King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
Warner Bros. | Release Date: May 12, 2017
7.2
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 637 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
436
Mixed:
135
Negative:
66
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
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
7
MxClassicGameAug 13, 2022
well i think it was a good Movie , the ending is kinda goofy tho but i liked it
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
JP32Dec 7, 2021
This is an After Effects demo reel, not a movie. Or perhaps more apt, a video game. A crappy, third-party Lord of the Rings ripoff developed by a British frat house.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
actiniumNov 19, 2021
/ /
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
7
NotoriousFraudMay 16, 2017
Guy Ritchie is still in top form for "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword". Charlie Hunnam channels both inner strength and charisma as Arthur Pendragon, which he knocks out of the park. There really was not a lot i didnt like about this movie,Guy Ritchie is still in top form for "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword". Charlie Hunnam channels both inner strength and charisma as Arthur Pendragon, which he knocks out of the park. There really was not a lot i didnt like about this movie, with the scathing "critic" reviews and horrid box office you would think this would be one of the worst movies ever. Well if you thought that then be ready for a surprise. With a rich lore filled story packed with some of the best special effects i've seen in big blockbusters, "King Arthur" is by far the best movie about Arthurian legend.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
sujay65May 1, 2021
Thoroughly enjoyable movie if you like this genre. Special effects are well done and cast is good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
DaggerrimFeb 4, 2021
Amazing, epic, funny and unique. These are all the things that make the movie work. Don't listen to the critics and watch it for yourself. I don't think it's for everyone but if you love fantasy you will find this to be a wild and exciting ride.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
ChandracadabraJan 14, 2021
Cool movie.. I thought some of the blonde haired supposed to be king role could of been a lil bit toned down and a lil bit more mature. Just a little
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
7
AWESOM-0Jul 1, 2020
I’m a huge fan of Arthurian tales and I usually don’t like drastic changes but this movie was entertaining and Guy Richie’s unique style worked for the most part. There was a flat and repetitive vibe about half way thru but overall it wasI’m a huge fan of Arthurian tales and I usually don’t like drastic changes but this movie was entertaining and Guy Richie’s unique style worked for the most part. There was a flat and repetitive vibe about half way thru but overall it was still good.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
LadyViper_23Jun 19, 2020
The critics' review just don't make justice to this movie. It's epic, funny, fast and really enjoiable. It's a shame we won't see a sequel. Charlie Hunnam is perfect for this role and Guy Richie's vision for these franchiase could have beenThe critics' review just don't make justice to this movie. It's epic, funny, fast and really enjoiable. It's a shame we won't see a sequel. Charlie Hunnam is perfect for this role and Guy Richie's vision for these franchiase could have been epic. I expecially love the photography and the soundrack. Go see it!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
Joe8827Apr 22, 2020
This movie is fun as hell and an awesome take on a boring story otherwise. Watch it
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
9
ElenaroMar 11, 2020
Он офигенен. Не имеет ничего общего с легендой про Артура, но как самостоятельный фильм смотрится очень хорошо. Хотя "боевая мега форма" злодея просто ужасно нелепая.Он офигенен. Не имеет ничего общего с легендой про Артура, но как самостоятельный фильм смотрится очень хорошо. Хотя "боевая мега форма" злодея просто ужасно нелепая.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
masterwishxJan 29, 2020
Very Interesting movie , one of the best Guy Ritchie film.
Top Video graphics, video effects,top music and sound.
Must be watched
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
RidiculousDeathOct 11, 2019
An original spin on a legend, and a great movie. One negative is that a story moves too fast.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
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
10
FC_AC-playOct 4, 2019
Great music, scenario and effects. Watched this movie five times! Do not consider critic’s reviews seriously
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
8
kimikazioJun 7, 2019
Really good movie. Won't be too memorable but you'll enjoy every minute of it.
It's believable, it has a fantastic and magic side really well done. The cast and the acting was great too. The storyline it's not the best in the world, butReally good movie. Won't be too memorable but you'll enjoy every minute of it.
It's believable, it has a fantastic and magic side really well done. The cast and the acting was great too. The storyline it's not the best in the world, but everything makes sense and it's well carried.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
Happy-KMay 26, 2019
Its Fun. I honestly don't have much more to say. Its isn't perfect because the story isn't special and some of the Characters are one dimensional even if the Actors show an good performance. But Guy Ritchies fast style makes the MovieIts Fun. I honestly don't have much more to say. Its isn't perfect because the story isn't special and some of the Characters are one dimensional even if the Actors show an good performance. But Guy Ritchies fast style makes the Movie entertaining and re watchable.The action is great the CGI is fantastic and Charlie Hunnam is an great Arthur. Its sad that we never gonna see an 2 Movie.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
TyranianApr 13, 2019
Ritchie at his best, this has awesome action and visuals, cool music and all Ritchie's trademarks.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
denisgrechkoMar 30, 2019
Excellent film. Which captures and does not let go. Very dynamic and interesting. Especially cool music and shots of fights. Waiting for the continuation
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
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
10
VovandemortJan 3, 2019
Great movie, bad for not seeing the sequel. Very cool style. Guy Ritchie makes a great movie.I do not understand why such a low score of critics .. Money is not brought?
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
DominArsenDec 8, 2018
Le Roi Arthur: La Légende d'Excalibur
Je l'attendais pour une seule raison l'acteur principal ! #SonsOfAnarchy
Arthur est devenu "Moi je fais comme ça! Si tu n'es pas content retourne chez ta mère" ce qui fait qu’à part la phrase précédenteLe Roi Arthur: La Légende d'Excalibur
Je l'attendais pour une seule raison l'acteur principal ! #SonsOfAnarchy
Arthur est devenu "Moi je fais comme ça! Si tu n'es pas content retourne chez ta mère" ce qui fait qu’à part la phrase précédente et quelque défaut minime rien ne m’a déçu!
Mais ce qui m’a surpris c'est la photographie; certains plans sont magnifiques.
Et les effets spéciaux sont impressionnants au niveau de la composition. Ils sont extrêmement savoureux, tellement qu'on en redemande #RalentiStopMotionPsychédélic.
Une musique EPIC à tout instant j'ai adoré la Soundtrack faire du vieux avec du récent c'est chouette.
Bref aller voir ce film juste pour le plaisir des yeux et des oreilles (si vous aimez l'Epic)… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
RODIMUSNov 7, 2018
Looking at user ratings. And comparing this with the assessment of the administration of the site. METACRITIK's assessment is sucked. They are not reliable. Do not rely on their assessments. And the movie is great, they are not goodies andLooking at user ratings. And comparing this with the assessment of the administration of the site. METACRITIK's assessment is sucked. They are not reliable. Do not rely on their assessments. And the movie is great, they are not goodies and special effects straight from the mega. He gives him comfortably 8.0 It's a pity I watched him so badly.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
apannilssonJul 29, 2018
It's good! I wish the slightly odd pace of narrative and writing could have taken a bigger part. Those segments were funny and gave it a unique and quirky sort of storytelling. Unfortunately some parts become very typical. EspeciallyIt's good! I wish the slightly odd pace of narrative and writing could have taken a bigger part. Those segments were funny and gave it a unique and quirky sort of storytelling. Unfortunately some parts become very typical. Especially surrounding some old and well used story tropes etc. So not the most original story. Good characters though. Also might have overused special effects at some points. It just looks like a video game in some parts. Kinda breaks the spell. Very enjoyable though. Shame there won't be more.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
FranbarrmanMar 15, 2018
Give this one a chance is really fun movie.charlie hunnam looks like he enjoyed every second he spends con this film and also i notice the hurt he puts todo his caracther.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
SirKrustyMar 8, 2018
Definitely one of the better movies of 2017, I am very sad that they cancelled the sequels. Amazing Visual Effects and Battle Scenes make this movie a must see for anyone looking for a great Action/Fantasy movie. Plot is sometimes a littleDefinitely one of the better movies of 2017, I am very sad that they cancelled the sequels. Amazing Visual Effects and Battle Scenes make this movie a must see for anyone looking for a great Action/Fantasy movie. Plot is sometimes a little hard to follow, and if you are looking for a pure historically accurate movie don't see this… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
CoKronakanMar 6, 2018
This movie is very untrue to the original legend of King Arthur. I mean sure there are some elements keep the same, but it's highly westernized. And very well at that. It lights a spark that wasn't there until, know to draw in new audiences.This movie is very untrue to the original legend of King Arthur. I mean sure there are some elements keep the same, but it's highly westernized. And very well at that. It lights a spark that wasn't there until, know to draw in new audiences. Also the protagonists charismatic character only helps this, as well as some amazing directing sequences. It's very entertaining, very well paced. This new approach on the Legends of the Sword is also welcomed and makes this not that cliche. Very well acted, and shot. A very good movie. Definitely worth a watch!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
usmanmasoodMar 5, 2018
**** the critics! The movie was awesome!!!! .....................................
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
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
9
whostosayJan 9, 2018
If you are one of those movie fans who salivate over exuberant, picturesque period sets that are a marvel to watch beginning to end, then this is the movie for you. And although the flash card montages were off putting at times, this is oneIf you are one of those movie fans who salivate over exuberant, picturesque period sets that are a marvel to watch beginning to end, then this is the movie for you. And although the flash card montages were off putting at times, this is one good romp of an entertainment.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
PerryDaviesJan 4, 2018
It does not follow the true story, no. BUT WHO CARES, Its a great movie. Enjoy it for what it is. I was expecting a flop because of the reviews and totally loved it. Its a mix of Excalibur , 300 and Snatch. And it worked for me. IIt does not follow the true story, no. BUT WHO CARES, Its a great movie. Enjoy it for what it is. I was expecting a flop because of the reviews and totally loved it. Its a mix of Excalibur , 300 and Snatch. And it worked for me. I seriously don't understand some of the reviews. Sit back and enjoy it… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
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
9
Terry006Jan 2, 2018
It’s exciting, unique and has exceptional quality. The scores is not good reflection of how it truly is and only the people who have never heard about the story of Arthur would be lost. Which almost everyone has so it was nice to see a movieIt’s exciting, unique and has exceptional quality. The scores is not good reflection of how it truly is and only the people who have never heard about the story of Arthur would be lost. Which almost everyone has so it was nice to see a movie that didn’t waste so much time on the tales which we already know. Richie is a great director and going from his usually style of films to this was more enjoyable that expected. Those who gave a poor review just lack imagination and decided the score before watching it because the film I saw was not below average. We have all seen average and that would be another typical movie where characters behave like we expect. This was something new and fresh from a well known story that has be depicted over and over.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
10
ThordinDec 25, 2017
It's a new take on the Arthur Legend, it's entertaining and a nice setup for future movies.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
10
ThaddeusDec 16, 2017
Critics need to get their brains checked, because this was such a well made movie. Had the best sword fight, music, and acting you will ever see. Guy Ritchie has a very unique style of directing, which I love. Too bad they will not make any sequels.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
LeZeeNov 29, 2017
A different take on the sword in the stone!

This one came with a little surprise. I know it was a Guy Ritchie film and I had enjoyed all his previous flicks. But for some reasons, I felt I'm not that interested in this. Even trailer lookedA different take on the sword in the stone!

This one came with a little surprise. I know it was a Guy Ritchie film and I had enjoyed all his previous flicks. But for some reasons, I felt I'm not that interested in this. Even trailer looked okayish. Watching the film now I realised that I've totally misjudged it. Still not a masterpiece, but a much better entertainer. The graphics were awesome. The settings were totally encouraging to glue to it. The story, stunts, with some of the slow- motions, very detailed and muscularly enchanting.

Everybody knows the basic storyline of King Arthur. In this, it opened with two brothers feud and following a young man grew up in a brothel. When the city slowly gripped with the myth that the legendary prince would return to the crown, now the king, Vortigern vows to find him first and end the threat. But what comes after him was beyond his expectation. He has to finish it off what he had failed years ago. On the other hand Arthur has all the support, particularly the legendary sword passed on to him by his father.

I had liked the Disney animated film back when I was a kid. This was completely a different film. For the live-action, it stood and delivered what viewers had expected. The music was another advantage. All the actors were good. The rise of Charlie Hunnan. His recent films were pushing him to the next level. Surely a lookout star. Despite a poor box office, it is a much better film. Once again the film critics got it all wrong. Good for one time watch.

7/10… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
DoubleTrippleNov 17, 2017
Movie is just insane ride from start to end. Its an action/fantasy popcorn movie, so thats what you are getting. If you are into that, it does not get much better. Personally, i think that the actors performances were amazing. It makes meMovie is just insane ride from start to end. Its an action/fantasy popcorn movie, so thats what you are getting. If you are into that, it does not get much better. Personally, i think that the actors performances were amazing. It makes me realy sad we most likely wont be getting any of the planned sequels, because movie flopped. If only they would make at least some smaller budget sequel. Probably most fun i had in cinema in 2017.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
spencieOct 23, 2017
Highly entertaining film with a great performance and a great lead character. The side characters are all boring though and the story isn't anything fresh or new. The visuals are crazy and different and so are the action sequences. DirectorHighly entertaining film with a great performance and a great lead character. The side characters are all boring though and the story isn't anything fresh or new. The visuals are crazy and different and so are the action sequences. Director Guy Ritchie adds a lot of fun, quippy dialog, and a lot of quick, funky editing to make the movie very enjoyable. The movie is a blast and nothing else.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
AcclamationOct 2, 2017
It's a film for men in America, that have been trivialized by American culture. It's very inspiring for men, and there aren't many left in America, so this film will get mostly bad ratings. If you are a Man, then the beginning is slow andIt's a film for men in America, that have been trivialized by American culture. It's very inspiring for men, and there aren't many left in America, so this film will get mostly bad ratings. If you are a Man, then the beginning is slow and painful, but if you can accept the feminine, fantasy crap, like most of us can survive to have sex with the hot ones here, then you'll be ok.
It isn't a great film in any way, other than special effects, which seems to be the norm nowadays.
It's a film for the few, with the special effects to wow the idiots, with a message for the best of us. It's hard to find positive messages in Hollywood nowadays. I hope my review isn't a death sentence for the production crew or cast.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
RalfbergsSep 29, 2017
Guy Ritchie as usual provides, even though this is not the best of his movies. Still great movie and an even greater soundtrack. Has some funny moments throughout too.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
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
EludiumQ36Sep 19, 2017
I strongly agree with "Billy" and "WhiskeyStories" below. The film starts off with some cool action but gets bogged down in exposition, stupid British slang, and other 'tarded anachronisms. Wife fell asleep halfway through and I had enough atI strongly agree with "Billy" and "WhiskeyStories" below. The film starts off with some cool action but gets bogged down in exposition, stupid British slang, and other 'tarded anachronisms. Wife fell asleep halfway through and I had enough at 2/3, what a travesty. This should've been an epic film. I usually like director Ritchie's efforts but this was a big miss.… Expand
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
3
BiIIySep 15, 2017
Better than 70's B films. Insulting on every level. Plays to racial stereotypes. Has Asian with Samurai sword named "Kung Fu Joe." Because it's never too early for Europeans to mix up Japanese and Chinese culture. Has shoulder cameraBetter than 70's B films. Insulting on every level. Plays to racial stereotypes. Has Asian with Samurai sword named "Kung Fu Joe." Because it's never too early for Europeans to mix up Japanese and Chinese culture. Has shoulder camera action. Has horrible acting, overdone CGI, boring action, murders historic accuracy, copies LOTR castles, and is long. Critics who are positive on this movie must go to the same Hollywood cocktail parties Guy does. It's a total stinker.… Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
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
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
9
ergenecondomAug 25, 2017
Bir efsaneyi efsaneleştirmişler film 10 numara sürükleyici ilgi çekici içine kapıyor sizi charlie hunnam role tam uymuş ihtişamlı bir film olmuş
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
8
eva3si0nAug 24, 2017
I don't understand why the movie was carried by critics, the movie has turned out excellent if of course to reject a tolerance subject (from where **** at 11-12 a century in England?). Excellent style of Guy Richie. There is no plot as it,I don't understand why the movie was carried by critics, the movie has turned out excellent if of course to reject a tolerance subject (from where **** at 11-12 a century in England?). Excellent style of Guy Richie. There is no plot as it, but as the tie of the trilogy will descend. As usual Jude Law has played excellently.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
8
arcubalAug 24, 2017
I love the hectic, almost schizofrenic, shooting/editing style of Ritchie and if you don't, this one is not for you. Like Sherlock Holmes, the story is told through frantic pieces of action and exposition, shifting the action from (not just)I love the hectic, almost schizofrenic, shooting/editing style of Ritchie and if you don't, this one is not for you. Like Sherlock Holmes, the story is told through frantic pieces of action and exposition, shifting the action from (not just) plot events to the way the story is told. Amazing visuals make this (like Sherlock) a very interesting and engaging film to see. Way more original than the last few takes on the Arthurian legend.… Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
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
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
8
JerryPetrolAug 20, 2017
I absolutely loved the movie. After we saw it in the theater, we wanted to watch it again. Guy Ritchie is awesome and this is one of his best movies. Charlie Hunnam is also fantastic. I hope they make a sequel. If you like movies with lots ofI absolutely loved the movie. After we saw it in the theater, we wanted to watch it again. Guy Ritchie is awesome and this is one of his best movies. Charlie Hunnam is also fantastic. I hope they make a sequel. If you like movies with lots of action and a fun group of characters, this is worth giving a rent, or even buying. I got it on Xbox Movies the day it came out. Also, the soundtrack is pretty sick!… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
Faust-RSIAug 19, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Pretty interesting story and good visuals, but sometimes the plot is hard to understand and there are too many plot-holes. Negroids, Mongoloids and Indians in England of X century??? A mage that could kill the main antagonist ALONE long time ago with that giant snake (as well as his army), but did nothing? That's a bit too much.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
TheQuietGamerAug 18, 2017
A movie that wants so badly to be the next Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately it's plot is delivered in a choppy and inconcise manner as it tries to cram way too much plotting into a roughly two hour movie, so it doesn't have the narrativeA movie that wants so badly to be the next Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately it's plot is delivered in a choppy and inconcise manner as it tries to cram way too much plotting into a roughly two hour movie, so it doesn't have the narrative chops to back it up. Guy Ritchie does manage to fill the movie with a lot of impressive action, gorgeous special effects, and a great sense of style. So while it is not destined to rise to the heights of Peter Jackson's excellent trilogy of Tolkien adaptations, it at least has legs to stand on in the entertainment department. It provides an interesting new take on the King Arthur legend.

Giant mythological creatures are around every corner and Excalibur gives Arthur some crazy super powers this time around for some reason. Mix in some delightfully sarcastic and genuinely funny dialog and you've got a movie where there is rarely a dull moment. You still have to sit through the fairly standard plot and Arthur groaning in that typical reluctant hero sort of way. We've all seen it before. although we haven't seen it delivered this awkwardly before. The movie's habit of cutting back and forth in time during several scenes is visually impressive, but jarring and at times a bit confusing from a story standpoint. It's also worth noting that this is the most dude-bro version of King Arthur we've had since Starz Camelot series. Charlie Hunman does make this incarnation more likable than Jamie Campbell Bower though. He's got genuine grit to back up that smart mouth and streetwise, rugged charm.

A touch ham-fisted with it's plot and world-building, Guy Ritchie's take on Arthurian legend does manage to be more fun and exciting than it has any right to be. It's understandable why the professional critics hated it. It is kind of one of those overblown, spectacle driven, and kind of dumb fantasy movies that are usually duds all the way around. However in Ritchie's capable hands "Legend of the Sword" manages to avoid the usual pitfalls and elevates itself to simply good, flashy fun. It's clear that perhaps the director had loftier ambitions in mind, but at the end of the day I'm just glad he managed to get simply entertaining out of what could have been a potential train wreck.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
10
MrsMovieLoverAug 18, 2017
The Good: First things first, I absolutely loved the cast of this movie. Been a huge fan of Hunnam since Sons of Anarchy and in this movie, he did NOT disappoint. Loved the witty King Arthur, along with his fellow warriors. Secondly, theThe Good: First things first, I absolutely loved the cast of this movie. Been a huge fan of Hunnam since Sons of Anarchy and in this movie, he did NOT disappoint. Loved the witty King Arthur, along with his fellow warriors. Secondly, the movie's graphics, man... mind blowing! The fight scenes were EPIC! You'd almost feel like you're in a video game, at some point, the graphics is THAT awesome. What I loved about the plot is that nothing about the movie is dilly or dally, it's quick and to the point. The Bad: The movie was kinda overwhelming. IT was intense, it was quick, it didn't build up the excitement. It was like, BOOM and then CRAAAAASH! This might have frazzled the nerves of quite a few, I can say.
The Ugly: NONE. There's nothing ugly about this movie, not to me at least. Thoroughly enjoyed this movie, was a great watch and would take a top sit (Right beside 300) on my list of EPIC As F*** MOVIES.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
10
xfxAug 15, 2017
Fun, entertainment action movie with nice story and excellent soundtrack. Seems like critics opinion, these days, worth nothing. You just have to go and see everything yourself, and make your own opinion, or other way, you will keep thinkingFun, entertainment action movie with nice story and excellent soundtrack. Seems like critics opinion, these days, worth nothing. You just have to go and see everything yourself, and make your own opinion, or other way, you will keep thinking that "...last good movies were made in 50th" and "...last good music were made in 60th".
11/10. Guy Ritchie Rocks… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
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
9
RealMuthaFAug 11, 2017
Seriously, again? Again, Guy Ritchie makes an awesome movie with potential for sequels and an outstanding kick-ass soundtrack from Daniel Pemberton, and again it fails to get good critic reviews and solid box office performance?

If there areSeriously, again? Again, Guy Ritchie makes an awesome movie with potential for sequels and an outstanding kick-ass soundtrack from Daniel Pemberton, and again it fails to get good critic reviews and solid box office performance?

If there are two most unfair box office performance patterns these days, those are Disney's frame-by-frame "live-action" (i.e. CGI) worthless remakes of their classic cartoons getting billions of dollars and Guy Ritchie's two last movies (this and the equally amazing U.N.C.L.E.) severely underperforming financially. Let's see the outcome when those two trends collide with Ritchie making an Aladdin movie.

In the meantime, don't listen to the so-called "critics" and watch The Legend of the Sword. It's a great, hugely entertaining action movie with solid performances from the main (Hunnam, Law) and the side characters alike. The pacing is impeccable, with the action not letting you go throughout the film. It's got some great, Ritchie trademark humor and dynamic editing, too. The CGI can look cheap, and that's probably my only complaint aside from a few minor ones. Oh, and did I mention the kick-ass soundtrack? I did, but again, it's so good I stayed through the credits just to listen to it, and immediately got myself the album after watching the movie.

Warner Bros., please, take some of that comic book money and let Ritchie make Arthur 2 or U.N.C.L.E. 2, the world will be a better place.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
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
9
blindmanchavezAug 5, 2017
If I only had one word to describe this movie, it would be - FUN! The visuals are insane, the music is on point and phenomenal, and the re-imagining of the tale of King Arthur is unique and makes for an interesting premise. It's almost moreIf I only had one word to describe this movie, it would be - FUN! The visuals are insane, the music is on point and phenomenal, and the re-imagining of the tale of King Arthur is unique and makes for an interesting premise. It's almost more of an original story more than it is a movie about King Arthur. The CGI gets a little over-done [like in The Matrix Series] in 2 or 3 action scenes, but it's not enough to change the fact that this is a FUN movie that I'm glad I watched. If your in the mood for some care-free action bliss with AMAZING visuals, this is the movie for you! P.S. The cast they were able to pull together for this movie is really astounding - people from Game of thrones, Marco Polo, Sons of Anarchy, Gladiator... The list goes on and on!… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
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
8
KingslyaAug 2, 2017
You know how sometimes you watch a movie, without reading any reviews or hearing very little about it, and after watching it you say, that was pretty good? That's exactly how I felt about King Arthur Legend of the Sword.

Further to watchingYou know how sometimes you watch a movie, without reading any reviews or hearing very little about it, and after watching it you say, that was pretty good? That's exactly how I felt about King Arthur Legend of the Sword.

Further to watching it, I read reviews and have to disagree with most of the critics out there, they didn't like it, and I disagree on the points they had made. I am not saying its the best movie in 2017 nor the best Arthur movie ever (Disneys The Sword in the Stone, and Excalibur are still the best) but it's got a fresh look on Arthurian Legend and much better than recent previous attempts.

This is a Guy Ritchie movie, and the director has an announced way of how dialogue is done in his movies, as well as filming action scenes, and I really personally enjoy it. Who didn't like Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels? Witty colourful, large cast, street smart, and ultimately always ALWAYS cool, and all of that we can see in King Arthur.
If people haven't realised it yet, the movie industry is going through what I like to call the continuity revolution - the one-off movie hit doesn't work anymore, especially not on fantasy or sci-fi. Everyone wants to like a character and see their development, and why should King Arthur be different? It's Legend, and there are many Arthurian stories which have never been portrayed on the big screen, so I am glad that it looks like a franchise.… Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
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
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
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
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
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
10
FIONARJul 12, 2017
Honestly I created this account only to write review about this movie. During summer all the other movies I have watched, King Arthur is my most favorite. I love everything on this movie, and the soundtrack is amazing. I really do not haveHonestly I created this account only to write review about this movie. During summer all the other movies I have watched, King Arthur is my most favorite. I love everything on this movie, and the soundtrack is amazing. I really do not have any idea why there are so many bad critics reviews. If you watch this movie, you will know how entertaining the movie is. This is a kind of movie that you can watch again and again and never feel bored. I have watch three times already and I am sure gonna watch it again.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
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
9
SibJul 10, 2017
Legends need to be reinvented, suit the times in which they are narrated. I'm surprised that most of the critics seem to fail to understand. I was really enchanted with Richie vision, the world seems believable, characters are cool and theLegends need to be reinvented, suit the times in which they are narrated. I'm surprised that most of the critics seem to fail to understand. I was really enchanted with Richie vision, the world seems believable, characters are cool and the dialogues are well written. Highly recommended.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
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
9
Kubasa_UndeadJul 2, 2017
This is outrages! I don't know what problems all these critics have because this movie is amazing. I have to admit it, I've had no expectations whatsoever going to see this movie but somehow it was so absorbing that I never during screeningThis is outrages! I don't know what problems all these critics have because this movie is amazing. I have to admit it, I've had no expectations whatsoever going to see this movie but somehow it was so absorbing that I never during screening looked at my phone. There was not a single second while I could be bored! You can say that I'm overreacting and that's probably true, but I just want to express how much this movie surprised me. Now let's cut to the case. The music is so good and works so well with what is happening on screen that I'm seriously amazed. The camera work is perfect for this type of film and even the CGI effects were really good. Overall, I generally liked that movie. I wasn't hoping for much but I receive a (and I'm not afraid to use that word) masterpiece.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
normypJul 1, 2017
That film was great. Best I've seen in a long time even if I realised towards the end it's basically the plot of the Lion King but set in a medieval magic world. Still, it's got some great editing, good usage of special effects and is prettyThat film was great. Best I've seen in a long time even if I realised towards the end it's basically the plot of the Lion King but set in a medieval magic world. Still, it's got some great editing, good usage of special effects and is pretty funny. It won't leave your jaw wide open but it will satisfy you if you want an action medieval film to watch.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
9
ConradoflightJun 30, 2017
Ritchie is not one of the great directors. But he got his own style where he excels and is more or less unmatched by anyone since he created this style. I would probably not have watched this but the overly negative critique made me take aRitchie is not one of the great directors. But he got his own style where he excels and is more or less unmatched by anyone since he created this style. I would probably not have watched this but the overly negative critique made me take a look. I don't regret that. Only thing I regret is that I didn't watch it on a huge screen with surround sound. Great pace, dialogue and performance all through. Technically this is a 10 movie. Missed some more story depth though so 9 will do. The soundtrack is married to this movie, such a great match. I will watch this again.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
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
7
johnem95Jun 24, 2017
"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" may not be the most faithful adaptation of the classic tale, but it's nonetheless an entertaining adventure with stylish action, good performances, and an awesome soundtrack.
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
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
10
KordunJun 23, 2017
In my opinion, I found this film very well. Magic world and a king that wont be a king at the beginning until he find his destiny. Dont understand the bad rating from the agencies.
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
9
ZiburinisJun 23, 2017
Strange average score from critics... For it's genre it's superb movie! It is fast paced, no dumb romance involved and sometimes you really feel that it is Guy Ritchie's movie.
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
10
Great_OnealJun 11, 2017
Based off critic reviews compared to audience scores across this site (41 vs. audience 78), imDb(7.3 from 41,000 users) and Rotten Tomatoes(28% critic score vs.75% audience) it is clear that critics didn't even give this movie a chance. It'sBased off critic reviews compared to audience scores across this site (41 vs. audience 78), imDb(7.3 from 41,000 users) and Rotten Tomatoes(28% critic score vs.75% audience) it is clear that critics didn't even give this movie a chance. It's pathetic these days where a quality film can be so over-looked and clearly widely panned by critics. But, it is not their opinions or prolific write-ups that matter. It's what we as regular movie-goers think and feel and that is clearly evident based off the above scores.

Now on to the movie. There wasn't a thing that I didn't like about it.(my second viewing clearing up any issue I took after the first viewing).

Guy Ritchie's visual style and film making talent are on full display here and even more so with the Fantasy setting to my utter enjoyment. And what I love is he pulls it off here whether it's the subtle details in the background that can easily be missed the first time through or the more often in-your-face awesomeness from the outstanding visuals, camera work(interesting overhead shots and angles), great performances and interesting characters and unique pulse-pounding score.

If you hate Guy Ritchie movies, you will most likely not enjoy this movie. His common stylistic flourishes and storytelling tropes are in full use here but to great effect.

This is a different approach to the King Arthur we have seen in movies past. Missing is a love interest between Guinevere(actually this character was altogether left out) and Arthur or Lancelot(who was also left out) which I happily enjoyed. Instead, in their place, is King Arthur's strong connection and camaraderie with his friends and the women who looked after him when he was growing up. It was a nice change compared to the many movies that feel a love interest is needed. Also Merlin exists but only mentioned and in his place as "his guide" is a female character known only as "Mage". Those are not the only differences, but I will spare the rest so as not to spoil them.

I already mentioned the cool visuals but also the action is well choreographed and shot. The epic opening scene alone will attest to both.

The characters, which there are many, have enough character development(strangely some critics mention too little character development which was baffling) and stand out as unique and interesting with one even holding a past grudge that plays out so well and in an entertaining way I won't spoil it. Bottom line is that you CARE about them. Something so rarely achieved in some of these big blockbuster summer movies or in general.

Charlie Hunnam's performance as King Arthur was so enjoyable to watch! His character evolves and develops as he struggles with the weight of who he is and what he must do. The Villain portrayed by Jude Law does an excellent job as a jealous and power hungry brother to the King. And we see him also struggle with what he will do to accomplish that power to a disturbing degree. The last thing I'll mention, because I could go on and on, is the outstanding soundtrack or musical score performed by Daniel Pemberton that truly stands out and is one of the best that I have heard in a long time( Incorporating actual breathing in a couple tracks). The score overall enhanced the mood and took to the the next level every scene it was used in. "This isn't your usual Hollywood epic adventure, it's a Guy Ritchie Hollywood epic adventure," explained Pemberton. "That means usual rules don't apply. In fact no rules apply. All that matters is can you make a score that sounds like nothing else? That was the mission."

This version of Guy Ritchie's Arthur is a truly enjoyable, engaging, awesome and entertaining experience. Isn't that why we go to the movies anyway? To be moved, inspired, scared or just plain entertained? I will say this about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and all it's parts: Mission accomplished.… Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
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
10
MovieLover1988Jun 2, 2017
Fabulous movie to see on the Big Screen...Critics were ridiculously hard on this film. It is great entertainment, exciting and thrilling with amazing effects perfect for the big screen. Acting was great...Money well spent! Went to see itFabulous movie to see on the Big Screen...Critics were ridiculously hard on this film. It is great entertainment, exciting and thrilling with amazing effects perfect for the big screen. Acting was great...Money well spent! Went to see it with ages 25, 28, 32, 60 and 63.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
7
Jess_HillJun 2, 2017
Medieval Lockstock is a grand spectacle that's actually a fun, if ridiculous, interpretation of the classic tale. Ritchie's distinctive style has been turned up to eleven, with the script and editing reflecting his love of the British workingMedieval Lockstock is a grand spectacle that's actually a fun, if ridiculous, interpretation of the classic tale. Ritchie's distinctive style has been turned up to eleven, with the script and editing reflecting his love of the British working class vernacular and super fast cuts that are only occasionally disorienting. The cinematography and creature design provide some exceptional moments, and the esoteric soundtrack gives this film a unique quality. The storyline covers a great deal, though with little depth, and the performances are solid, with plenty of excuses for Hunnam to take his shirt off. An entertaining, if not a cerebral, experience. 7.01/10… Expand
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
7
Creeper3455May 22, 2017
I'm surprised by how critics slammed this movie with so much hate,because this was a perfectly watchable movie.I mean,it has the flaws,but other than that,it's still watchable. We can notice how it's hardly tring to tell the story of KingI'm surprised by how critics slammed this movie with so much hate,because this was a perfectly watchable movie.I mean,it has the flaws,but other than that,it's still watchable. We can notice how it's hardly tring to tell the story of King Arthur in a serious tone while making the audience laugh. When 1st act begins,i had no idea what was going on,but then 2nd act rolls in,and we now understand what's happening . The 3rd act was okay,and that's where the CG becomes horrendous (well,sort of). The CG was fine,but it's a mess when 3rd act goes on. All of the performances were decent,the only good actor in this movie was Jude Law. The action scenes were okay to watch,but at some point,it's the same thing over and over. But in the end 'King Arthur Legend Of The Sword' was surprisingly enjoyable,with a decent cast,an intriguing story and some decent effects.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
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
8
NasherMay 25, 2017
This is a FUN movie. I don't know what the "critics" are on about. The "classic" King Arthur tale has been done to death many times, this was something original. Go and see it.
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
9
impartialreviewMay 25, 2017
This is not the King Arthur you have ever see. No cute boy in the woods or sappy musical. This is the story of using the sword, controlling the sword within the action and good story line. The graphics are outstanding and the acting is good.This is not the King Arthur you have ever see. No cute boy in the woods or sappy musical. This is the story of using the sword, controlling the sword within the action and good story line. The graphics are outstanding and the acting is good. Some have complained that it is not historically accurate. What is historical about pulling a sword from stone. Yo will enjoy the settings, the types of characters and unpredictable endings. Great for dates, taking the grand-kids as well as mature audiences.… Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
10
KNDLAINMay 25, 2017
This movie is EPIC!! I had to go watch it again and REALLY want to see it a third time just in case I missed something. Did the critics even watch this? I read an article today an why this movie "flopped" and the writer even states that heThis movie is EPIC!! I had to go watch it again and REALLY want to see it a third time just in case I missed something. Did the critics even watch this? I read an article today an why this movie "flopped" and the writer even states that he never watched it. If there is something to blame for the "flop" of this movie, it was the marketing it received. After seeing the previews, I thought I might go see it but it wasn't at the top of my list. In fact, we only watched it because there was nothing else out that we hadn't seen. And now...this movie has topped my list of favorite movies of all time. It has elements like 300 and Lord of the Rings. I bought the soundtrack the minute I left the theater and have already pre-ordered this on VUDU. If you believe the critics, you are cheating yourself out of seeing one AMAZING movie.… Expand
6 of 12 users found this helpful66
All this user's reviews
10
helicopterpiratMay 24, 2017
Recently I've seen Alien Covenant, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, John Wick 2, and Kong.

I liked King Arthur more than all of those movies. Not that I disliked the movies above, but out of all of them, if I had to watch one movie again, itRecently I've seen Alien Covenant, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, John Wick 2, and Kong.

I liked King Arthur more than all of those movies. Not that I disliked the movies above, but out of all of them, if I had to watch one movie again, it would be this one.

I've seen other Guy Richie movies, and I've seen other King Arthur movies(probably all of them). I loved this movie. I can't explain it, I feel like I shouldn't...but I do. A lot of the the reviews here bring up some good points, but despite that, I really enjoyed the movie. I felt the story was solid, the pacing was good, the cinematography was great, as was the soundtrack.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to pick this movie apart, but for my part, I had a great time.… Expand
8 of 12 users found this helpful84
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
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
9
AlexanderTurnerMay 22, 2017
Really very enjoyable and me for (being of the younger generation) a new take on the historical fantasy type genre. (I'm not a Guy Ritchie aficionado)

I thought the casting was excellent and the story definitely held me for the whole film.Really very enjoyable and me for (being of the younger generation) a new take on the historical fantasy type genre. (I'm not a Guy Ritchie aficionado)

I thought the casting was excellent and the story definitely held me for the whole film.

Worth seeing.… Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
9
yezoMay 21, 2017
I personally enjoyed the movie. I think it is comical, clever and imaginative.
It gave me a sense of a magical world.
I am aware the professional review dislike the film because of various reasons but I believe there is a reason I am giving aI personally enjoyed the movie. I think it is comical, clever and imaginative.
It gave me a sense of a magical world.
I am aware the professional review dislike the film because of various reasons but I believe there is a reason I am giving a user review.… Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
9
lboddeMay 21, 2017
I don't know why all the hate on this movie. I thought it was great. I was pulled in and entertained for the length of it. Granted, if you are looking for the 'romantic' version of Camelot, this is not it. But it was contemporary, visual asI don't know why all the hate on this movie. I thought it was great. I was pulled in and entertained for the length of it. Granted, if you are looking for the 'romantic' version of Camelot, this is not it. But it was contemporary, visual as hell, and well acted. The details were impeccable. There were some off moments with editing/direction decisions and they pulled me out of the story a few times. So it's not a perfect movie but I'd spend my money to see it again and I don't say that often. Compared to the horror that was the 'Great Wall', this is practically movie nirvana. Jude Law was the perfect casting choice and he seems to be so under-rated. He's been a revelation lately (see The Young Pope). And Charlie Hunnam? Well, yeah. Sexy as hell and coming up the ranks in his acting ability since Sons of Anarchy. I hope the move forward with their plans to make this a series because I definitely want to see more.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
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
prev
Page:
More From This Movie

41 Critic Reviews

7.2 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 63 Normal
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL