King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (2017) User Reviews

Terrible Camera Work And Acting At Its Best

[niaz_islam · 1/10 · 4 June 2017]

It was pretty hard to decide what is the main base of this film. It has myth, magic, karate, spaceship, science, robot, weapons both swords and guns. Maybe the script writer did not want to leave out anything, so he put all the things he can think of in it.

And the screenplay is so hilarious that they could even add sound of passing shooting star as if one can hear it from earth. And the story also does not make any sense, simple things were happening in a complicated way. This kind of script needs a bit of comedy in it to lighten up the viewers mind as the scenes hardly made any sense. But there was not a shred of comedy.

The camera work, was out of the world or should I say out of the frame. Horrible camera work, full of close angle shots. There were hardly any wide angle shots. Seems a lot like amateur work.

Lastly, the acting. The acting was another horrible aspect of this film. The acting could not be more obvious than this. There was no emotion, expression or charisma at all. In some scenes it seemed like that they just have to deliver the dialogue somehow and move on to the next scenes. There was no commitment to the roles. And the dialogues were full of awkward unnecessary pauses.

Do yourself a favor, don't watch this movie.

NOT RECOMMENDED.

A less than legendary return

[TheLittleSongbird · 1/10 · 3 April 2018]

Now 'King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table' had a decent idea and did have the potential to work. Really liked the idea of turning the story and characters on their heads, not 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 and the Knights of the Round Table', is justified. Was hoping to find some kind of value, being an encouraging generally reviewer, but 'King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table' really is that bad. It completely wastes its concept by trying to do far too much in the writing, but it is the very amateur hour execution in every area that brings it down so catastrophically.

'King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table' looks terrible. 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 and editing that is enough to make one physically ill, had to lie after the film to stop myself from getting more queasy. The over-obvious and discordant music doesn't appeal at all and a lot of the sound gives one the creeps.

The script is really embarrassingly cheesy and stilted. Meanwhile the story is an over-crowded kitchen sink of different tones. Far too many and none handled well, it does affect the coherence (which badly suffers throughout) and it gives the sense that the film didn't know what it wanted to be, what direction to take and who to aim it at.

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, only Sara Lane tries and even she isn't very credible as a result of trying to carry the film single-handedly (something she struggles with).

Overall, terrible. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Wholly disappointing, but almost on a comedic level.

[bucketofowls · 1/10 · 21 January 2018]

While I won't be suggesting King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table as a Bad Movie Night movie, it certainly couldn't hurt to be one. The inexperienced cast bit off far more than they could chew, largely unable to deliver their lines with any kind of emotional impact. The plot itself would have been more promising if the characterization and line delivery weren't all over the place.

The one saving grace were Russell Banks as Mordred and Sara Lane as Morgana, both of whom were (at times) carrying the full weight of good characterization. It's pretty sad when most of your main cast has worse acting talent than the side characters. (Side note: the men who played security should be taken more seriously as actors, their expressions and enunciation were much better than everyone else.)

This movie's not worth wasting your time on, but I would be lying if I said I didn't see potential in Sara Lane or Russell Banks. I hope some opportunities come their way in the future, with better scripts, directors, and coworkers, because the tragedy of this movie screwed them out of what was otherwise a decent performance.

Don't bother!

[lyons738 · 1/10 · 8 March 2018]

This movie is a waste of time. This was like watching a low budget college film, the script was cheesy and the camera cutaways were horrible. If you start watching this movie you either are a glutton for punishment, or you are in search of the worst movie made.

One star is too generous

[rpwoolford2003 · 1/10 · 23 March 2018]

This movie is so bad, I wish there was a way to give it a negative star rating.

I literally wasted 2 hours of my life

[ptmudzudza · 1/10 · 3 July 2017]

The only good thing about the movie is the fact that there are not more than 15 characters so u get to see how good or bad they really are throughout the movie. As for the story line, script, camera angles, special effects, and everything else u expect from a movie, it was just so pathetic

I regret watching it, and I hope you won't make the same mistake i did by watching it

Ridiculous!

[magpie221 · 1/10 · 5 August 2018]

The start was rubbish but watched for another 10 minutes and it just got weird. Deleted and won't bother again. Neither should you!

Asylum-Like Knock Off

[jakam · 1/10 · 1 January 2018]

Expatriate and B actors and actresses in Thailand (not Taiwan, as another reviewer noted) doing a knock off of what the producers probably hoped was a blockbuster, but since 2017's big budget King Arthur was a box office bomb, they didn't have much to emulate. As others noted, wooden acting, bad fight choreography, weird weapon choices, unnecessary sci fi elements, continuity issues, plot holes, you name it.

awful

[jonathanfitz · 1/10 · 15 January 2019]

I'd give the storyline a 4/10 because it was pretty good, but the visual and special effects were horrible. I, a 14 year old, feel like I could very easily do way better visual and special effects with what I know just from YouTube videos on how to do special effects. If I could I would rate this movie a -13/10.

Pilot?

[cayotica · 10 January 2018]

I rate this movie a solid five not good, not bad. It looked a lot like a combination of a Superman movie, a smallish bit-o King Arthur and some sort of a The 7 Samurai movie. Even though it's not mentioned in the writeup on this site, the ending led me to believe that was most likely going to be a Pilot for a T.V. series maybe named something like "King Arthur and The New Knights of the Round" which BTW was the name of the movie when I watched it on cable. The script was easy to follow even though I never heard of some of the legends they were throwing out there. Acting was poor, special effects even more poor however I really would watch it again, just as I watch Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan and everything else and that the Japanese make in the "B" science fiction genre. And that's exactly how rate this movie a typical Japanese science-fiction movie. It's even supposedly based in Taiwan the perfect place. I recommend this movie for everybody who loves a goodish B movie and if you listen closely, near the end of the movie, even though the Big Guy's not in this movie I'm pretty sure I heard someone mention Godzilla.

You Name It...

[Darcsyde01 · 2/10 · 7 June 2017]

You name it, and this movie's got it...and it's all bad. So very, VERY bad. The acting, the effects, the plot (what there was of it) were just so horrendous that you can't measure it with current technology. Knights of the Round Table...in Taiwan. Active duty Marines with full beards. A Marine who, when he fears he might not pass his Captains exam (HUH??) laments he'll, "always be a grunt." (sorry Skippy, but if you're an officer...you are no longer a grunt.) Dojos that are obviously NOT dojos, but more like Taiwanese temples. When Morgana goes into battle mode, it's painfully obvious that the make-up artist just slathered her hair with white grease paint. The list goes on. Avoid at all cost.

"I'm not gonna hurt you. I'm just gonna disintegrate your soul"

[pob75 · 2/10 · 22 April 2020]

The above quote can pretty much serve as a review for this film. I wasn't expecting Boorman's "Excalibur" or anything like it, but even so this was far worse than I thought. Once you have watched it for 10 minutes you know what territory you are in. The guy playing King Arthur is absolutely awful, as are the lines he (barely) delivers. I stuck it through to the end as I don't feel it is right to rate or review a film you haven't actually watched. It gets 2 stars because 1 star (for me) is reserved for absolute rubbish with NO redeeming features. If I could rate those as zero, this and others like it, would get one star. This film has one (relative) positive - Sara Lane (Morgana) appears (to some degree) able to act and delivers her part with commitment and a couple of minor characters were not awful. Other than that it is awful. Script, plot, acting, special effects - all of it. The majority of roles are played by people who would seem bad in a poor school play. Almost every line made me cringe either for the script, delivery or terrible acting. Often all three. It feels like the direction consisted of "OK. Just say these words any way you want to. Let's get it done." There is so much more to say but in short this is just very poor.

ESL student could write a better script, er, translation

[rtayaben · 3/10 · 8 March 2019]

Tristan's descendant was closest to a realistic performance and could use a better role/makeup. For the rest of the film, if this was a purely US production, it would be a 1-star (my B action flick ratings start at 7/10 stars, so it's hard to mess up). So I imagined having adequate dialogue would earn the film a 5/10. It's hurt by terrible production values, especially when the Knights claim to use original Arthurian weapons; they look like cheap Asian training swords. Cops use "security" uniforms. Merlin's descendant's mansion is actually a school they forgot to cover the name of. The ending speech dragged way too long. And the final image, seriously? Maybe Thai audiences don't care, but Americans will, thus a 3/10 average. Don't waste your time watching.

Painful to watch.

[dawierushmer-03787 · 1/10 · 15 June 2017]

Very poorly​ made. Actors seem to be talking to the walls or a piece of wood. The idea was good to be fair, but poorly made. Rather spend your money on a burger or something. Would not recommend to anyone. Story was pointless with quite a few unanswered questions. It looks like this was just another low budget​ movie who thought they could get rich quickly.

Turrible!

[captain_kirk_1 · 1/10 · 21 April 2019]

Unbelievably bad movie! It's as though they tried to make it ridiculously terrible by looking for the worst actors they could find and then sabotaging them even further by providing a truly disastrous script full of the most awful dialogue they could come up with the night before filming! I'm usually able to find at least a small amount of enjoyment from almost every movie that I watch. However, this one was just turrible!

The worst film ever made

[gilesadhamilton · 1/10 · 26 September 2021]

I can't believe this is only four years old. It has the production values, soundtrack and acting of an 80s straight to VHS project that was rejected by the smallest distribution company. The English actor is so bad he seems to be reading his lines.

This deserves zero stars

[popcultureearthmother · 1/10 · 22 August 2021]

I have no idea where to even begin. The bad script? The bad acting? The bad camera work? Lets start with the apocalyptic wooshing of the shooting stars where the couple unrealistically stand by the window all romantic like as if that wouldn't be terrifying. That was warning number one that this on a downward slope. Everyone in this movie should just give up on making movies.

Remember the SNL skit wity Stephan? This movie has everything. Guns. Witches. Wizards. Swords. Knights. Karate.

I watched 30 minutes and switched to a true crime doc.

After School Special

[bemyfriend-40184 · 3/10 · 21 September 2021]

Before the internet, we had cable and even local broadcast TV. There was a creature called The After School Special. It was obviously for kids, and usually had bad acting. This is that. The fight between the women was good. One had a whip. But a few good moments don't help this poor flick. Gets three stars. Seen on Tubi, the free streaming site; which has an odd variety of films, and some real-time TV.

King Author and the nights at the round table

[ncassara · 1/10 · 26 June 2017]

This Movie of King Author was not good at all. I Could not comprehend anything about this movie. It was a Waste of my time and my money. Maybe others may like this but not me. Growning up reading books and watching other films of King Author was more of the old times not of the future time. I was so displeased with this movie. Wish it was better

Banished Morgana returns to claim her mighty sword from the knights of new Camelot

[Chase_Witherspoon · 3/10 · 5 February 2024]

CGI Excalibur we didn't need, stars O'Brien and his mohawk mullet as a modern-day descendant of King Arthur thrust into the family conflict when the evil Morgana (Lane) appears to recover Excalibur. Statuesque, leather-clad Lane is the sole reason to endure this ultra-cheap fantasy flop as she sadistically struts around Thailand (where the family has gathered for an annual ritual) with her creepy son Mortdred hunting down those who oppose her.

Apart from Lane, there's little else to recommend in this talky medieval martial arts mish-mash which despite not taking itself too seriously, is plot-lite and amateurish. Bangkok location-work is attractive, but its a technically makeshift production (lighting/ shadows and visible crew reflections) and both the dialogue and acting are at best dubious.

Momentarily revived each time Lane appears to take control, the film then deteriorates again as the wisecracking descendants posture and bicker about their situation getting to grips with the legacy they now have to embrace. Which of course leads them to an armoury full of heavy artillery as they do battle with a now Japanese-monster sized Morgana in a preposterous climax. And if you persist to this point, thou shalt endure one of the longest death scenes ever to disgrace the screen.

Trash

[joshjamesgloria · 1/10 · 25 July 2022]

It's a total waste of time. The script is so cheesy. Editing bad. Acting worse. I couldn't say anything good in this movie. Giving 1 star is so generous of me because it doesn't deserve even if it's just one. What a waste of budget. I can't believe I watched this.

Don't Watch, Read

[Sumpmonster · 1/10 · 31 May 2022]

The reviews for this movie are way more interesting and entertaining than this movie could hope to be. Or maybe not, maybe this is the producers cunning plan to dupe every movie fan into watching this unadulterated garbage in the hope that every other project they're involved in won't seem so bad.

Prouduction values of an tsetse fly.

Where To Start?

[Armando_Cassels · 1/10 · 31 May 2022]

Even for an afternoon Horror Channel piece, this falls below the levels of awfulness. The script seems to have written on the back of a fag packet and the dialogue is completely risible - cheese doesn't begin to describe it unless it's some form of festered cheese that's been hidden under a rock for a few decades. The whole thing seems to have been shot in dubious light conditions with a camera that makes a Nokia 7650 state of the art.

Sara Malakul Lane as Morgana is very pretty and despite her wooden-ness is the most adept performer on screen.

I genuinly like it

[gacsogergely · 8/10 · 24 February 2022]

On paper, this film should not work. You have all the low budget thing here by paper: talking people in rooms, randomly bursting into martial arts routins, cheesey effects.

But the effects are not used sparingly, creating a genuin feeling of this world, the combat has a mixture of navy combat, mma and costume-knight-fighting, creating a sorta '80s ninja-films vibe.

The actors are not great, all C-list one-of-a-dozen combat-troops with a couple of exceptions where it counts. Like Mordred felt like effort was put writing his character. And.the actress playing Morgana. (Sara Malakul Lane) is a good actress in her tier judging from her other roles. I prefer not giving names for reasons. But just looking at he later roles everyone can see she broke out from Asylum. And there is Gunner, who was the much needed comic-relief.

Yes, you can see the limitations of the studio sometimes (some of the stabs and whacks are obvious fakes), but darn, they had good location. I'm curious how they got those places. Seriously, way above Asylum's access to stuff.

Not to mention mECHA mORGANA - that worth a view ini itself.

Waste of 2 hours

[jmpomeroy · 1/10 · 10 March 2023]

The premise of "King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table" was initially quite good as it takes a spin on Arthurian myth as Morgana and Mordred return to Earth after 1500 years. Unfortunately, this is about all the movie does well.

Beginning with the camera work throughout the movie, it was most defiantly some of the worst camera work I have ever seen in a film. The lighting choices throughout the movie were questionable at best. Flashing light from "lightning" set in what is essentially a pitch-black room made it impossible to tell who was doing what and what was happening during the fight scene in Gunner's house. Whether or not this lighting choice was to cover up poor fight choreography, poor acting, or both. Perhaps though, a simplir answer would be a low production budget and an amature production team.

The acting in the film was worse than that of a middle school play. The main group of characters were piss-poor at best. Although the accent that Russell Geoffrey Banks took on as Mordred was certainly interesting, it was his acting along with Sara Malakul Lane's that really carried the film.

All in all, you won't be missing out on much by skipping over King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.