a-arpi0 There's something that doesn't work. Snatch and the legend of king arthur don't come together. Awful. Lame storyline, lame acting stars.

eric262003 There's no denying that the background is quite the eye-opener in Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword". But when it comes to the storytelling that is the meat and potatoes of this movie, then that's just a subject in itself. This stands for all the films that Ritchie has directed. Why do we need another half-backed version of King Arthur? Rictchie knows it's been done before, but being so stubborn he decides he wants to do an adaptation of his own along with outrageous elements he could add to it which doesn't work on a lot of levels. If you're expecting the King Arthur story you've been read to in school, you will be disappointed.The opening scenes might spark some intrigue though not necessarily needed as dark images appear as the evil Vortigern (Jude Law) as he succeeds in killing his older brother Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) and takes possession of the crown. Fortunately, Uther successfully sends his son Arthur to a place of consummate. Twenty years later, Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) returns, unknown that he is blessed with royalty. But after he successfully managed to remove a sword from a stone, he knew there was something unusual about him. Arthur joins forces under the guidance of a Mage who worked for Merlin (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) to get revenge on his uncle Vortigern and claim his rightful place on the throne.What's you first impression when King Arthur comes to mind? Not giant snakes or tree people or other concocted fantasy creatures that Ritchie arbitrarily added to the story. All we have are a series of CGI elements that have replaced the character struggles of revenge with the family which should have been the main focus of the movie. It's all about fantasy land and little about character development or themes about vengeance, betrayal, or romance. It's about appeasing to the modern spirit and gladly rubs it down our throats every chance it gets.The style over substance runs the course of this movie throughout, like the only thing Ritchie even cares about is reaction over thinking. The camera work is very shaky as the imagery either speeds up or slows down and the editing has the feeling as if it was an overlong music video. When characters run, they are accompanied by shake cameras and the CGI graphics are pure overkill that Ritchie was trying to outdo Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", but failed miserably, because at least in "Lord of the Rings" there was a story being told.All off this eye candy is a distraction to what the real intentions were for this movie, a vengeful conflict between King Arthur and his uncle Vortigern. Though Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law were very good in their respected roles, the sad part is they're hardly on screen at the same time. The dependence on visual reaction was so overwhelming we forget that there is a story happening which should have been the primary focus. Law's real purpose to this film made to have top villain the film for Arthur to take down rather than explore the conflicts, the history or the knowledge of Medieval England. Ritchie only care about being hip on the subject matter.It's not a complete abomination, though I can't really recommend it. The acting especially from from Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law was really good and the visuals was very well executed. Plus the score by Daniel Pemberton was very catchy. But the elephant in the room was Ritchie's storytelling and the CGI was very over-the-top and was more purposely set to reaction rather than telling its story across. by around the two hour mark, you're just glad that movie's out of the way.

tizzo47 The reviews and previews did not sever this movie well. Guy Ritchie continues to surprise me with his take on classics (Sherlock Holmes 1&2) and King Arthur. Throw away the "classic legend" and enjoy this for what it is. A fast paced, action packed "take" on the Sword of Legend; Excalibur. Just try to enjoy it and you will. Have fun!

tibor-poser I wanted to watch this in IMAX, but couldn´t find the time, so Home Theater instead.God, it was awful! I mean it was really AWFUL! Don't watch it, it will make you hate the good actors in it and Ritchie himself!1: It made NO sense 2: Too many characters, too many backgrounds, they changed their perspective like every 2 seconds 3: Nothing happened. Really, nothing happened, the evil king did NOTHING at all, just building his tower, summoning a ball of flame when the ceiling was ready just for LOL, but he did literally nothing. 4: I think I accidentally watched the "Director´s Drunk Cut" fun version of a third rated Guy Ritchie fan. 5: I can´t even finish this list, because my mine does the same thing as this movie, jumping around, doing everything and nothing at the same time and IT DOESN´T MAKE ANY SENSE! 6: $!§"%WEFES E asfo iwwoihs gan fogha kfaj öldfj (Probably a citation from the script)How can be this around 7 points? (after reading some crits, realized they are also generated by paid accounts. Some advice for the paid critics: Make some grammmaatic mistakes, it looks too perfectDon´t Write Everything In Big Letter, write it like a SMS to a friendDon´t give them such a catchy title)Anyway, it is not a 7 Points Movie, more like a 2-3, but had to spend some money for the crits.Some advice for Lord Ritchie: You are a great director, but if you want to make 3 Movies about a story, don't make compromises with the Producers, make 3 separated Movies BUT DON'T make 1 Movie from 3 Scripts!If you have no controll over your work, then please leave that project. You have a name, you will find producers to give you money for your project. (seriously, how much free hand did you get here? They let you direct 1 fight scene, but only 10 secs long?)+1 Star for the big elephants and that Octopus monster, they were fun!