King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

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. (05/12/2017)

A properly physical experience with all of Guy Ritchie's trademarks. Wild conversations at an uncatchable cadence, London ever-present, even our buddy David Beckham doesn't go missing. However, until the very end, I couldn't decide whether such likable wildernesses are somewhat harmed by the fact that they are crammed into a classic story that occasionally meets traditional elements very carelessly, occasionally boldly and imaginatively, but sometimes just inevitably classically. This is most prominently evident in the direct comparison between Arthur, who runs his mouth in Charlie Hunnam's confident performance, never far from a wisecrack and grumbling about his fate rather frequently, and Vortigern, an archetypal fantasy villain with a desire for power. However, I am very happy with King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, because it handles my favorite material in its own way and with knightly honor reaches an ending from which an excellent saga could continue in some alternative universe. We are left with at least an honest and courageous flash. (07/30/2017)

Ritchie’s Arthur isn’t flawless, but it certainly doesn’t lack confidence. The genre mix of British gangster movie with fantasy adventure works, dripping with originality. The storytelling is like drunken bragging at the pub, about what if and isn’t always linear. Time slips by as required. Hunnam is good, plays his part, but Jude Law in true papal style rules with an iron fist in this movie. Not everybody will be keen on this modern approach, but this is the way ahead, and it must be trampled down a little more. Magic at work. Convincing effects. Pemberton’s music is just fantastic, a great soundtrack. (05/11/2017)

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. (08/31/2017)

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. (07/22/2017)