King Arthur Legend of the Sword

‘King Arthur: Legend of the Sword’ Review: Historical Hokum

'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword'

Movie Rating:


Every now and then (usually about once per decade), Hollywood decides that the time is right for a King Arthur tale and audiences respond with a firm “No thank you.” The last time was in 2004 when Antoine Fuqua and Clive Owen delivered an epic so forgettable you’re about to turn to Google to confirm its existence. In the ’90s, ZAZ veteran Jerry Zucker got sincere with ‘First Knight’ to vast apathy. Now Guy Ritchie takes his swing at the legend. You’d think it would be fun because that’s Ritchie’s specialty, right? No such luck.

Since we live in the age of franchises and superhero cinema, this isn’t an Arthurian legend set amongst the Knights of the Round Table in their prime. It’s an origin story. When we first meet Arthur (Charlie Hunky Hunnam), he’s living in a brothel and leading a gang of miscreants between nightmare visions of his childhood. He of course has a secret origin backstory (doled out in a way too long and serious prologue). He’s the son of King Uther (Eric Bana, underused as always), who was killed thanks to the unholy alliance of evil magician Mordred (Rob Knighton) and his brother Vortigern (Jude Law), who’s now king. Due to that tragic past, Arthur is the only man who can pull a magic sword out of a rock (Excalibur, yo). Vortigern sets his sights on killing Arthur, ‘cuz he likes the king gig. So, Arthur finds a kickass crew to take the king down. No Merlin, sadly, but ya gotta save something for the sequel, right? Presumably with a title like ‘King Arthur 2: Meet Motherf*cking Merlin’ featuring Liam Neeson as the magic-spitter.

The entirety of ‘King Arthur’ feels like a battle between Guy Ritchie and his studio. At times (the good bits), the movie has the quick-cut zing and snarky sense of humor of Richie’s usual movies. However, for the most part this is a shadowy slog of a hero’s journey and it’s more than a little reminiscent of the fun-sucking takes on DC comics that have become the Warner Bros. house specialty. The battles are massive, but they’re also murky and difficult to see and overburdened by mandated darkness. The medieval epic clocks in at just slightly over two hours, but feels infinitely longer thanks to all the brooding and emo shots of mud and rain. The pacing is wonky, reeking of studio interference. It’s feels like every few minutes an executive demanded that Ritchie make it clear how serious and somber this story is supposed to be. It sucks the fun out of the movie pretty much any time Ritchie gets on a roll with his hyper-stylized, chronology-busting ways.

There are passages when the movie is snappy and goofy, plus other sequences where it almost seems like the filmmaker is having campy fun with the dark and serious tone enforced on him. Jude Law stretches far enough over the top (almost eight popes on the ‘Young Pope’ scale) that he’s clearly doing a little winking at the film’s expense. Charlie Hunnam alternates from being charming to a big hunk of unformed clay glowering in the rain.

Other than that, most of the cast either blend together in their dullness or emerge as insufferably bad (like David Beckham, who’s unlikely to parlay this role into an acting career, thankfully). The women rarely even get names and are either witches, prostitutes, corpses, or all three. It’s a bit gross, but to be fair any decent amount of time spent on a female character would also distract from Ritchie’s desire to linger on close-ups of muscular male flesh as often as possible. ‘King Arthur’ should undoubtedly be the most homoerotic studio tentpole of the summer that isn’t part of the ‘Fast & Furious’ franchise. (But don’t tell the bros that. Why spoil the fun?)

What we have here is a massive mess that only sporadically lives up to the promise of Guy Ritchie’s talent and vision. For all the ludicrously over-stylized montages, snappy bits of British lad mag dialogue in period costume, and violence, there are also infuriatingly endless passages of overly serious historical hokum, distractingly cartoonish CGI monsters, and impenetrable exposition dumps masquerading as dialogue. You get some of the best bits of Ritchie flicks and modern fantasy epics and lots of the worst hunks of both.

This is a dysfunctional marriage for the filmmaker and genre, filled with wild highs and soul-crushing lows. People who enjoy pithy Ritchie movies and those sad folks who adore generic fantasy blockbusters will both emerge disappointed. In other words, expect King Arthur to disappear for another decade, just long enough for studio executives to forget that no one actually wants to see a big-budget version of this story.


  1. cardpetree

    As I was reading, I could not believe you didn’t say “homoerotic” since it had super hunky and handsome Charlie Hunnam in it (my wife agrees with you Phil). I just needed to read a little further.

  2. ‘This is a dysfunctional marriage for the filmmaker’. Hey, you could say Ritchie is an expert on the subject.

    I like ‘First Knight’, by the way, but then again, I’m a ZAZ fan 🙂 (well, anything made after – or even including – ‘Mafia!’ has been underwhelming)

  3. Jim Sublett

    I look forward to it – I’m always up for a sword fight epic!
    And yeah, I enjoyed ‘First Knight’ as well….

  4. Thought it was pretty damn good, really disagree with this review. First segment was awesome and I loved Ritche’s flashy dialog with characters telling and us seeing whats going on, it was pretty unique for this type of movie. Everyone acted just fine IMO, enough serious needed for a dark fantasy epic with good bits of fun and funny banter thrown in as well, the magic used with the sword was pretty awesome as well. I really have no complaints about the movie, its what I wanted from what I thought it would be, good FX, good acting and a fun story thats different from normal Arthur tales and re-tellings…..too bad its a major bomb but I kind of saw that coming.

    It reminds me of A Knights Tale with Heath Ledger, people didnt care for that at all when it came out, melding modern music with medieval characters and settings, it was really off putting at first but now I know lots of people that really enjoy that one, this movie is kind of the same to me, its different and strange for a fantasy movie, especially with Ritche’s way of filming dialog and how he does his visuals and I’m hoping it gains a good following when it comes home, I’ll be buying it and rewatching thats for sure 🙂

  5. Chapz Kilud

    I saw this movie today. It was not as bad as some people claimed. But poor rating was justified in my opinion, but for different reason. I really hate this flashback kind of story-telling. Once or twice would have been fine. But this style was used everywhere. I found that to be extremely annoying after a while. It was an ok movie but I could have enjoyed it a little more without those flashbacks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.