King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Too modern and deviates from the original story.

I'm not one to hate on movies just because of others but I love to check common sense media before I watch and I thought that this would be fine, despite the comments..... I was wrong. The only reason I watched this is because I was told it was similar to my favourite franchise, lord of the rings, but it wasn't. The main problems are... Sexual activity: there are half naked mermaids in a lake. You don't see anything but I swear I was looking away half the time because it got so close that you thought, ' this is the death of my childhood right now'. There is also a bunch of scenes where I think this woman is getting abused by this guy. I don't know but at some point they went into the room onto the bed and Arthur gets sent out and they close the door. It was so unnecessary and I hated it. Plot: I am a huge fan of the books because of how magical they are, but this was nothing like it, apart from Excalibur, the sword, and his parents names. I hated how they ruined it. It was so dark and creepy and just wrong. It felt wrong,looked wrong and sounded wrong. HORRIBLE!!! Characters: ok, so, for those who haven't read the books or know anything about the legend, merlin is a wizard who helps Arthur learn how to be a wise and good king. WHERE DID HE GO!!!???? I was so so sad to find out that merlin was not in the film. And also Arthur is supposed to be 17.... He looked like a 50-year-old. This made no sense to me. And Arthur's character was a little upsetting in the beginning. There is also Kay, Arthur's step-brother, who also was missing. All very upsetting. Swearing: I did not catch it, but apparently there is an f-bomb, a word, and a couple other. To be honest I was least concerned for that. Violence: this is a war-based film so there is obviously going to be fighting, but this was a little much. Arthur's uncle kills his wife for power, Arthur's mum is killed with a spear in front of his own eyes, and that's in the first 10 minutes. 🤮

I did not ever finish this movie. It was very boring and it did not live up to my expectations. It had plenty of violence and brief nude. Not the best movie to see.

This movie is definitely in my top five movies! I don’t understand why no one liked it! Just to clear some stuff up, there is not one f bomb, but 2. Their is a lot of violence but it’s not as bad as superhero movies.

Not as much cussing as you hear in middle school. It seemed like you were watching agame. Arthur was Raised in a brothel, There was no actual sex or nudity, but there were some octopuss-human hybrid witches that reminded me of ursula from the Little Mermaid. 4.8 Star rating overall for me. There was a F bomb scattered in there too.

This film has the best music in the whole universe. The film in it's self would be weak, but the music makes it worth a million more. I definitely recommend watching it, although contains a few violent scenes, if you look away for that few seconds then it's totally watchable.

Okay lets me honest. We have seen this story a lot. This time it is different. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has great fights, visuals, and some laughs too. There is a lot of death and a amazing fight scene at the end.

Curious question: Is it possible to determine the full amount in which the legend of Arthur of Brittany has been portrayed (independent in expression) in any audiovisual media? The answer would be an authentic indeterminacy. Edwin S. Porter's "Parfisal" had no idea of the narrative phenomenon that was going to cause time after its release in 1904; naive and audacious, this silent film only adapted Richard Wagner's opera, with which Wagner gave a twist to the homonymous poem of Wolfram von Eschenbach where chivalry contest, sorcery, love, passion, and legacy made their covering letter in both film and theater. Epic-medieval-knightly adventures have known how to ration their elixir of immortality, since a decade and half a century later, the London tales located in the full expanse from the 10th century to the 15th century, erroneously, they simulate possessing the essential vigor for—with an exaggerated positivism—creating a saga ala "Avengers in the medieval London", owned by Warner Bros., in the middle of the Millennium era, of course, hitting the nail on the head with the chosen filmmaker for modernizing the Celtic story. He sins due to his creativity by basing on the sharp literary sword with too much freedom, falling into his deep-rooted directional record, arousing a swirl of varied mixes that offer a new King Arthur face. A young cherubic Arthur, a famous character in the European literature, is forced to witness the extermination of not only his realm but his own nuclear family, adding with irony, a stab in the back by his uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Brought up among bosoms of lust, dearth and Love, Charlie Hunnam ("Sons of Anarchy" – "Crimson Peak") grows between rustic London alleys with knocks and shocks, for according to the leonine legend and the extravagant narrative thread written by ten hands, redefine his philosophy of life and accept what destiny holds: to become the ideal monarch in both war and peace. And yeah!, despite big freedom, Excalibur is to be present, what would King Arthur do without what makes him King Arthur? (Of course, eliding Merlin's absence). Being a cornerstone of the medieval literature expansion, the story has been one of the most influential and prominent in the film world, interpretations that fall into the hands and minds of dissimilar filmmakers who have infused it, for better or worse, their distinctive signature using the annals of the character, which is rumored, it's fictitious. Guy Ritchie, a British director of features as ingrained as iterative who was trend years ago with his second motion picture "Snatch", getting to win over Warner Bros. Company in order to hold him responsible for a big-size revamp with a budget of USD 175 million. The director must had been performed a whopping feat so that it would allow him to have such a budget amount, which, at first glance, reached a deadlock on the special effects. That Ritchie who made it on her own to the early twentieth century with his fast-paced, and comic—even hyper—style, which required the spectator enough attention not to be lost in the whirlwind of stop-and-go stories both via flashbacks and flash- forwards, suffocates the opportunity with an unusual medley of genres and ideas, though their risky elections are welcomed, don't end up to set completely, such as the "Ritchinian" opening attributed to the childhood of the main role where it isn't perceived fluency, doesn't generate interest and visibly shows an embarrassing appearance, revealing the fatigue of the director to keep his touch with every work, something that doesn't impact the same way anymore. In addition to the above, new innovations ranging from top angles increasing and focusing the visual field as if it was a video game, the inclusion of views in the first person or even the application of a street and urban accent to an epic chase through London passages, a cinema breaking traditionalism but never becomes truly suggestive. Visually speaking, "King Arthur" raises interesting re-inventions, in which are the required elements so that it doesn't feel foreign to the base story altogether. It's clear that visual effects make us dizzy and, in certain periods, spoil the image in its entirety, however, only a few are the found true flaws in the shots of colossal elephants ruining empires, a kingdom as vast as dreary, enchanted waters by a god and his penitents, among others. In a nutshell, the film receives a dark and pessimistic tone, a technique that would have worked in the first half of the feature film, where the protagonist is immersed in confusion and searching for himself, however, the opacity is there from beginning to end, reducing the aggressiveness of the images with dull colors in excess. With the help of some marketing posters and certain advertising videos, can be detected who deals with the weight of the story: Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law. The first one looks pretty good with sloppy clothes and blonde hair of Arturo, his acting is credible and the style he endows the character is enjoyable, even despite the stereotyped outline of his role, one very adept at the edition of Joseph Campbell "The Hero's Journey". Emphasizing his rigorous body workout, which cannot be ignored in projects like these, Hunnam has the minimums for, in an unlikely future, taking charge of the King Arthur franchise. As for Law, his performances are always excellent, and although this one is not enough, perhaps because of the lack of understanding about the magnitude of the role, he executes suitably perverse insanity, treachery, and greed of a king chosen by mistake. Projecting the viewer a film hybrid that only finds its point of glory in selected visuals that can be categorized as visionaries and sequences of struggle and annihilation executed with flair, of course, embellishing them with a delightful soundtrack at the hands of Daniel Pemberton; Charlie Hunnam and Guy Ritchie achieve being a different summer movie, on their own merit, alas, leaving on the way, more and more quickly, the considerable expectations they had. A feature film ending up just like mythological "Sword in the Stone", embedded in its rough mold.

the reviews made me think twice but its worth it, although it does change King Arthur a little I personally thought it was perfect for a new age movie

Originally when King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was released in cinemas, I wasn't compelled to see it. The trailers seemed a little off putting, considering their inconsistences (with the first trailer being solemn and the second one light-hearted, it was confusing as to what genre of film it would be.) However, after finally deciding to see it, I've seen it twice so far and have booked my next tickets already! Being a Guy Richie film, I instantly knew it would be a brilliant adaptation of previous Arthurian films. It had the witty and wacky style I expected, with lots of interesting characters along with their amusing names, true to a Guy film. The film consisted of many battle sequences, most of which weren't very bloody and overall were personally something I had never seen before. Each sequence included a different way of presenting the scene. In that sense, it was brilliant. However, the battles always went on for a while with slightly intimidating music in the background which may have been too much for a young child, which is why I've suggested it to be for 14+. There was not much sex or drug/alcohol use at all in the film, however there's lots of violence and insinuated torture, with specifically and ear being cut off (which is not shown on screen, but the sound effects imply.) There were only a few uses of strong cuss words, 'f' being used once, then mouthed again. Altogether this film cost $175,000,000 to produce and during the first week of release in America, it consumed around $12,000,000 which is one of the reasons it was a supposed 'flop'. However, I think this is due to the lack of protagonist female characters, the time of release, the trailers and lack of interest for the Arthurian tales. Contrary to most opinions, I found the humour and the brilliant casting to be the compelling factor for this film. Charlie Hunnam did a memorable and intense performance as King Arthur, which alone- in my opinion- would have saved the entire franchise. Some of the cast members didn't, however, perform as well. Astrid Frisbey, for example, playing The Mage, lacked in any sort of personality and background. It was like most of the characters were there as plot devices rather than to engage the audience. Overall, I feel as though Guy Richie and Charlie Hunnam did a great job at this movie adaptation, and I would definitely recommend going to see it. (I have said there is too much swearing however it is only too much swearing for the 12/PG-13 certificate. For 14+ it is fine.)