King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

A great fantasy blast that honors the Arthurian legend, but at the same time does absolutely whatever it wants with it. It adds monsters, it shows Arthur as a gangster from London (Londinia, in fact), thanks to Ritchie's direction and Pemberton's great music, it's extremely polished and stylish, and thanks to the actors it's likeable as hell... And above all, it is also quite funny, which the trailers unfortunately concealed, God knows why. Don't say you expected an ordinary film from Guy Ritchie. (15/05/2017)

My Lord in heaven! A dark fantasy in a ball-busting visual barrage, where everything is so horribly over the top that I fully understand the viewers who sent it down the drain. This film takes all sorts of genre motifs and glues them onto a gritty story with the amount of gusto the director last had seventeen years ago. I was still a little hesitant at the intro with the gigantic elephants, but then in a brilliant cut Arthur grows up and I knew it was home run. This was because we got Ritchie's beloved staircase run with Pemberton's punchy underscore, and it doesn't lag during the special effects orgy when everyone knew they could break free from their chains, including the actors. Jude Law plays the villain in the same style as in The Young Pope, and it's an absolutely decadent blockbuster. And Charlie Hunnam? Even in Pacific Rim, I thought he had suspicious charisma for a sweet 20-something girl idol, and here he's taking advantage of it in the best possible way. I was pretty hesitant about going to the movie theater because the trailer campaign was very bland, but seeing that with a budget of 175 million, it has grossed (2 months after the premiere) about 145 million worldwide, it's clear to me that someone at Warner had cardinally screwed up. The best fantasy since The Lord of the Rings. (22/07/2017)

I try to avoid movies that have the words Arthur or Excalibur in the title because they traditionally disappoint me. I made an exception this time and I can’t say I’m happy about it. The film stopped being interesting to me before the opening credits when I found out that England was riddled with giant elephants and the defense of Camelot was led by an actual dark knight instead of a king. Although I watched it to the end, I couldn't get over the disgust I felt at the beginning. (31/08/2017)

I have to give it to Guy Ritchie – his movies have style. Whatever he films ends up fantastic. But I can’t shake the feeling that some of the scenes tend to go over the top. The beginning was amazing. The very first scene was gripping, it tells Arthur’s story since early childhood until the age where the rest of the story begins. It’s original, quick, entertaining… for about an hour. Then the ideas thin out and the whole thing gets repetitive. That’s when it loses its magic and becomes a classic Guy Ritchie movie. I can’t say he’s not being inventive, but my initial excitement has quickly grown cold. And even though I admire the effort to shoot a King Arthur fantasy from a different angle, I still couldn’t piece the story together and all I could do was to watch some CGI hocus pocus. (02/08/2018)

The new King Arthur may have some charisma and flair, but he has absolutely no style or refinement. You'll want to talk about this story with your mates in some seedy "pub" on the outskirts of London, that's about as much character as this film gets. A muddle of rock hits, confusing editing, dull PG13 CGI action scenes and a boring 130 minutes. Ritchie may be his own man again, with a distinctive and very bold style, but this legend doesn't need to be made any other way. (12/05/2017)