KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD Reviews - What Are The Critics Saying?
Guy Ritchie's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is supposed to be the first in a series of six films, but are the critics crying out to spend the next decade or so with the franchise? Find out here!
In a world where theaters are packed full of sci-fi and superheroes, is there room for King Arthur? Perhaps, but the movie is going to need to really expectations at the box office because it's taking a mauling from critics. While it has its fair share of 3* reviews, even those don't appear to be particularly kind with the special effects and director Guy Ritchie's stylistic choices seemingly alienating critics.
Suicide Squad is a good example of a movie not hurt too much by reviews, but that had Will Smith, Margot Robbie, and Batman in the trailers. This has Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, and, er, CGI elephants.
It sounds like it could still be a fun time, though, but those plans for asix movie franchise may be way too ambitious on the part of Warner Bros. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword certainly doesn't sound like your typical take on the character, but Ritchie delivered something unique with Sherlock Holmes, so it might be worth giving a chance. Oh, and that David Beckham cameo is reportedly cringeworthy!
There are too many phony-looking special-effects sequences of giant marauding elephants and magical eel creatures to get to. It doesn’t matter if they don’t help the story; what seems to matter is that Ritchie had enough money at his disposal to conjure them, so why not spend it? Hunnam and his charismatic band of merry pranksters get lost in the sea of pixels. Which is a shame. Because King Arthur could have been a rollicking blast. Instead it’s just another wannabe blockbuster with too much flash and not enough soul. [C+]
SOURCE: Entertainment Weekly
So, in theory, you wouldn’t bet against Ritchie’s similarly controversial take on Arthurian legend (an urban reimagining-cum-origin story designed to birth a six-film connected cinematic universe) to pull off a similar trick. It doesn’t take too long for those hopes to wither or, rather — given the film’s overblown opening battle scene — be trampled by a 300-foot CGI elephant. Although it flickers to life at times, King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword devolves into a jumbled affair, weighed down by confusing supernatural elements and a lazy reliance on visual effects. [**]
SOURCE: Empire Online
It’s reasonably good fun and there’s a great “assassination” scene in which the director himself puts in a cameo as a frowning householder. The film rattles along exhilaratingly, if sometimes intermittently, like a fairground rollercoaster that occasionally stops and makes you get out and walk for a few minutes before letting you back on. [***]
SOURCE: Guardian
From one moment to the next, it's possible to on some level enjoy the shaking up of tired conventions in a swordplay fantasy such as this and then to be dismayed by the lowbrow vulgarity of what's ended up onscreen. The film gives with one hand and takes away with the other, which can be frustrating in what's meant to be entertainment.
SOURCE: The Hollywood Reporter
There’s a lot to love about “King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword,” and with some more finesse and attention it could have been a genuinely great romp. Instead, it’s a mindless, often thrilling, occasionally dull extravaganza that rings as hollow as it does only because Ritchie and his team wanted to keep the machine alive for a few more movies. It’s a decision that isn’t exactly gallant. [B-]
SOURCE: The Playlist
The action works to the extent that it does at all thanks to the occasional grandeur of the landscapes, the richly detailed sets, and Daniel Pemberton’s skirling score, which give the combat a teeth-baring energy that’s otherwise unearned. Call it Lochs, Stocks and Too-Shaky Battles, and chalk it up to experience. [**]
SOURCE: The Telegraph
This ‘King Arthur’ has a catchy momentum and it’s visually sparky. If no one opened their mouth, Ritchie’s loud mash-up of history, myth, fantasy, spooky spirits and grim creatures might offer a more consistent charm. Yet mouths do open and awful dialogue tends to tumble out. Put your fingers in your ears when the talking starts, and you might enjoy the view. [***]
SOURCE: Time Out
The plan is to make a total of six King Arthur movies, with Warner Bros hoping for a fantasy epic to rival Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its own Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts franchise. This is a wobbly start, suggesting there needs to be plenty of meetings round tables to ensure a second instalment is forged stronger and sharper. [**]
SOURCE: Total Film
But this Sword should have stayed in the stone. A well-intentioned albeit unfocused effort to retell the legend, King Arthur offers a little campy fun yet is only a so-so stab at something new.
SOURCE: USA Today
But Hunnam’s competing with so much ridiculous window-dressing here. It’s as if Ritchie, who began his career with the rowdy follow-that-shotgun caper “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” has once again tried to build an entire movie around the whereabouts of a rare weapon, when the legend of the sword isn’t nearly as interesting as that of the man who wields it.
SOURCE: Variety
It never seems like Guy Ritchie knows what movie he wants to make. The raging, hell-forged actioner? The cheeky rags-to-riches jester piece? Daniel Pemberton’s renaissance-rock score sets an adventurous mood (my favorite component), but King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is a drawn-out, oddly composed knight’s tale that demands no place in history. You might recognize such icons as the Lady in the Water, but Ritchie takes unnecessary steps to ensure involvement (Arthur running furiously through the woods like a schoolboy). Excitement is fleeting, dialogue rambles and Jude Law’s tyrant-approved throne slouch pretty much sums the film’s overall attitude – a hearty “meh,” worthy of no diamond-studded crown. Especially where female character arcs are concerned. [**]
SOURCE: We Got This Covered