King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
Writer-director Guy Ritchie (Sherlock Holmes) casts Charlie Hunnam (Pacific Rim) as King Arthur in this retelling of the classic medieval tale, tracing the prince's journey from the streets to the throne.
When his father is murdered, Vortigern (Jude Law), Arthur's uncle, seizes the crown. Robbed of his birthright and with no idea who he truly is, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the Excalibur from the stone, his life is turned upside down and he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy.
- Director:
- Guy Ritchie ('The Man from U.N.C.L.E.', 'Sherlock Holmes', 'Snatch', 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels')
- Writer:
- Guy RitchieJoby Harold
- Cast:
- Charlie HunnamJude LawEric BanaAnnabelle WallisAstrid Bergès-FrisbeyDjimon HounsouAidan GillenTom WuDavid Beckham
.jpg)
Reviews & comments
Flicks, Team
flicksThere hasn’t been a decent King Arthur movie since John Boorman’s pretty but portentous Excalibur (1981). But now that swords, sorcery and SFX are bigger business than ever, thanks to GoT and LOTR, it was only a matter of time before someone tried to kickstart a new franchise with a visionary director. Step forward Warner Bros and Guy Ritchie with the first in what was at one point apparently conceived as, whisper it, a six-part series.
King Arthur with no Merlin in sight...
This was fun , it's not perfect but it has that style of shooting, dialogue,pace, action that Guy Ritchie is known for all wrapped up with King Arthur (before he was so) and those merry knights. Charlie Hunnam is de-lish, with that roguish charm that makes him a very welcome Arthur. A hefty dose of Action mixed with witty fast paced dialogue (that at least...
A Trendy King Arthur
I'm not too familiar with the King Arthur storylines and no doubt many novels. I went into this without any expectations. It was a bit trendy hipster in the dialogue dept. The movie is a little disjointed and patchy from scene to scene or where the characters are concerned. There's a sort of odd lack of flow in many places. I wonder if Guy Ritchie set...
Variety
pressJust a loud, obnoxious parade of flashy set pieces, as one visually busy, belligerent action scene after another marches by, each making less sense than the last...
Total Film
pressThis is a tonal misfire, its characters cut down by a blitzkrieg of whip pans, CGI and thunderous percussion.
Time Out
pressPut your fingers in your ears when the talking starts, and you might enjoy the view.
The New York Times
pressA lot of shenanigans, detours and filler, some bad, some good and all of it disposable.
The Guardian
pressRitchie’s film is at all times over the top, crashing around its digital landscapes in all manner of beserkness...
Stuff
pressKing Arthur sees Ritchie taking on one of the founding myths of Pomgolia. And losing.
New Zealand Herald
pressIf nothing else, this is a heck of a lot more entertaining than the staid 2004 King Arthur film starring Clive Owen.
Hollywood Reporter
pressLoud, bombastic and thuddingly obvious, this is a vulgar movie for vulgar times.
FilmInk
pressIf you’re easily pleased by a bit of well-rendered CGI spectacle and cod-fantasy set dressing, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword will scratch that itch.
Empire Magazine
pressDevolves into a jumbled affair, weighed down by confusing supernatural elements and a lazy reliance on visual effects.
Flicks, Team
flicksThere hasn’t been a decent King Arthur movie since John Boorman’s pretty but portentous Excalibur (1981). But now that swords, sorcery and SFX are bigger business than ever, thanks to GoT and LOTR, it was only a matter of time before someone tried to kickstart a new franchise with a visionary director. Step forward Warner Bros and Guy Ritchie with the first in what was at one point apparently conceived as, whisper it, a six-part series.
Variety
pressJust a loud, obnoxious parade of flashy set pieces, as one visually busy, belligerent action scene after another marches by, each making less sense than the last...
Total Film
pressThis is a tonal misfire, its characters cut down by a blitzkrieg of whip pans, CGI and thunderous percussion.
Time Out
pressPut your fingers in your ears when the talking starts, and you might enjoy the view.
The New York Times
pressA lot of shenanigans, detours and filler, some bad, some good and all of it disposable.
The Guardian
pressRitchie’s film is at all times over the top, crashing around its digital landscapes in all manner of beserkness...
Stuff
pressKing Arthur sees Ritchie taking on one of the founding myths of Pomgolia. And losing.
New Zealand Herald
pressIf nothing else, this is a heck of a lot more entertaining than the staid 2004 King Arthur film starring Clive Owen.
Hollywood Reporter
pressLoud, bombastic and thuddingly obvious, this is a vulgar movie for vulgar times.
FilmInk
pressIf you’re easily pleased by a bit of well-rendered CGI spectacle and cod-fantasy set dressing, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword will scratch that itch.
Empire Magazine
pressDevolves into a jumbled affair, weighed down by confusing supernatural elements and a lazy reliance on visual effects.
King Arthur with no Merlin in sight...
This was fun , it's not perfect but it has that style of shooting, dialogue,pace, action that Guy Ritchie is known for all wrapped up with King Arthur (before he was so) and those merry knights. Charlie Hunnam is de-lish, with that roguish charm that makes him a very welcome Arthur. A hefty dose of Action mixed with witty fast paced dialogue (that at...
A Trendy King Arthur
I'm not too familiar with the King Arthur storylines and no doubt many novels. I went into this without any expectations. It was a bit trendy hipster in the dialogue dept. The movie is a little disjointed and patchy from scene to scene or where the characters are concerned. There's a sort of odd lack of flow in many places. I wonder if Guy Ritchie...
Share