King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

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

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

6

PipeCAug 11, 2017

It's not legendary, is it madcap? Yes, of course

Curious question: Is it possible to determine the full amount in which the legend of Arthur of Brittany has been portrayed in any audiovisual media? Epic-medieval-knightly adventures haveIt's not legendary, is it madcap? Yes, of course

Curious question: Is it possible to determine the full amount in which the legend of Arthur of Brittany has been portrayed in any audiovisual media?

Epic-medieval-knightly adventures have known how to ration their elixir of immortality, since a decade and half a century later, the London tales located in the full expanse from the 10th century to the 15th century, erroneously, they simulate possessing the essential vigor for creating a saga ala "Avengers in the medieval London", owned by Warner Bros., in the middle of the Millennium era, of course, hitting the nail on the head with the chosen filmmaker for modernizing the Celtic story. He sins due to his creativity by basing on the sharp literary sword with too much freedom, falling into his deep-rooted directional record, arousing a swirl of varied mixes that offer a new King Arthur face.

A young cherubic Arthur, a famous character in the European literature, is forced to witness the extermination of not only his realm but his own nuclear family, adding with irony, a stab in the back by his uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Brought up among bosoms of lust, dearth and Love, Charlie Hunnam grows between rustic London alleys with knocks and shocks, for according to the leonine legend and the extravagant narrative thread written by ten hands, redefine his philosophy of life and accept what destiny holds: to become the ideal monarch in both war and peace. And yeah! despite big freedom, Excalibur is to be present.

The story has been one of the most influential and prominent legends in the film world, interpretations that fall into the hands and minds of dissimilar filmmakers who have infused it, for better or worse, their distinctive signature using the annals of the character, which is rumored, it's fictitious. Guy Ritchie, a British director of features as ingrained as iterative who was trend years ago with his second motion picture "Snatch", getting to win over Warner Bros. Company in order to hold him responsible for a big-size revamp with a budget of USD 175 million. That Ritchie who made it on her own to the early twentieth century with his fast-paced, and comic—even hyper—style, which required the spectator enough attention not to be lost in the whirlwind of stop-and-go stories both via flashbacks and flash-forwards, suffocates the opportunity with an unusual medley of genres and ideas, though their risky elections are welcomed, don't end up to set completely, such as the "Ritchinian" opening attributed to the childhood of the main role where it isn't perceived fluency, doesn't generate interest and visibly shows an embarrassing appearance, revealing the fatigue of the director to keep his touch with every work, something that doesn't impact the same way anymore. In addition to the above, new innovations ranging from top angles increasing and focusing the visual field as if it was a video game or even the application of a street and urban accent to an epic chase through London passages, a cinema breaking traditionalism but never becomes truly suggestive.

Visually speaking, "King Arthur" raises interesting re-inventions, in which are the required elements so that it doesn't feel foreign to the base story altogether. It's clear that visual effects make us dizzy and, in certain periods, spoil the image in its entirety, however, only a few are the found true flaws in the shots of colossal elephants ruining empires, a kingdom as vast as dreary, enchanted waters by a god and his penitents, among others. In a nutshell, the film receives a dark and pessimistic tone, a technique that would have worked in the first half of the feature film, where the protagonist is immersed in confusion and searching for himself.

With the help of some marketing posters and certain advertising videos, can be detected who deals with the weight of the story: Hunnam and Law. The first one looks pretty good with sloppy clothes and blonde hair of Arturo, his acting is credible and the style he endows the character is enjoyable, even despite the stereotyped outline of his role. As for Law, his performances are always excellent, and although this one is not enough, perhaps because of the lack of understanding about the magnitude of the role, he executes suitably perverse insanity, treachery, and greed of a king chosen by mistake.

Projecting the viewer a film hybrid that only finds its point of glory in selected visuals that can be categorized as visionaries and sequences of struggle and annihilation executed with flair, of course, embellishing them with a delightful soundtrack at the hands of Daniel Pemberton; Charlie Hunnam and Guy Ritchie achieve being a different summer movie, on their own merit, alas, leaving on the way, more and more quickly, the considerable expectations they had. A feature film ending up just like mythological "Sword in the Stone", embedded in its rough mold.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

6

DogeGamer2015Dec 20, 2020

La trama está bien y las escenas de acción son entretenidas; es una buena película para pasar un rato de entretenimiento y nada más.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

H1pPoJun 7, 2021

The stage of King Arthur's popularity has already passed, and all the films are based on the stories of knights and Merlin, who created all this in the past. Guy Richie, stick to your style - this is my advice to you.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5

CarFan1999Aug 2, 2017

The biggest issue is the editing. The director, in an attempt to make this movie appeal to younger audiences, has the movie edited like a music video. This means that the dialogue is said really quickly and the camera rapidly cuts back andThe biggest issue is the editing. The director, in an attempt to make this movie appeal to younger audiences, has the movie edited like a music video. This means that the dialogue is said really quickly and the camera rapidly cuts back and forth between shots. The pacing is also really choppy. Core parts of the story that should be 20 minutes long are only 5 minutes long, thus parts of the story are really rushed. Likewise, other parts of the story could’ve been shortened. Another issue with the movie is that there are many fantasy elements in the story, like creatures and people with wizardly powers. For example, Arthur’s aided by a sorceress while on his journey to claim the throne. These elements are either never explained or explained in a split second. This goes back to the super fast dialogue. You see stuff like giant snakes and elephants and you just have to go with the flow. When watching, it’s better not to question certain things that happen on-screen.

To be fair, there are many good aspects of King Arthur. The basic plot is easy to understand and there are no subplots or love interests to speak of. The massive budget is put to good use as all the special and visual effects are fantastic. Things like the lighting and setting were well done and all the battles were spectacular. The majority of the film is very entertaining and the actors do fine work. There’s just enough character development, so you feel what these characters are going through. In the end, the trailers describes this movie in a nutshell. It’s weirdly paced, the dialogue is super fast, and certain areas of the story are rushed. However, it’s nonetheless very entertaining and epic in terms of the visuals. I rate this a 50%. I would not recommend seeing this, but if it’s a rainy day and you have nothing else to do, watching this wouldn’t be a bad idea. As long as you go with the flow and not question some of the fantasy moments, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, is simple fun.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

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

5

MrDog3Oct 7, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A real disgrace for history, fantasy and for the Arthurian legend!
Lets begin with the pros, the film has a very nice special effects and sword-playing choreography and this is all.Lets continue with the contras, the so-called 'heroes' are hillarius Richard Hunman is a real disaster in all the way to the end I wanted to kill him off I know that this won't gonna happen but Jude Law was the actual hero and the only character with backstory and motivations oh come on Arthur was a lil crying baby all way long and the lore OMG the lore was a complete joke i know i know this is a Fantasy movie but this...this disgraced the Fantasy on its own. Lets finish something positive, they cancelled the sequel.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

neldotMar 19, 2020

The biggest achievement of this movie is that, in the middle of it, I was not sure if it was supposed to be a Robin Hood movie or a King Arthur one. Otherwise, a scarcely interesting and pretty predictable plot.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

actiniumNov 19, 2021

/ /

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

User Reviews