Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 1 - 15 of 22

mattcoady's avatar

mattcoady

The reviews are tearing it apart but I actually enjoyed this one. It's a fun flashy blockbuster movie, with guy richie dialog and a spectacular opening sequence. Don't over expect anything and you'll find yourself enjoying it.
6 years 10 months ago
toopsy's avatar

toopsy

I don't know about you but I really liked this movie: great writing - not a single boring moment, great casting and performances, really good special effects... besides, Guy Ritchie can make a pile of compost look cool on camera

just pls don't go into this and get pissed by their cockney accent while you expected historical accuracy and middle age slang or whatnot...
6 years 10 months ago
Agrimorfee's avatar

Agrimorfee

It's essentially Snatch dressed in armor and bodkins.
6 years 11 months ago
Siskoid's avatar

Siskoid

There are those who require adaptations to be faithful to the source material, and then there are those, like me, who appreciate a crazy remix. King Arthur Legend of the Sword is one such remix, more Jack Kirby's Demon than La Morte d'Arthur, and though I wouldn't say it's as good as Guy Ritchie's previous two "remixes" - Sherlock Holmes and Man from UNCLE - it's still gonna go on my list of most underrated films of the year. Obviously crafted to be the first in a series, entirely focused on the part of Arthurian legend when Arthur becomes King, it still works as a one-off, which I guess it will be given its reception. But focusing on how it's not a play-by-play of La Morte is unproductive. This isn't that Arthur. This is rock'n'roll Arthur. Cockney grifter rogue rebel Arthur. Kung fu superhero Arthur. Crisp dialog, slick heist-movie editing, and a grand battle between men and magic. Its only real flaw is how dingy it is (is that in Charlie Hunnam's contract boilerplate? The Lost City of Z was the same); it really needed to be front-lit more. But overall, it was a lot more fun than it had any right to be.
6 years 10 months ago
chunkylefunga's avatar

chunkylefunga

Whilst it's not the greatest movie ever made, it certainly isn't bad.

Honestly I have no idea why so called movie critics are tearing this to pieces. It's an alright movie.
6 years 7 months ago
Bluearctic's avatar

Bluearctic

This is just one of those times where you won't get the whole story from critics,currently RT has it at 27% with critics against 78% with audiences, metacritic similarly has a score of 42 vs a score of 77 from users.

Going into this film I had no expectations, I'd seen the trailer maybe twice in the cinema? not paying attention either time, and coming out of the theatre I had maybe two scenes in mind that I found slightly cheesy, the rest of the film I loved. Was very surprised when I went online and saw that it was having such poor reviews from film critics, especially given that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 is sitting at 81% fresh with critics, and that film was one of the worst marvel films I've ever seen, hell it was almost as bad as the old Hulk films, yet that gets 81% and this film gets 27%. Are marvel films getting a free pass? is it the standard disdain that all fantasy films get from critics? Or just a little column A and a little column B?
6 years 10 months ago
royalspikey77's avatar

royalspikey77

Entertaining action romp. Jude Law sleepwalking his way through it, mind...
5 years 7 months ago
Twentry's avatar

Twentry

Daniel Pemberton's score is amazing.

The film is fine. Not Ritchie's best but still entertaining.
6 years 6 months ago
vendetta's avatar

vendetta

period drama......with amazing bgm and typical guy ritchie style......entertaining.
6 years 8 months ago
heat_'s avatar

heat_

I am slowly getting sick of the rotten "critics industry" among Hollywood.
Yes, this movie is not a masterpiece, though it is not a bad piece at all. Ritchie effect all over the movie and it is pretty fun to see a mythical story with that filter on.
6 years 9 months ago
Emiam's avatar

Emiam

6+/10

Good old action as usual when it comes to director Ritchie, a little exaggerated imagination, Persbrandt does a good role as a Viking envoy, but ... WTF makes Hunnam wear a modern leather jacket on the poster?
5 years 10 months ago
ikkegoemikke's avatar

ikkegoemikke

"How'd you get money from a Viking?
I feel a joke coming on here."


image

Ever seen me excited before? Then you should have been there, when I was watching this movie. Perhaps because it's a movie that's being razed to the ground by the most appreciated film critics. How do they actually evaluate a movie? Do they use a minutely compiled questionnaire with a precise step-by-step plan to evaluate a movie? Armed with a decibel meter, lux meter and a comprehensive Wikipedia reference about the subject, so technical and substantive negligence can be spotted right away? I know, I know. Smart readers will of course immediately ask me the following obvious question: "Say wiseguy. What's the base of your judgement of a movie?". To be honest, I don't know. Is it a gut feeling? Or temporary insanity? Believe me, I don't know but read on and I'll tell you everything you need to know.

Lets start with the proclaimed criticisms which were excessively exaggerated in my opinion. Some claim that this was an outright disgrace to the great legend about King Arthur. At first I don't think that was the intention of the creators. And by the way, had they done this (which means that all involved characters who played an important role in this legend, probably also would have gotten a spot in this movie) then others whiners would say this flick is just a copy of a previously made movie. In my opinion, if you want to experience a historically accurate story, follow evening lessons about medieval history. These are accurate enough. No, this was a pimped, modernist version of a medieval legend.

Next point that gets on my nerves is the whole fuss about Beckham. I've read that he got the part thanks to his friendship with one of the leading players, but that he's better in juggling with a ball than in acting. Give me a break. That bloke was only a few minutes on screen. A rather limited contribution to judge someone about his acting capabilities (Although I'm not waiting for a movie with Beckham playing an important part).

And finally, the style of this film by the hand of Guy Ritchie. Frankly, I had to get used to it myself. Strangely enough, I have never seen a movie directed by him before. But after seeing this movie, I plan to fill up this cultural gap because this tastes like more. In other words, you can call me a real Guy Ritchie fan from now on. That driven, flashy and hyper-kinetic narrative style was quite confusing at first, but once I got in the flow of the movie, I began to appreciate that style. Not only is it a fascinating style, it also makes for subtle and raging scenes. Even conversations were filled with humor because of the style.

"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is a mix of different types of movies. From "Lord of the rings" and "The Hobbit", to "Fast & furious" or any other slick action movie, making it a medieval story with a modern jargon being used. The action filled scenes, especially those where Arthur suddenly holds Excalibur with both hands, are breathtaking. It looked like "The matrix" with a bunch of knights. And then there's the magic. "TLOTR" was magical and full of fantasy. But also this movie contains a considerable amount of magical elements, even though the illustrious Merlin is just in it for a split second. The Darklands with its unworldly creatures. The Mage (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey) who, by means of telekinetic powers, can summon the animal kingdom to intervene and also has alchemical wisdom about herbs. The sea witches helping Vortigern (Jude "Gigolo Joe" Law) to gain power. Mordred, a sort of Lord Sauron, who attacks Camelot with an army of monstrous-looking elephants. And all this is shrouded in a fabulous and dark atmosphere.

Even the cast was interesting enough. Charlie Hunnam played the role of Arthur with bravura. Not the Arthur we know from the legends, but a born fighter who grew up in a brothel and along with his companions Wet Stick (Kingsley Ben-Adir) and Back Lack (Neil Maskell) earns his money in a not so honest way. You can hardly call him a noble and righteous man. Frankly, I didn't recognize Astrid Bergès-Frisbey immediately, even though she played a fascinating role in "I origins". The acting wasn't her main concern here but the mysterious nature of her character was, which she played in a convincing way. But also the less important secondary persons were of a valuable addition.

Well, apparently I'm swimming against the grain again with my opinion. To be honest, this was one of the most energetic and entertaining movies I've seen this year. "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is a hell of a roller-coaster raging over you like a bulldozer. For those who haven't seen this modern King Arthur interpretation yet, just one advice : ignore the negativism about this movie, go see it and get overwhelmed by this movie.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
6 years 7 months ago
moldypoldy's avatar

moldypoldy

Super enjoyable! never slowed down, highly recommended for mindless fun
6 years 10 months ago
Neens's avatar

Neens

Proof that no amount of CGI can make up for a shoddy script.
2 years 3 months ago
Earring72's avatar

Earring72

yak, what a bunch of boring CGI action. No story, what a waste of nice cast
4 years 11 months ago

Showing items 1 – 15 of 22

View comments