Akin to another member of English folklore, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword acts a little bit like Robin Hood. It steals your time and money, but instead of giving it to the poor, it gives it to Guy Ritchie - who I'm assuming has began to run out of money from his past successes like Snatch and Lock Stock, thusly this film is born.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a boring, stale, and turgid mess of a film. Not a 'so-bad-it's-good' type film either. The million dollar budget insures that the movie has all the hallmarks of a big blockbuster title; fancy effects and big names. But watch it for yourself and it's mask instantly slips - revealing a confused and convoluted film bound to leave you feeling unsatisfied and angry.
Guy Ritchie's telltale style of witty British gangster types and quick-cut comedic dialogue sequences are lost on this film's half-baked historic/fantasy setting. Not even ""acting powerhouses"" such as ""David Beckham"" can pull this movie up from the pit of awful to that of mediocre. Never before have I seen a movie so unsure of it's own style.
The plot barely exists, and when it does it's as lame as a stray dog. The entire film feels more like a vehicle for Guy Ritchie's new love affair with Charlie Hunnam rather than something that the audience wants to see. Most of the scenes are comprised of Hunnam being a witty, rugged, yet charming street-wise lad cutting about a strange detached version of medieval England. It's as if any one character from any of Guy Ritchie's previous films, or perhaps some kind of hive-mind amalgamation of the lot of them, has gone back in time to be a loveable rogue. It's repetitive, it's boring, it's void of any impact, and unworthy of remembering.
Of course, I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, and count myself one of the unlucky few who were tricked into seeing it by Guy Ritchie's previous stellar movies. Perhaps it's time we add Ritchie to the growing list of Directors fallen from grace. Time will tell.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a boring, stale, and turgid mess of a film. Not a 'so-bad-it's-good' type film either. The million dollar budget insures that the movie has all the hallmarks of a big blockbuster title; fancy effects and big names. But watch it for yourself and it's mask instantly slips - revealing a confused and convoluted film bound to leave you feeling unsatisfied and angry.
Guy Ritchie's telltale style of witty British gangster types and quick-cut comedic dialogue sequences are lost on this film's half-baked historic/fantasy setting. Not even ""acting powerhouses"" such as ""David Beckham"" can pull this movie up from the pit of awful to that of mediocre. Never before have I seen a movie so unsure of it's own style.
The plot barely exists, and when it does it's as lame as a stray dog. The entire film feels more like a vehicle for Guy Ritchie's new love affair with Charlie Hunnam rather than something that the audience wants to see. Most of the scenes are comprised of Hunnam being a witty, rugged, yet charming street-wise lad cutting about a strange detached version of medieval England. It's as if any one character from any of Guy Ritchie's previous films, or perhaps some kind of hive-mind amalgamation of the lot of them, has gone back in time to be a loveable rogue. It's repetitive, it's boring, it's void of any impact, and unworthy of remembering.
Of course, I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, and count myself one of the unlucky few who were tricked into seeing it by Guy Ritchie's previous stellar movies. Perhaps it's time we add Ritchie to the growing list of Directors fallen from grace. Time will tell.