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

5

WhiskeyStoriesAug 31, 2017

Loved and hated it at the same time. The elements of the film that I enjoyed I loved very much, but the ones I did not I absolutely hated. The producers and Guy Ritchie's attempt to mesh this age old fantasy tale with the style of SnatchLoved and hated it at the same time. The elements of the film that I enjoyed I loved very much, but the ones I did not I absolutely hated. The producers and Guy Ritchie's attempt to mesh this age old fantasy tale with the style of Snatch really did not work for me. I was on board initially, the first act was fun and had some entertaining and unique world building, the middle was kinda boring, some of the fights were highlights, but it started to lose me, and the last act of the film is just horrendous, it's cheap and messy with boring CGI fights so bad they reminded me of the infamous scene from Matrix Reloaded. The writing is sloppy, the story is (obviously) predictable, it's your standard fantasy plot with a few original ideas, the jokes are flat and mainly unfunny with underwhelmingly uninteresting characters not fleshed out at all, but the thing I hated the most is the editing, it sucked so bad, this hectic cutting and confusing scene structure did not serve the plot in any way, it was just to show off the style (which at least was kinda inventive) and most importantly it did not fit the movie at all. Now the good, some of the actors were quite fun: Charlie Hunnam tried really hard and it showed, but the character was just not well written enough, Jude Law chewing the scenery was fun and I personally have a soft spot for Astrid Berges-Frisbey ever since the fourth Pirates so I liked her a lot here as well. The cast seemed like they were having fun and that helped the film's enjoyability. The music was a bit illfitting, but I actually liked it quite a lot. The fantasy part was quite strong in the beginning with some stunning visuals. What pains me the most is that it could have been an extremely enjoyable fantasy film, but the final product is not that much better than the In the Name of the King movies, which says a lot. Loved the first 40 minutes, it had good atmosphere and a sense of adventure exploring a new world, but I despised the last 40 minutes. During King Arthur all I could think about is Ritchie's smug face thinking what he made is the coolest film ever (which it isn't) and that thought along with the ending left a bad taste in my mouth. If I'd catch it on the telly I'd probably watch it, but that's as far as my recommendation goes.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

EpsilonSigmaMuMay 14, 2017

While Ritchie's frenetic editing and more action focused plot might miss the mark for some, I believe their's a charm about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword that saves it from being another mindless re-hash of a classic tale, particularly inWhile Ritchie's frenetic editing and more action focused plot might miss the mark for some, I believe their's a charm about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword that saves it from being another mindless re-hash of a classic tale, particularly in its production design, music, and enjoyable interpretations of *most* of the classic characters.… Expand

7 of 9 users found this helpful72

All this user's reviews

5

sanchopanchoMay 18, 2017

What a silly mess. I've lost a few neurons watching this, but I had fun. Don't walk in late because the opening scene with the giant elephants is probably the most spectacular of the whole movie.

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryMay 16, 2017

Director Guy Ritchie has taken a very dark approach to the classic tale and turned the king into a superhero. Charlie Hunnam holds the title role as an orphan raised by prostitutes who pulls the famous sword. After initial protests, he leadsDirector Guy Ritchie has taken a very dark approach to the classic tale and turned the king into a superhero. Charlie Hunnam holds the title role as an orphan raised by prostitutes who pulls the famous sword. After initial protests, he leads the fight against his uncle (Jude Law) in one of the numerous battles that's a blur of action, quick cuts and aggressive music. There are some grand visuals, excess all around and a frantic pace (much of the time), but it still feels noisy and empty. (Yes, that's David Beckham in a small role at the stone.)… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

6

BrianMcCriticAug 10, 2017

Guy Ritchie's King Arthur gives you exactly what you should expect. The style isn't changing and that can be good or bad. I had a pretty fun time with this film but towards the middle of the film the story begins to weaken. Charlie HunnamGuy Ritchie's King Arthur gives you exactly what you should expect. The style isn't changing and that can be good or bad. I had a pretty fun time with this film but towards the middle of the film the story begins to weaken. Charlie Hunnam is at his best here since Sons of Anarchy and I thought he made a fine King Arthur. This is a film that falls flat in parts but is a fun watch nonetheless. B-… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

KadeemluvmusicMay 14, 2017

I don't know if this is the perfect time to bring a King Arthur movie come back to life because it should've been that exciting. The last time King Arthur came to theaters was in 2004 (Touchstone) and it was above average, but I wasI don't know if this is the perfect time to bring a King Arthur movie come back to life because it should've been that exciting. The last time King Arthur came to theaters was in 2004 (Touchstone) and it was above average, but I was disappointed at Antoine Fuqoa's direction that led the film into a forgotten poorly executed movie despite a great cast with fairly solid performances including Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, and pre-Gift star Joel Edgerton. Boy, 2004 turn out to be a bad year for summer movies. but on the other hand, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is less Reign of Fire and more Eragon. Try as Guy Richie's might, but this is probably one of his weakest movies in his career. No disrespect to Richie, he's a talented directed. But having Warner Bros. to call him up for another summer blockbuster is not very good. Charlie Dunham is not a proven Hollywood star (Pacific Rim flopped, but an underrated gem) and despite the awesome Djimon Hounsou, Annabelle Wallis, and Aiden Gillen showing what they can to deliver a solid performance, Eric Bana, on the other hand, is just so boring. He's not a great actor, I still didn't like him as The Incredible Hulk. But still Warner Bros. just completely forgets that this is another s**tty origins story that tries to wow its audience, but ended up getting flat on their faces. Jack The Giant Slayer, Pan, The Legend Of Tarzan (last year), and this. Another retelling of the folklore known as "The Knights Of The Roundtable." Great, they just copied Disney's beloved animated film "The Sword In The Stone" and turned it into another pointless rip-off by Warner Bros. I'm also quite confused why Soccer legend David Beckham wanted to make a cameo in this movie. Man, this smells like box office bomb all over again. Really, if you really want a perfectly executed tale of King Arthur, then grab your couch, head on over to Netflix, and re-watch either "Excalibur (1981)" or I can't wait to watch this again "Monty Phython And The Holy Grail (1975)." In the meantime, King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is just plain dumb. Like I said, the acting is confusing and the story is forgettable, but there's a nice touch to it. The visuals were beautiful and the CGI is pretty damn good. But if you wanted to succeed as an action blockbuster, make sure it doesn't ruin the benefactor of getting your audience hyped up to see this movie. But King Arthur: Legend of The Sword is one of my worst movies of 2017 (So Far). I'm sorry, but this is the biggest low point of Guy Richie's career.… Expand

7 of 11 users found this helpful74

All this user's reviews

5

KaptenVideoMay 15, 2017

Guy Ritchie… oh man. He used to be my hero. I loved his two first works – crime comedies „Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels“ (1998) and „Snatch.“ (2000) which I still name as my favorite movie of all time.
Number of (indie) filmmakers haveGuy Ritchie… oh man. He used to be my hero. I loved his two first works – crime comedies „Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels“ (1998) and „Snatch.“ (2000) which I still name as my favorite movie of all time.
Number of (indie) filmmakers have tried to capture his approach ever since – colorful, funny and full of energy, partially thanks to inventive use of modern dance music and snappy editing – but no one has come quite close.
Neither has Ritchie himself, actually. He lost his spark when his right hand man left to become a famous Hollywood director of his own. There’s an old rumor that producer Matthew Vaughn was actually the man behind most of the good **** in Ritchie’s early movies, and following their later careers, it’s actually easy to believe that.
Anyway, since 2009 Ritchie has had luck to reinvent himself as the man who makes big-budget modern versions of loved old heroes, so we’ve had two „Sherlock Holmes’es“ with Robert Downey Jr., a spy story „The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“ and now, „King Arthur“.
Ritchie has pitched „King Arthur“ as „Snatch.“ meets Tolkien but in reality we get something looking like „Game of Thrones“, only without interesting characters, story or even dialogue.
The pathetic excuse for a story used here is mostly for stitching the action scenes together and for the last maybe 45 minutes, they just give up, going for the overdose of generic fantasy cliches instead.
The result feels surprisingly similar to many recent superhero movies: looks good, is entertaining in short dosages, and gets progressively more tiresome during the last hour – except for the fanboys, maybe.
"King Arthur" is actually the first of planned six movies. Here's hope that critics are proven right and this will tank at the box office, so we can get something new instead. IMDb hints that Ritchie is thinking about live-action "Aladdin" and "Holmes 3" next.
So... "King Arthur" looks good visually and I wanted to like it. Sadly, there is just not enough movie here for 126 minutes.
At least the actors did what they could with the shallow material and Charlie Hunnam as the future king is suitably rugged and furious – think Chris Hemsworth in the first „Thor“. But this is not enough for serious contender.… Expand

6 of 10 users found this helpful64

All this user's reviews

5

mrmonsterSep 10, 2017

Even though it had an interesting premise for a King Arthur movie, it was ultimately kind of boring and was an overall skippable movie. It's worth a cheap rental, but I am glad I did not pay to see this in theaters.

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

EstebanBozaMay 19, 2017

Went to watch the movie expecting much more. The acting was not bad, it was actually quite good, the sound editing top notch as well, but that's pretty much it. The movie after a while gets exhausting with the exagerating CGI effects andWent to watch the movie expecting much more. The acting was not bad, it was actually quite good, the sound editing top notch as well, but that's pretty much it. The movie after a while gets exhausting with the exagerating CGI effects and crazy camera movements. Almost seems like they are pushing you through the whole movie without focusing on a good story. The script at times gets cheesy, with jokes or lines that looks like they tried to make it funny but failed (nobody laughed at the movies). This movie is similar to what happens in many modern day video games, focus too much on the graphics and sounds but not on a solid, interesting and intriguing story and experience.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

6

WiscoJoeMay 12, 2017

If you've ever wondered what would happen if Guy Ritchie directed a King Arthur movie, here's your answer. Other than that there's not much to recommend about this film. It's rarely boring, and Ritchie's style mixed with the near-sacredIf you've ever wondered what would happen if Guy Ritchie directed a King Arthur movie, here's your answer. Other than that there's not much to recommend about this film. It's rarely boring, and Ritchie's style mixed with the near-sacred source material often leads to some novel, if incongruous, moments. Still, it's mostly forgettable B-movie fantasy hokum, like Game of Thrones goes Grindhouse. Fair warning for those who care... Every female character, save one, is literally sacrificed to advance the story and the desires of men. The only female character with agency isn't even given her own name. For a movie set in the dark ages, this makes logical sense, except for the fact that Ritchie clearly doesn't care about anachronisms. It seems like the retrograde gender politics is less an essential part of the historical setting and more a signature feature of Ritchie's "blokes only" wheelhouse.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

5

CineAutoctonoMay 19, 2017

"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" was a somewhat passable film, because if the essence of history, and history in general were respected, but the performances were acceptable, and the action scenes were more of the same, some Were good, and"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" was a somewhat passable film, because if the essence of history, and history in general were respected, but the performances were acceptable, and the action scenes were more of the same, some Were good, and others were stuck with the camera moves of a "Sucker Punch" scene, but I think it's unfair to compare Sucker Punch with King Arthur, but the bottom line is that Guy Ritchie needs some scene management Of action that has always been handled, as in Sherlock Holmes, or The Man of UNCLE, and that the film is enjoyable, but very regular at times.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

5

Compi24May 16, 2017

Guy Ritchie tries his best to grip and tug on the hilt of Arthurian legend in "King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword," an undeniably flashy, semi-entertaining cgi-fest that, unfortunately, didn't make a lick of sense to me. True, the more generalGuy Ritchie tries his best to grip and tug on the hilt of Arthurian legend in "King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword," an undeniably flashy, semi-entertaining cgi-fest that, unfortunately, didn't make a lick of sense to me. True, the more general aspects of the story came across pretty clear. Jude Law is evil and needs to die. Charlie Hunnam is the one, true king and also in pretty good shape. Magic is complicated. Snakes are cool. But it's the intricacies of this narrative that really, truly, and tragically escaped me. A lot of the "how's" and "why's" are either completely disregarded or swept up in the fracas of a traditional Guy Ritchie montage sequence. Yes, the "Excalibur" sword fight sequences (all one-and-a-half of them) are super incredible from a visual standpoint, but without any of the emotional weight or stakes needed to make them more engaging, this film ultimately ends up wandering into the "mindless" end of the action film spectrum.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

5

qamasterJul 29, 2017

The story is too straightforward and naive, but the camera work and editing by Guy Ritchie, as always, are stunning. His imagination of visual effects is incomparable. The visual part of the film undoubtedly deserves the highest evaluation.The story is too straightforward and naive, but the camera work and editing by Guy Ritchie, as always, are stunning. His imagination of visual effects is incomparable. The visual part of the film undoubtedly deserves the highest evaluation. In general, if for the semantic part put 0, and for the visual 10 then the average score is 5… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

The_T-10Jun 3, 2017

So this is supposed to be a movie set in the middle ages, yet it doesn't feel like that. The only good performance in this latest King Arthur movie is Eric Bana's. The lead actor doesn't impress me at all. The plot had a potential, but theSo this is supposed to be a movie set in the middle ages, yet it doesn't feel like that. The only good performance in this latest King Arthur movie is Eric Bana's. The lead actor doesn't impress me at all. The plot had a potential, but the delivery was all over the place. And the camera work was absolutely the worst part of this movie. This was only the second time I fell asleep in a movie cinema (The other one being 2014's Godzilla). After the epic opening part, the movie just went completely on a wrong direction. Don't waste your time and watch Guardians vol. 2 instead. And hopefully, there won't be a sequel or spin-off.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

chrisjee1234Jun 25, 2017

King Arthur: LotS was much better than I thought it would be. I liked what Guy Ritchie brought to this world, which was refreshing. However, in the midst of the entertainment, this movie isn't a great one; it's a mixed bag.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

gamerzxJul 24, 2017

Good movie. Great cast. It feels more like an experiment in High fantasy than a retelling of the Arthurian Legend.

The Arthurian legend is based on a leader in Britain that forged peace between the Romans, Celts (Britons), Anglo-Saxon-JutesGood movie. Great cast. It feels more like an experiment in High fantasy than a retelling of the Arthurian Legend.

The Arthurian legend is based on a leader in Britain that forged peace between the Romans, Celts (Britons), Anglo-Saxon-Jutes and the Vikings. He was a Romano-Celt. He turned the conflicts of the different peoples into a peaceful nation. A nation that rose and disappeared so fast leaving a memory that has lasted almost two thousand years.

The different King Arthur renditions that I will compare this to are;

1) Excalibur. The movie that is by far the best King Arthur retelling of them all. Every scene has your blood pumping your skin crawling your anger inflamed or a shock to your remaining senses.
2) The Sean Connery retelling. Camelot. Not bad. It is too watered down made for an audience that includes date-night crowds. 3) Clive Owen. Arthur. Good conceptualization with Merlin as a Celt. Accurate armor and dress. Fighting the Saxons who are mercilessly attempting a forceful conquest of the Isle of Britain.
4) Starz Camelot. Great moments good reimagining. We likely will never see the smiths daughter rise as the Lady of the Lake. Merlin was a fantastic reimagining of a young wizard without discipline. They blended the legend with sitcom episodic interactions. Turned down the intensity of the story. Morganna was fantastic too. The actress from Kingdom of Heaven. 5) Merlin the made for TV series. I saw this I can't remember much of it. Not memorable but well reviewed.

The effects were called generic by one critic. The videogame sequences were one of the better parts of the movie. The weakness in it is it didn't make your blood pump (move you emotionally) until the Celtic Hymns kicked in at the end. The sequences of the partisan war were too brief. There was not enough character intensity showing Arthur forging his band of post story Round Table Knights. The Guy Ritchie modern underworld takes were good. Arthur being a rogue in his youth is a good concept (rather than being raised by merlin and his adopted Father from the legend).

tldr

I enjoyed the effects loved the cast. The story was flatlined. Jude Law's character was portrayed as disinterested. A little bit of Hollywood portrayal of Royalty. They had to mesh the most important moments better. Those are his upbringing. The revealing of his lineage and the sword in the stone. His rise as a leader. His victory over the bad guys.

Guy Ritchie needed to make it more like Batman Dark Knight and the original Excalibur. He didn't concentrate on the main characters. There were a lot of characters. I never had any feel of bonding between the group. It could be a product of the times that when reviewed with terms like generic you tend to receive a review from me with generic imagery.
Excalibur my favorite has the heavy armor of the High Middle Ages way past Arthur's time. Perhaps it works because the memory of his Kingdom and the Chivalry of his Knights was remembered at its peak in the high Middle Ages. The heart of the story is that England (Great Britain) love the character for defeating so many enemies and bringing peace. Only to see it disappear within a blink of the eye. Leaving only memory and song (poetry) that is cherished and loved by many today.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

LinttaFlamingoMar 3, 2018

What a fun mess.

This movie or more like a two hour music video starts immediately in the middle of a battle with huge elephants and loud music playing in the background. It's chaotic and expensive looking and admittedly kind of exciting.What a fun mess.

This movie or more like a two hour music video starts immediately in the middle of a battle with huge elephants and loud music playing in the background. It's chaotic and expensive looking and admittedly kind of exciting. After this we get some weird dialogue with music still playing in the background because at the same time the movie keeps cutting to a battle. Ten minutes in we see Arthur for the first time and the movie becomes extremely fast-paced and it felt like the movie was constantly skipping over some important character moments so it could get back to the stylistic action. I guess Guy Ritchie just wanted to make a cool looking movie without really caring about character development, because I seriously didn't care about anyone in this film.

The film just feels like a bunch of weirdly edited montages with music playing loudly in the background. Sometimes so loudly that I couldn't hear any of the dialogue even when the characters were yelling. Almost everything is done in slow motion and a lot of the camerawork was very over the top. King Arthur of course has to have perfect hair even after waking up or having mud all over him, but I didn't really even mind because the movie just kind of begs you to roll with it.

There were a couple moments that had some actual tension with the characters and fun dialogue, but they're over pretty quickly and the movie gets back to the action.
Overall King Arthur Legend Of The Sword is a very over the top film that doesn't really care to give actual characters to care about, just very entertaining action. Some of the acting is pretty bad and Jude Law isn't given enough to do, but I'd recommend this movie as some late night entertainment.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

night4Aug 21, 2017

The movie starts out very strong, and I LOVED the first montage that shows Arthur growing up. It's well done, interesting and appropriate. Almost every other subsequent montage is worse, until the movie degenerates into a cacophonicThe movie starts out very strong, and I LOVED the first montage that shows Arthur growing up. It's well done, interesting and appropriate. Almost every other subsequent montage is worse, until the movie degenerates into a cacophonic phantasmagoria.

I've never seen a movie that displays such extremes, and it's a shame, because what IS good is *really* good. The bizarre editing, poor casting (especially Aidan Gillen), mediocre acting, and inexplicable story ruin it, though.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

FlexedacornMay 23, 2017

Guy Ritchie’s reimagining of the tale of King Arthur may not be the best adaptation, but it was defiantly the most unique. Ritchie's continues direct with his distinct film style of reverse storytelling, prevalent in his other works such asGuy Ritchie’s reimagining of the tale of King Arthur may not be the best adaptation, but it was defiantly the most unique. Ritchie's continues direct with his distinct film style of reverse storytelling, prevalent in his other works such as Sherlock Holms and Snatch. It takes a smooth talking actor to pull this style off effectively, and in that regard Charlie Hunam was perfectly cast for the role. If you are a fan of Guy Ritchies other films you will like this one. If you are more of a purist for the original King Arthur story then you may want to pass on this one in theaters. Personally I left the theater entertained, with a special nod to Jude Laws excellent performance as the conflicted main antagonist.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

NeutralMilkHJul 7, 2017

A movie with forgettable characters, a forgettable plot, incredibly forgettable action scenes... it's hard to believe it cost $175 million to make this. The fact that it's over-the-top is the only reason as to why I figured this movieA movie with forgettable characters, a forgettable plot, incredibly forgettable action scenes... it's hard to believe it cost $175 million to make this. The fact that it's over-the-top is the only reason as to why I figured this movie deserved to get a mixed review... because there's a difference between being a forgettable movie that's bad (for being forgettable and somewhat lame when compared to actually good action movies), and being a movie that is so bad... it's etched into your mind and makes you lose brain cells... luckily, I'll forget about this thing in about a month.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

Rebecca31May 14, 2017

Can we all give Guy Ritchie a round of applause for making one of the worst movies of 2017. The King Arthur story has been massacred, instead you get a CGI monster infested movie, a badly written script, badly edited fight scenes and theCan we all give Guy Ritchie a round of applause for making one of the worst movies of 2017. The King Arthur story has been massacred, instead you get a CGI monster infested movie, a badly written script, badly edited fight scenes and the worst celebrity cameo you’ll ever see. That’s right I’m talking about David Beckham. Yeah you heard me, David Beckham. The dialogue has to be some of the worst I’ve heard in a movie. Charlie Hunnam is doing his best with what he is given but honestly there’s simply too much of “cor blimey mate I’ve gone and pulled this sword from the stone I ‘ave.” Meanwhile you have Jude Law skulking around the castle with a satanic presence. He really is born to play the villain, completely owning the role and without a doubt carries the movie. There’s only so much cringe I can take in one sitting and King Arthur is so full of it I was exhausted when it finally ended. However, for all its faults of which there are many it does at times manage to redeem itself in entertainment value. In two hours I was both bored and entertained at the same time. As over the top and bad as it is I wasn’t bored all the time and I’m sure I laughed at least once. It’s not just bad it’s brilliantly bad, so in order for you to enjoy this at all, best to switch your brain off as it most definitely will not be needed. A lower budget and a more focused story could have made this a great movie or at the very least a better than average movie. Alas is not the case, recommended if you enjoy swords, sorcery and supersized monsters.… Expand

5 of 13 users found this helpful58

All this user's reviews

5

badgerryan19Jun 24, 2017

A retelling of the classic story of The Sword in the Stone ends up being a decent film even if it isn't a King Arthur film. Guy Ritchie shows again that's he's more style over substance. His films always look cool, but never really tell aA retelling of the classic story of The Sword in the Stone ends up being a decent film even if it isn't a King Arthur film. Guy Ritchie shows again that's he's more style over substance. His films always look cool, but never really tell a coherent plot. Charlie Hunman does an admirable job and he does give the film some type of character development. Jude Law was actually pretty good not to say he isn't a good actor because he is . It just most of the time these fantasy villains come off being annoying and yelling all the time demanding attention and power. I also chuckled seeing Aidan Gillen and Michael McElhatton in the film being a huge Game of Thrones fan. I can't say I wasn't entertained because I was, but when it comes to a film it lacks and I can see why this movie flopped.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

DubeauJul 29, 2017

This is a strange film. You have the feeling that it's a Sherlock Holmes sequel (those made by Ritchie of course) in it's form and shape, since the editing and storytelling employs many of the same schemes. You even got a Gopro moment...IThis is a strange film. You have the feeling that it's a Sherlock Holmes sequel (those made by Ritchie of course) in it's form and shape, since the editing and storytelling employs many of the same schemes. You even got a Gopro moment...I found it funny when it happened. Some actions scenes are pretty good like those with Excalibur. But some actions were just a resume, and I felt frustrated that good parts of the film were presented in a videoclip/flashback format. As such, we all know the story, but this one tries to add some twist to it and it's much more a full fantasy. Some choices were really poor (exotic animals in England!??). Anyway the story works from time to time, but falls when it tries to imitate LOTR . The music is quite decent. The FX are unequals at times. The acting is pretty solid. I give it a 65% because I was entertain but I feel this movie tried too hard copying the others.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

LukehatJul 12, 2017

Imagery was very good.
Dialogue was enjoyable at times.
Montage character shaping was good. Cast and accents good. Even the plot was ok. The problem with the film was that the mythical power was way too great, which led to one 'good' and oneImagery was very good.
Dialogue was enjoyable at times.
Montage character shaping was good.
Cast and accents good.
Even the plot was ok.
The problem with the film was that the mythical power was way too great, which led to one 'good' and one 'evil' super super power big boss one on one showdown, and that was cliche and lame. There was no need for it; If this mythical power had been toned down significantly, and they were more like men, it would have been a more reasonable story, and the characters/acting would have made the film quite great. If mages are so powerful, why are they not ruling the kingdom?… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

ChernomaziyAug 20, 2017

Good movie, but there is a lot of CGI effects that make movie wathcing hard. If you want to have a good time with popkorn and beer - it is the best choice.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

imthenoobAug 5, 2017

This movie could have been so much better. It's so well acted in parts, When they actually let the very talented cast do their job. The moment the CGI gets involved though, It looks awful and cheesy. It looks like watching a straight to videoThis movie could have been so much better. It's so well acted in parts, When they actually let the very talented cast do their job. The moment the CGI gets involved though, It looks awful and cheesy. It looks like watching a straight to video movie and not some near 200 million dollar blockbuster. The CGI killed it imo. If they had cut it down and made it more story based, It would have been a lot better of a movie.… Expand