander in there too: It also cashes in a little on the guy Richie film using a similar poster. Movie making is about taking what you have and making the most/best of it and that is all they have done here with these elements. If you have high expectations and are comparing this to Excalibur then you are going to be disappointed and probably write a 2 star review. If you take it on its own merits then it is a thoughtful piece of work with a lot of integrity and good low budget intentions. It kept me intrigued and I found it strangely touching in moments. I liked the understated use of location, especially the one used for the lake from which Excalibur came. The film has many failings (some of which make it even more interesting) but it has many good qualities too. Sam fuller made great low budget films, and even though this is clearly not Sam Fuller in any way, the point I'm making is, there are joys to be had in a low budget film, and equally there are many crimes against cinema in films where hundreds of millions are spent. When people watch on mass and confuse gandalf with merlin and think that good CGI makes quality cinema then maybe it's time for a re-think and we should re-engage our brains again. I liked the film, it had a lot going for it and it was actually quite unique. I'll watch out for the film maker's future films. I think he may have something really interesting in him if he gets the chance to do it, sticks to his guns and doesn't, like others, confuse big budget fx with quality film making.

How it compares to other Arthurian movies?

[Pellam · 2/10 · 17 March 2020]

The battle between Arthur's sons is ruined by cheap effects and unnecessary gore.

Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen

[huskylovw · 1/10 · 8 July 2017]

From the beginning it was so confusing and had no substantial plot. From there the script was just awful. Sure it had some action but it was just amateur choreography. Many bad movies still entertained me but this just made me want it to be over from the beginning. So please never watch this. It is such a terrible movie

-_-

[petrosapo · 1/10 · 7 March 2019]

Total waste of time... if you dont have enough budget to make a good movie just dont make it...

OMG Horrible

[vernonjr · 2/10 · 19 October 2019]

Lifetime couldn't make a movie this bad....suffice to say....don't waste your time.