Hm... i actually really enjoyed it. The first half hour has really rapid edits, not sure if these scenes were meant to be cut like this but it certainly adds more flair to the movie. Charlie Hunnam is actually a pretty good lead. The film gets a little cluttered as it goes on but I was never bored. Jude Law's villain is sadly pretty one dimensional although he's fine.

Heard a lot of people at my screening didn't like it going out though.

As a Guy Ritchie fan/apologist, my response to this film is slightly strange or perhaps contradictory. There are many ways in which it almost objectively lands with a thud or steps wrongly, but it is also, in my opinion, frequently fun and definitely a notable curiosity amid the pantheon of failed franchise starters. It plays best when it stays in the same lane as Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes pictures, which is to his crafty-lads-and-lager antics transported to a rowdy period setting with lots of bad teeth and dirty alleyways. There is a neat, hyper-hyperactive montage condensing Arthur's maturation from child actor to Charlie Hunnam into an almost hallucinatory swirl of hard bodies, illicit coins, wild punches, and general urban chaos. The well-built Hunnam delivers a capable enough performance, registering as restrained, but with a bit of charisma and swagger. Jude Law is rather excellent as his antagonistic, throne-usurping uncle, relishing the chance to a play a sneering and venal mad king. And Eric Bana, who I swear should be an A-list star, sadly only has around five minutes of screen time as Arthur's glorious, doomed father; he does, however, receive the prestigious "and" credit, so three cheers. (Law gets "with.")

Computer-generated imagery, the type only an engorged, almost assuredly ill-advised budget can purchase, is the film's enemy, as well as the fact Ritchie displays no real aptitude for high fantasy. At one point, the enticing chance to see Law in an old-fashioned sword fight is lost when he transforms into a fiery eight-foot samurai robot out of an early Xbox game. Or consider a downright delirious interlude involving a giant, GIANT snake (picture the anaconda from Anaconda on steroids). The film wants to have this undercurrent where the key characters are investigating and drawing power from a mystical alternate universe, but it just never commits or fleshes those ideas out, resulting in many whiplash-inducing moments, including a shoehorned-in apocalyptic vision courtesy of the Lady of the Lake and a Merlin cameo straight out of last year's Warcraft (not a compliment). Other flaws are more mundane, such as the interchangeable, underdeveloped characters, one played by Djimon Hounsou, meant to be the knights of the round table in sequels we will never see.

The story of King Arthur is often told as an idealized romantic reverie of gleaming armor and swooning heroics, yet Guy Ritchie succeeds in applying his patented hyper-kinetic editing and British gangster rhythms to create a stirring alternative vision. Credit must also be given to Daniel Pemberton for crafting the year's best film score - its dark power elevates the film in no small measure. Charlie Hunnam is perfect in the title role (and remains our most underrated lead actor) and is ably supported by many fine character actors - the performance of Astrid Bergès-Frisbey as the mage was especially good. I was blessed to see this movie in the premium format of 2D. I can't imagine that 3D would be kind to the alluringly dark palette and agile camera work. King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is a fresh and fitting take on the classic tale and one that I look forward to seeing again. *A*

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

I enjoyed this more than I expected. It's like a gangster movie set in Arthurian times. All the characters are essentially Snatch-esque wise guys, but there's also this story about a boy that would be king and a sword set in stone. It's odd, but it gels well. The cast works well. Hunnam is enjoyable as the cockney neighbourhood crew boss. Law is decent (though could have been more insane) as the "king". Gillen and Bana are always a pleasure. And the David Beckham cameo was a welcome surprise (also lovely that he wasn't a guard playing with an Arthurian football or some other reference to his career). The real star of the show, though, is Daniel Pemberton, who has created an awesome score to accompany the legendary tale and slow-mo sequences/extended montages.

The film does make a lot of missteps, though. The grey and hazy colour palette is annoying (as is the use of 3D), and the quick-sharp lingo/delivery for Arthurian times is a little jarring. The editing is quite modern, which I was ok with, but the film is so visually dark. It doesn't let up for a second. And the action is often, as is common with movies these days, an inconceivable mess. I was also unhappy to not see Lancelot or Merlin (heard him referenced a few times but the character is basically not present in this telling of the legend).

B-

By that, can I assume you are English?

Terran.

KING ARTHUR LEGEND OF THE SWORD

I thought this was gonna be bad and was uninterested in it even when I first heard of the film. I took the time to watch this and ended up enjoying it. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Guy Ritchie's style because it can be pretty frenetic but I did like this overall. I enjoyed the new take and it's really just a Sherlock Holmesified version but it's King Arthur now. I liked the story and visuals. The action was well done. I only watched this in 2D and wished I had seen it in 3D because there appeared to be multiple 3D instances in the film because even the 2D seemed to have spots that would really pop. I'm very disappointed that the film tanked because I would have liked to have seen a sequel to this.

Grade - B

You were lucky seeing this in 2D. In 3D, it was overly and needlessly dark.

Watching it in 2-D, I could tell it would be awful in 3-D. 3-D all but requires a certain style of cinematography emphasizing depth and scale, with shots lasting longer than usual for an action film in the 21st century. This is no way feels shot or cut to favor 3-D. Everything is hyperactive and washed in greenish greys.

I enjoyed myself somewhat but man this movie is just a mess. It feels like it's trying to be about ten different movies in one, and unfortunately only works about half the time. The montage sequences (such as Arthur growing up or any sequence where they laid out a plan, etc.) were super fun. They definitely felt reminiscent of Ritchie's other films and I thought that most of the cast had nice chemistry with each other during those moments. There are also some well-done action sequences. When the movie gets into the CGI-heavy wannabe "Game Of Thrones" territory it really falters. The final act is a complete mess and feels straight out of a video game. After all that buildup with Jude Law the final fight being with some imagined version of him was hugely disappointing. Also, for such an expensive production while the sets and practical effects were great the CGI was fairly horrible here. Charlie Hunnam does a nice job though and gives a charming lead performance. B-