It feels like several different movies/video games mashed into one, and a sliver of the original Arthur story in the middle. I like the rest of the cast, but the Arthur actor was horrible. I wanted him to die in the film, and Arthur is someone you're suppose to be cheering for. Why not just do the Arthur legend, since it's been a long time for a faithful version of Arthur to appear on the big screen. I think if they recast Arthur, and did a faithful version it wouldn't have been such a disaster of a film.
I love Charlie Hunnam! Surprised to see my other love, David Beckham. I enjoyed the movie very much. I was not expecting a National Geographic history of King Arthur.
The movie got off to a bad start, but after ten minutes the story started to get more interesting. The sound track is one of the worst I've ever heard. For about 2/3 of the film, there was what at first seemed to be someone whistling tunelessly that ran over all the music. Then I finally realized it was someone wheezing--like a long distance runner gasping for breath while trying to look and sound cool. Need I say it was annoying? It gave me a headache.The CGI was okay, but probably more interesting to 12-year-olds than adults and none of it helped the story along or had any purpose other than getting good reviews from people who love CGI. Worth watching, but not spectacular.
Featuring: predictably strong CGI (moments like a good computer game), some atmospheric evocation of the taste of legend, and some abysmal plotting (at the pace of a bad computer game). A little of the crisp cut-back visual narrative style that we would expect from director Ritchie, but a waste of Jude Law.
Arthurian purists will find this film a departure from traditional fare, if not a complete bastardisation of the legend. It is closer to a Lord of the Rings epic, combined with the gangster swagger of director Guy Ritchie's signature style. Despite the sweeping CGI and SFX, it felt like something was missing from the script. Charlie Hunnam fans will enjoy the extra features on this DVD, others may be disappointed with the rest. Not terrible, but not brilliant either.
What a complete disappointment! This is a COMPLETE departure from any version of the story you've heard before. We feel as though we were cheated that the filmmaker even titled it King Arthur; as though the diamond we expected turned out to be a cheap piece of plastic from a gumball machine. We're not even going to finish it. SHAME on the filmmaker for the title he gave it.
The film is a near miss. Good production values; poor direction. The pulling of the sword from the stone was anti-climatic. The character development of the Jude Law's character is non-existent with never an understanding why he would go to such lengths for power. I was left shaking my head at this one. Just barely watchable.
Reimagined classic epic on the rise of King Arthur with twists in magician and demon, Arthur's destiny, multi ethnic knights and the legend of Excalibur. Enjoyed the special effects, stunning set designs and story twists. However, Jude Law's wanting character was unconvincing as the prolicide/fratricide/uxoricide and nearly succeeded as a nepoticide devil king. Last, a must see for the CGI ... and for the snake sequence towards the end. With a serpent like that, who needs a dragon! Watch the 4 minutes "Video" BUT SPOILER if you have not seen the film.
I am torn on this movie. On one hand, it is a pretty good sword and sorcery adventure flick; on the other, it is a complete bastardization of the Arthurian Legends. I'd have preferred that Guy Ritchie had given it the title "Fred And His Magic Sword" and removed all references to Arthur, Merlin, et al. because it is fun and creative. If you are interested in an accurate depiction of Camelot (i.e. Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur or Tennyson's Idylls Of The King) then get the 1980 movie Excalibur by John Boorman.
There are no ages for this title yet.
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.