Read Negative User Reviews for King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

3

EludiumQ36Sep 19, 2017

I strongly agree with "Billy" and "WhiskeyStories" below. The film starts off with some cool action but gets bogged down in exposition, stupid British slang, and other 'tarded anachronisms. Wife fell asleep halfway through and I had enough atI strongly agree with "Billy" and "WhiskeyStories" below. The film starts off with some cool action but gets bogged down in exposition, stupid British slang, and other 'tarded anachronisms. Wife fell asleep halfway through and I had enough at 2/3, what a travesty. This should've been an epic film. I usually like director Ritchie's efforts but this was a big miss.… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

3

BiIIySep 15, 2017

Better than 70's B films. Insulting on every level. Plays to racial stereotypes. Has Asian with Samurai sword named "Kung Fu Joe." Because it's never too early for Europeans to mix up Japanese and Chinese culture. Has shoulder cameraBetter than 70's B films. Insulting on every level. Plays to racial stereotypes. Has Asian with Samurai sword named "Kung Fu Joe." Because it's never too early for Europeans to mix up Japanese and Chinese culture. Has shoulder camera action. Has horrible acting, overdone CGI, boring action, murders historic accuracy, copies LOTR castles, and is long. Critics who are positive on this movie must go to the same Hollywood cocktail parties Guy does. It's a total stinker.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

3

DoomSayerSantosFeb 17, 2018

A steaming pile of incoherent ****
Its watchable with the right amounts of alcohol.
But thats about it.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

3

SpangleSep 25, 2017

For the first time in his career, Guy Ritchie is likely happy he directed Swept Away because without its existence, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword would have firmly established itself as Ritchie's worst effort in his career. Entering in theFor the first time in his career, Guy Ritchie is likely happy he directed Swept Away because without its existence, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword would have firmly established itself as Ritchie's worst effort in his career. Entering in the illustrious pantheon of bad films that bomb after being intended to start a franchise, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is everything that is wrong about blockbusters today. Cliche and riding the hero's journey too closely, the film's special effects ridden action, frantic cutting (even beyond Ritchie's norm), and awkward injections of "humor" during tense or thrilling moments, the film is a hodge-podge of everything that studios believe audiences want. Unfortunately, as is often the case in these failed franchise starters, it turns out that audiences do not want to watch an incomprehensible, poorly edited, poorly acted, and exceedingly dull film.

The tragic part about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is that it starts off pretty well. With his castle under attack, King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) defends his people by using Excalibur to decisively cut through the invaders' forces and kill their leader. Unfortunately, he did not count on his brother Vortigern (Jude Law) having turned on him. Sacrificing his to become more powerful, Vortigern kills Uther and tries to take Excalibur, but Uther turns into a stone with the sword in his back. Setting up the legend of the sword with his son Arthur drifting off in a boat and being found by a group of women Moses-style, being destined to pull that sword out of him and liberate England from Vortigern. Though he is unwilling and tries to throw away his destiny (the classic cut-and-paste scene of the Lady of the Lake rising with the sword to give it back to Arthur that is in every King Arthur movie apparently), this destiny is not one he can run from unless he is willing to see Britain descend into darkness. Becoming the man who will liberate his people (Moses again), this prophet who is persecuted by the King (Moses again, but also Jesus to some degree) must rise to the occasion via the Hero's Journey to save England. Though cliched to a fault, the story is nonetheless one that can become gripping with Ritchie's occasionally sharp script delivering the fantastical journey and thrills necessary for a King Arthur film.

Unfortunately, shortly after the film's strong opening, things begin to go awry. In other words, Guy Ritchie takes over. Known for his rapid cutting, Ritchie seems to forget he has already cut 15,000 times before unleashing another round of 15,000 shots of Charlie Hunnam's face on the world. Immediately after the credits, he shows Arthur growing up from a young boy to a man with intensive training and odd encounters in his brothel home. Rapidly skimming through time, the headache-inducing sequence tragically sets the tone for a film that puts a premium on rapid cuts and slow-mo action instead of story. So brief, distracting, and inconsequential, this particular montage would have been better if replaced by a "20 years later..." bumper before just cutting to Arthur being a ripped Englishman set to encounter his destiny.

Reliant upon these rapid cuts throughout, Ritchie - as expected - uses it frequently as characters tell a story to somebody who was not there - such as Arthur giving an account of his whereabouts to a police officer with Ritchie flipping through the flashback and the present day with the flashback often matching Charlie Hunnam's every it of dialogue - or to toss in flashbacks and foreshadowing about Arthur's destiny, but where the film truly lacks with this rapid cutting are in action scenes. Rendering them nonsensical and often incomprehensible, Ritchie tries desperately to cover up the poor special effects with this flashy editing style, but it unfortunately has the opposite impact. Instead, these flashy cuts only serve to highlight the often poor special effects that are found in this film, especially as Arthur duels with officers towards the end. Cutting, pausing, slowing things down, and spinning the camera in a circle around the action, Ritchie tries every trick in his arsenal to make the scene look good but does nothing more than confuse and nauseate. Furthermore, it is a clear attempt to manipulate the audience into feeling tension and thrills during the action - especially as Arthur and his friends run from the cops with Ritchie rapidly cutting, using an extreme close-up with a handheld camera, and sprinkling in shaky cam into the scene - as even Ritchie can see that the film is not all that original. Trying to inject originality and beat back claims of predictability with these drawn-out and "stylish" action scenes, Ritchie only manages to further highlight his film's hollow nature. This half-hearted attack at style over substance only serves to prove this as he relies upon it like a crutch to make up for the film's thin writing and run-of-the-mill approach to Arthurian legend.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

3

ScienceAdvisorJul 26, 2017

If Ritchie had stuck to just a few styles, then perhaps this would not be such a mess. It may be one of his usual movies where style is considered far more important than substance, but at least it could have been coherent. By the mid-pointIf Ritchie had stuck to just a few styles, then perhaps this would not be such a mess. It may be one of his usual movies where style is considered far more important than substance, but at least it could have been coherent. By the mid-point the viewer will have seen everything from stunning HQ shots, to LQ self-cam chase scenes, as well as bargain basement CGI towards the end that will nauseate any viewer (barring the shill brigade giving this a 10). The result is a total schizophrenic mess, as if five film students all tried to randomly edit in their version of the story based on rolls of the dice.… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

3

DrollgorgMay 17, 2017

As summer arrives, so do blockbuster summer movies. Usually simple and straightforward, often campy, and always flashy and action-packed. However, it seems like these movies are less able to leave their mark every year– the market isAs summer arrives, so do blockbuster summer movies. Usually simple and straightforward, often campy, and always flashy and action-packed. However, it seems like these movies are less able to leave their mark every year– the market is practically oversaturated with action movies and TV shows, with what would have once been tentpole features now seeming to come out every weekend. Many of these vying chunks of screen-time are now written more smartly than ever, making it difficult for the crowd-pleasing mediocrity of summer action flicks to justify taking two hours of the audience’s time. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is one of 2017’s first summer blockbusters, and 2017’s first summer flop. This attempt at a gritty, dark fantasy retelling of the Arthurian legend strides confidently onto the stage, attempting to wow audiences without managing to stand out favorably from its competitors in the slightest. Taking place in ancient England, “Arthur” is essentially a prequel to the classic tales of the Round Table. It follows the rise to power of an amoral Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) raised on the streets after his uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) seized power and killed the sitting royals– which only happened after they had seized victory over the rebellion of the evil mage Mordred, who betrayed the previous mage kind and forced Merlin into forging Excalibur, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If you fail to see how that was necessary to my explanation of the plot, so did I as I was suffering through reams of exposition and flashback whose only place in the movie seems to be to remind you that the screenwriters read the source material. But to return to the story, “Arthur” moves frenetically from the title character’s life of crime, to his discovery of his magical destiny, to his joining of the rebellion against Vortigern; sprinkling in enough “refusal of the call” and “now it’s personal” tropes to grow an entire crop of B-list, testosterone-poisoned fantasy movies. Most actors are very serviceable, except for perhaps the only name-branded star on the cast– Jude Law, whose over-the-top and yet sort of bland delivery does not at all help the fact that he’s basically playing Magical Hitler with Extra Dark Souls. Come to think of it, Astrid Bergés-Frisbey I also could have done without, not because the script ever calls on her character “the Mage” to speak or emote like a normal human, but because her enunciation is like listening to a child who just broke into a veterinarian’s supply of ketamine. I’ll finish by saying that there’s nothing in the plot of the movie that’s actually that bad, except for what I would argue is the use of a poor man’s storytelling crutch- using magic to solve problems when the magic isn’t understood by the audience. What hobbles “Arthur” is the editing. Ritchie apparently couldn’t decide what style to cut the movie in, so he threw in every shot and angle used by mankind in the past three decades, usually with no actual reason for why this should be happening. There are some sequences I enjoyed- particularly when the camera moves with the tip of Excalibur. But most of the time the incessant montages, slow-motion, and everything in between makes the pacing utterly nonexistent and ruins the presentation of whatever good material there is. Narrative beats are replaced by constant motion which does nothing to justify itself, like Guy Ritchie wants to prevent the audience from being able to understand, much less appreciate, anything on screen. The cutting in this movie gave me a headache, and that isn’t an exaggeration.
You may have gathered that I did not enjoy this movie. Perhaps that is due to the fact that the writing is so consistently uninteresting. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that the movie’s insistence on flashy set-pieces and erratic presentation makes it all feel empty of any real heart or anything to say, and makes the narrative stakes so irrelevant that when something actually interesting happens it’s too late to care. The only coherent theme I could draw from this movie is that those who possess power deserve to use it as they wish. And perhaps I don’t like “Arthur” because it squanders all of the potential in the Arthurian legend in favor of a movie that distinguishes itself in no discernable way. The best demographic I can think of for this movie would be middle schoolers, because they are the most likely to be adequately distracted and engaged by its bounty of fast movement and bright lights. From me, it earns a score of 3.5 out of 10. It lost a lot of points because there are few things more painful to me than being able to see exactly where the potential for something to be good was lost. Most of that 3.5 was earned back, grudgingly, because this movie had a very high level of snake inclusion, which I have to give points for. The very large size of some of the snakes was something of a salve for my weary eyes.… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

0

darkbloodshed13Jan 3, 2018

I love fantasy movie and I'm also fan of the story King Arthur. However there hasn't really been a good movie adaptation of this story and sadly this movie didn't change that opinion. The story is pretty generic and they fail to catch what isI love fantasy movie and I'm also fan of the story King Arthur. However there hasn't really been a good movie adaptation of this story and sadly this movie didn't change that opinion. The story is pretty generic and they fail to catch what is fantastical about the original tale. They turn the character of Arthur from someone you want to see succeed into someone that we really don't have reason to care about. Finally they change the story to be about stopping the evil Uncle which feels like a rip off Hamlet. In conclusion if your looking for a good King Arthur story then stick to the books.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

1

raporgiMay 21, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The morons giving this movie a 10 must be children or have never watched movies before. This movie is a reskinned guns and geezers flick for the 1st half of its running time. The latter half is like a direct to budget video fantasy flick. The dialog is a mumbling mess of Guy Ritchie's patented cockney blathering. It has no sense of wonder or adventure. Secondary characters lay down the plot for idiots in boring expo dumps at various points in the movie. Too many anachronisms infest this movie. It tries to hard to be witty and stylish but just comes across as smug and conceited. Jude Law is the only thing worth watching in this flick. I wish it was about him instead of that two-legged of bore Charlie Hunnam. There are no clever twists or turns. Even the final boss fight is crappy and lacks any novelty or imagination. Just rent or pirate this pig swill.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

1

YosaMay 22, 2017

This was less a movie and more a series of scenes strung together; it barley informed the audience through its mishmash of of an introduction, and continued with this garbage format for the rest of the film. I encourage all who decide toThis was less a movie and more a series of scenes strung together; it barley informed the audience through its mishmash of of an introduction, and continued with this garbage format for the rest of the film. I encourage all who decide to waste there money on this, to also watch the 1981 film Excaliber, a moderate budget film, with low end special effects.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

1

CrimsonMarshallMay 27, 2017

I'm a pretty big Guy Ritchie fan, but somehow I don't think he wanted to make this movie, which is one the worst I've seen in quite a while. It almost joined Secret Life of Pets as one of the only movies I've ever walked out of, but someoneI'm a pretty big Guy Ritchie fan, but somehow I don't think he wanted to make this movie, which is one the worst I've seen in quite a while. It almost joined Secret Life of Pets as one of the only movies I've ever walked out of, but someone else was depending on me for a ride home so I just started online gambling, which was definitely a better investment of my time. I mean, there are many children and idiots out there, and if you are one of them, you certainly may love this hollow eye-puke. It seems to assume that I will care about it's shallow anti-heroes just because they are human beings but they're not - they're characters, and you need to give me a reason to give a damn about those. I'm someone with great reverence for the cinematic experience, but I laughed loudly and unashamedly at the film's several hamfisted attempts at conjuring pathos. It certainly was pathetic. This film is not worth dissecting because it's not even trying. For the love of God, avoid this steaming mass.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

3

DjakeirFeb 20, 2019

This is a perfect example of how trailers can manage to create a better film than the actual movie itself. This film had a lot of promise but just fell completely flat after the kind of interesting battle sequence at the start, but with giantThis is a perfect example of how trailers can manage to create a better film than the actual movie itself. This film had a lot of promise but just fell completely flat after the kind of interesting battle sequence at the start, but with giant eephants in a battle it is obviously going to be entertainig, albeit plagiarised from Lord of the rings. From then on the story was as dry and monotone as the acting that focused more on being charming than immersive. This is too cheap a movie to be loved and too bad a script to be considered as worthy of anybodies money.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

MrScallopsJun 19, 2019

The PlayStation One-era graphics and hectic editing ruin this gazillionth remake of the classic legend. Terrible electronic music and an overly complicated plot don't help either.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

tropicAcesMay 12, 2017

I really have no idea what this movie is, but then again the film itself has no idea what it wants to be. Half the time it's a magical epic, then the next second it's a boots-on-the-ground Knights tale. The climax is laughably awful, with CGII really have no idea what this movie is, but then again the film itself has no idea what it wants to be. Half the time it's a magical epic, then the next second it's a boots-on-the-ground Knights tale. The climax is laughably awful, with CGI flying on the screen with less coherency than Warcraft. The least demanding turn-your-brain-off moviegoers may find enough to be entertained, but this really is an awful excuse for a summer movie.… Expand

12 of 27 users found this helpful1215

All this user's reviews

3

paavovMay 12, 2017

This one has its Guy Ritchie moments (the coming of age sequence, some scenes with solid dialogue, and the chase after the assassination attempt). Also, I quite enjoyed the character of The Mage (even though she managed to spurt someThis one has its Guy Ritchie moments (the coming of age sequence, some scenes with solid dialogue, and the chase after the assassination attempt). Also, I quite enjoyed the character of The Mage (even though she managed to spurt some genuinely daft lines). But the film itself is a horrid mews of mediocrity. Just really bad. Avoid.… Expand

7 of 16 users found this helpful79

All this user's reviews

2

thomasmckenzieMay 13, 2017

The story is inane. Characters are flat. The plot is filled with holes. The "guy richie" moments all seem out of place. But it looks cool, so there's that.

8 of 20 users found this helpful812

All this user's reviews

3

vinothMay 12, 2017

Feels of some of good moment in this film chopped with fast cuts and not blend well for period theme, it looks movie mess up period art with digital world, every scene move in fast can't merge to story due to quick cuts.

7 of 18 users found this helpful711

All this user's reviews

3

EpicLadySpongeMay 12, 2017

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword gets as old as you attempt to read numerous King Arthur stories so many times it gets as embarrassing and disappointing by a starters package.

6 of 18 users found this helpful612

All this user's reviews

0

straycat73May 16, 2017

There is no logic in actions of all characters. The plot is worse than in Prometheus. The main baddie is just dumber than a sack of potatoes. No "Guy Ritchie style" at all.

6 of 25 users found this helpful619

All this user's reviews

2

JP32Dec 7, 2021

This is an After Effects demo reel, not a movie. Or perhaps more apt, a video game. A crappy, third-party Lord of the Rings ripoff developed by a British frat house.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

actiniumNov 19, 2021

/ /

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

BroyaxFeb 19, 2023

Guy Ritchie est le Tarantino anglais et de fait, il ne peut faire que de la merde, y compris avec les mythes arthuriens ! le voici qui tente de rendre le fameux héros (légendaire) cool et sexy (?), branché et à la mode moderne… comme dans unGuy Ritchie est le Tarantino anglais et de fait, il ne peut faire que de la merde, y compris avec les mythes arthuriens ! le voici qui tente de rendre le fameux héros (légendaire) cool et sexy (?), branché et à la mode moderne… comme dans un film de gangsters typique du réalisateur à la masse, ces films de merde dont il s’est fait une spécialité, ces espèces de viles comédies débiles et bien connes, avec toujours leur atmosphère branchouille de mes couilles.

On se croirait donc quasiment dans notre Kamelott (!) mélangé -comme dit plus haut- à de la tarantinade avariée et recyclée, pleine ici d’anachronismes et de dialogues aberrants, complètement déphasés par rapport au sujet initial et c’est peu de le dire !

On se croirait donc dans un film de loubards typique, londonien et prétentieux comme les daubes déjà torchées par Guy Ritchie, ce réalisateur à chier qui n’en manque pas une : il ne manque jamais une occasion de faire encore et toujours de la merde ! autant dire qu’on se lasse, qu’on s’énerve très vite devant ce salmigondis foutraque de sale film pourri, car last but not least, le rôle de cet Arthur débilos échoit au roi des quiches (et des cons) Charlie Hunnham ! la coupe est pleine, n’en jetez plus !… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews