grantss An alternative version of the King Arthur legend. As a boy, Arthur is left orphaned after his father, King Uther Pendragon, and mother are killed in a war waged against them by Vortigern, who then assumes the throne. Arthur flees and is raised in a brothel, knowing very little of his birthright. Vortigern wants Arthur dead, to ensure there is no claimant to the throne. The legends foretell that only the next king will be able to draw Excalibur, Uther's sword, from the rock where it is lodged. So, in an effort to identify Arthur, Vortigern forces all the young men of Arthur's age to attempt to draw out the sword. Now it is Arthur's turn.A fairly weak, dumbed-down, style-over-substance of the King Arthur legend. From the opening scenes you know this is going to more about special effects and over-the-top supernatural nonsense than good old-fashioned plot and character depth. The middle section isn't too bad, however, as this is where director Guy Ritchie plays to his strength. Here we see Arthur as a cocky, confident young entrepreneur / criminal. It was like an English gangster movie and reminded me of Ritchie's better works - 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Snatch', just set in medieval times. The movie flowed well at this point, driven by the lightness and humour.Then it was back to CGI-saturated action scenes and more supernatural nonsense. Quite a disappointment after having some hope that this might be at least half-decent. For a far better, and still the most definitive, version of King Arthur, watch Excalibur (1981) instead.

faithfulgrace-330-50991 This is a fun movie. Guy Ritchie's style comes through like crazy. It's super odd at first, the story telling style with modern humor and editing in a fantasy story, but as soon as you adjust to that, it's a fun and fresh take on a story that's very entertaining. Acting is great too, so that's a bonus.

theoneandonlyzooid The Cockneys in a Londinium that would not know Bows Bells for another thousand years (Arthurian legend dates 5th-6th century AD, Bows Bells 15th-16th century) was simply too much disbelief to suspend. That plus all the Ritchie trademark camera tricks and dialog stylistics seemed a bit done to death and inappropriate, making me ask myself, 'What precisely is the director attempting to get accomplished here?'But, I'm glad a gave it a second chance, because once you get past all that and the off-track story, there really is a lot to admire about the film.I grew up in the 60's and 70's when there was only one or two movies per theater, no such thing as even VCRs and a movie could reasonably expect to remain in a theater for at least a month (or, in the case of the original "Star Wars", in excess of 4 years). That meant a lot of repeat business (I saw SW 25 times in its original run in theaters). You had a chance to get to know a movie -- deeply -- in those bygone days.This movie brought those experiences back to me. Because -- underlying all its trite coverings -- there lurks a movie of irresistible visual details, admirably subtle acting skill, and surprising emotional impact.I told a friend of mine (who also likes movies, not just 'splosions and boobs) that great movies grow more profound with each re-watching; you notice tiny details that you hadn't -- couldn't have! -- noticed before and they change the entire context of the movie...It's just that you had to look past this movie's somewhat hideous exterior to see into its virtuous and beautiful soul. I've now seen this movie over 8 times and turns out, she's actually a beauty, indeed... I'd give it an 8; but gotta subtract 1 star for initial impression.

eric262003 There's no denying that the background is quite the eye-opener in Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword". But when it comes to the storytelling that is the meat and potatoes of this movie, then that's just a subject in itself. This stands for all the films that Ritchie has directed. Why do we need another half-backed version of King Arthur? Rictchie knows it's been done before, but being so stubborn he decides he wants to do an adaptation of his own along with outrageous elements he could add to it which doesn't work on a lot of levels. If you're expecting the King Arthur story you've been read to in school, you will be disappointed.The opening scenes might spark some intrigue though not necessarily needed as dark images appear as the evil Vortigern (Jude Law) as he succeeds in killing his older brother Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) and takes possession of the crown. Fortunately, Uther successfully sends his son Arthur to a place of consummate. Twenty years later, Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) returns, unknown that he is blessed with royalty. But after he successfully managed to remove a sword from a stone, he knew there was something unusual about him. Arthur joins forces under the guidance of a Mage who worked for Merlin (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) to get revenge on his uncle Vortigern and claim his rightful place on the throne.What's you first impression when King Arthur comes to mind? Not giant snakes or tree people or other concocted fantasy creatures that Ritchie arbitrarily added to the story. All we have are a series of CGI elements that have replaced the character struggles of revenge with the family which should have been the main focus of the movie. It's all about fantasy land and little about character development or themes about vengeance, betrayal, or romance. It's about appeasing to the modern spirit and gladly rubs it down our throats every chance it gets.The style over substance runs the course of this movie throughout, like the only thing Ritchie even cares about is reaction over thinking. The camera work is very shaky as the imagery either speeds up or slows down and the editing has the feeling as if it was an overlong music video. When characters run, they are accompanied by shake cameras and the CGI graphics are pure overkill that Ritchie was trying to outdo Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", but failed miserably, because at least in "Lord of the Rings" there was a story being told.All off this eye candy is a distraction to what the real intentions were for this movie, a vengeful conflict between King Arthur and his uncle Vortigern. Though Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law were very good in their respected roles, the sad part is they're hardly on screen at the same time. The dependence on visual reaction was so overwhelming we forget that there is a story happening which should have been the primary focus. Law's real purpose to this film made to have top villain the film for Arthur to take down rather than explore the conflicts, the history or the knowledge of Medieval England. Ritchie only care about being hip on the subject matter.It's not a complete abomination, though I can't really recommend it. The acting especially from from Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law was really good and the visuals was very well executed. Plus the score by Daniel Pemberton was very catchy. But the elephant in the room was Ritchie's storytelling and the CGI was very over-the-top and was more purposely set to reaction rather than telling its story across. by around the two hour mark, you're just glad that movie's out of the way.