Opiniones de usuarios

Let's be clear: this contains very few aspects of the actual Arthur legend. They probably should have just gone for a wacky original medieval fantasy film instead. That being said, I didn't expect Ritchie's style to work this well here. And he hasn't been this crazy since Snatch. Some montages are so breathless, fast and innovative as far as editing and soundtrack go, it's a pleasure. Sure, the plot follows the genre conventions more or less, and the finale is a bit heavy on CGI. On the other hand the assassination attempt sequence is fantastic and the portrayal of magic pretty cool. Hell, I had fun with this.

This is the first time I've ever reviewed a movie. But I'm stunned by the hatred being unleashed by critics about King Arthur. I don't get it and won't stay silent. I've seen it twice (once in 3-D) and loved it. And I'll see it again. I'm not sure what critics wanted or expected from this movie. But they seem to love to hate Guy Ritchie. It's almost international sport at this point. If you don't like Ritchie's signature style, the movie probably isn't for you. His mark is all over it, though it's a very different genre for him. It's a fresh take that breathes new life into an old legend. It's perfect for the video game generation. That's not a bad thing.

I am a big fan of the Arthurian legend and all the movies and stories that have come before. This version doesn't take away from that. It's different and the Arthur origin story hasn't been done before. He's growing into his role as King. The editing, pace, sharp banter and bromances lighten some of the heavier moments and there are so many great scenes. And I can't say enough about Daniel Pemberton's score. It's a character unto itself and gives the film a medieval, modern, rock-and-roll edge. I was mesmerized and wasn't bored for a second. The film is visually dazzling, and I wanted to know more about these characters.

I came into the movie with no expectations, other than I couldn't wait to see Charlie Hunnam on the big screen again. I'm a devoted Sons of Anarchy fan, and it surprises me that he isn't a household name yet. He brings so much to this role. He flat-out looks incredible. He already lights up any screen, but putting on 20 lbs. of muscle makes him look like a super hero. But he also brings depth to the role – not easy to do in a movie full of stars and big-time special effects. He's cocky, charismatic, but also vulnerable. A reluctant hero, who's not sure he's ready or willing to embrace his destiny. I want to know more about his relationship with the Mage, played by Astrid Berges-Frisbey. There's subtle sexual tension between those two, that hints at more. I read that she's supposed to be Guinevere, so I hope they make more movies.

Jude Law has so much fun with his role and I liked his mix of swagger and shame. Djimon Hounsou and Aiden Gillen are fantastic, as well as the rest of the cast. You want to hang out with these guys and have a beer and you definitely want them fighting for you. The action scenes are big and over the top, but that's the fun of a Summer movie.

It's no secret that Guy made a 3.5 hour Arthur film that he had to cut down to 2 hours. There's more story to be told. But that was the plan for multiple movies. Stupid critics are trying to ruin that. Don't listen to them. And if you want to see more of Charlie's range, check out Lost City of Z.

This Movie was so much better than everybody told me. The fight scenes, the shots and the music was gorgeous. I really don't now why this movie receives that much hate. For me it was just Guy Ritchie at his best. Give this movie a try, its worth it! No joke, it was the best movie in this year, just stunning and epic. I loved it and i think that a lot of people will love this movie too! 7/10.

This is Guy Ritchie all day long. Guy doesn't do subtle. What he does do, is more often or not, deliver a visually entertaining feast for the eyes sprinkled with action and humour.

Charlie Hunnam was an interesting choice for Arthur. I became a fan of his during Sons of Anarchy but some of his other work has been a little hit and miss. Initially I wasn't enjoying him but as the film moved forward I took to his portrayal of the character.

For me Excalibur is the bench mark telling of this tale in film, David Gemmel has a series of novels that offer a great version of the story as well. The point being is that this movie has a lot to compete with and to be fair it does a pretty good job, its lots of fun :)

'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' left me somewhat on the fence. It is much better than some critics have said, being nowhere near among the worst films seen so far this year, but it to me doesn't quite warrant the vehement defence it's garnered too.

Guy Ritchie's best? Not by a long shot. His worst? Nowhere near, nothing is worse than 'Swept Away'. 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' could have been much better but it's hardly a film with no redeeming qualities and there are far worse films around. Then again this is coming from somebody who tries to observe and talk about redeeming qualities even in really bad films (for instance 1 and 2 out of 10 ratings are pretty rare, and am generally giving out 10/10s a little less).

There are strengths with 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword'. The costumes, scenery and production design are pretty audacious while never having a fake or too clean look, one does get sucked into the atmosphere and setting of the film and can feel the authenticity. The rousing, rich in energy and thrilling music score is a strong contender for the film's best asset.

Some nice humorous lines, some exciting and innovatively choreographed action and a mix of coarse realism and a mythic touch are further things to like. The story is never dull, actually mostly having a vibrant energy, as such and is just about easy to follow if not perfect in execution, do admire it though for putting a new spin on a timeless but old story sometimes in need of more freshness when adapted.

Charlie Hunnam has an easy-going and steely charisma in the title role, and he is perfectly matched by dignified Dijimon Hounsou and particularly a sinister but surprisingly rootable Jude Law as the villain of the piece.

However, Ritchie's direction has a tendency to be chaotic and overdone, while the shaky camera work is some of the most excessive of any film to use it seen recently and the editing has an awkward jerkiness that can feel nauseating. Special effects are a mixed bag, some are good, others are very artificial looking and reminiscent of a low-budget video game.

While there are good performances here, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is pretty wasted in an underwritten role and David Beckham is dreadfully out of place with his amateurish acting standing out like a sore thumb. Generally the characters could have been better written, some needed more development and others needed their motivations expanded upon and made much clearer (particularly the titular character). The most interesting in fact is Vortigen.

Parts of the story do work well, but there are other times where the pacing could have slowed down and that there could have been less going on, some of it felt too frenetic and bloated.

In conclusion, better than expected but less than legendary. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I believe this movie would have been a master piece of a series due to the huge amount of event packed into 2 hours, but this is no criticism on how great the movie is and how the numbers of this site doesn't do it justice. 90% of the negative reviews comes under the lame excuse of "that's not how king Arthur is supposed to be". If you actually want a movie where you know everything already starting from the story, characters and twists then I'd call you the stupidest ever. Yes this isn't your typical king Arthur movie, and that adds even more to the awesomeness of it.amnt saying the movie is flawless, no movie is, but it was great starting from acting, animation, story, music tracks, everything. Again would have been better off it was a series and I hope there would be a sequel including the knights of the round table, sure Lancelot and some dramatic betrayal or even Arthur's betrayal himself to the kingdom.

The elephant in the room is... well, there are lots of elephants in the room; let's be honest.

Before I expound further, let me say this: if you like the movie's trailers, like a fair bit of action but don't particularly care about how every bit of it fits into a story, don't particularly care about the traditional legend(s) of King Arthur, like a bunch of fantasy mixed in, and plenty of (now run-of-the-mill) CGI, you might like this movie. Reading further may unnecessarily dissuade you from watching it.

Of course, if you've seen the trailers, you know that there really are (ridiculously large, CGI) elephants in the film. The other, proverbial, elephants in the room are how far the movie strays from the legendary King Arthur story.

Now, in fairness, legends (King Arthur, in this case) being what they are, it is difficult to know where reality ends and fantasy begins. Nonetheless, even though the legend has changed somewhat over the years (as legends are wont to do), this movie bears little resemblance to the story that moviegoers familiar with Arthur will expect.

Merlin? Rendered unimportant and replaced by a (gender-PC?) beautiful female mage, who remains nameless. (I suppose the lack of a name was supposed to lend some air of irresistible mystery to her. It failed, miserably.) (sigh)

Bedivere, the handsomest of Arthur's knights (almost in the entire land), one-handed, he of the muscular build? Well, at least he had the build. Some, including Bedivere, were obviously cast in a fit of PC multiculturalism. Please. Save it for where it makes sense.

Guinevere? Lancelot? Missing. David Beckham managed to land a spot, though. Go figure.

I read Ritchie's bio here on IMDb. It's stated there that Ritchie thought film school graduates made "boring and unwatchable" films. His disdain for the work of others seems to go beyond those who've studied film art. Huh. That doesn't stop Ritchie from leaning on the creations of others to sell a flick.

Ritchie has a flashy -- often manic -- presentation style. I'll give him some benefit of doubt in presuming that he does so in an effort to create a sense of action. Unfortunately, it often serves more to make stories incoherent.

In watching Richie's Sherlock Holmes re-imaginings, I couldn't shake a feeling of Ritchie's lack of respect for Doyles' Holmes. I get the same sense of lack of respect for traditional tales of King Arthur.

I could go on and on, picking the film apart, but all of it boils down to the simple appearance that Ritchie is simply capitalizing on the popularity of someone else' story -- King Arthur and the legend of Excalibur -- by using the name in the title, then remaking the entire story to suit a flight of his fancy.

Ritchie might as well have just left the sword out of the story and dropped the name of Arthur from the story -- and title. Then he could have gone anywhere he wanted with the story without disappointing moviegoers drawn in by the title. It might have stood on its own as a fair (by no means great) action/fantasy film. As a retelling of the King Arthur legend, it is a disappointment.

On second thought, considering Richie sold the idea to the movie studio as King-Arthur-meets-The-Lord-of-the-Rings, perhaps he should have just named the movie accordingly. Then the Tolkien influence (and the use of Tolkien's oliphants) would make much more sense. Then, too, moviegoers would know better than to expect a movie simply about the King Arthur legend, which the current title implies.

The biggest problem with #KingArthur #LegendOfTheSword is that it puts more emphasis on trying to be a Guy Ritchie superhero film than it is about King Arthur. I understand that mythically, Arthur's sword supposedly bears powers of its own, but this films makes its effects work the same way spinach boosts Popeye's strength. Another problem is that instead of watching a movie, some of the time it feels more like you're watching "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor" video game walkthrough.

Charlie Hunnam stars as the born king, Arthur whose father is murdered as Arthur's uncle, Vortigern (Jude Law) seizes the crown. The film traces Arthur's journey from the brothel life all the way to the throne. Robbed of his birthright, Arthur pulls the sword from the stone and finds himself become the king's threat number one.

At the very least, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" does have a clear story, so this is not as messy or as incoherent as a Zack Snyder presentation by any stretch of the imagination. And if you're a die hard Guy Ritchie fan, this too carries his usual brute montage style that often explains a subplot in a very quick, very humorous manner, so in that sense, it is a more dynamic film than any of the other versions of King Arthur you've seen on the screen.

Charlie Hunnam essentially plays a reluctant hero who's having difficulties coming to terms with his destiny but after a while, his continued reluctance becomes frustrating and downright annoying. Not to mention the fact that for whatever reason, this film is so obsessed with wasting time on VFX hallucinations and pointless creatures, there really is no good reason why this film's runtime has to be 126 minutes long. And the supporting characters aren't well-developed either which is why you'd get easily stoked at David Beckham's easily spotted cameo. Jude Law is probably this film's only redeeming quality, as the villain, Law is as incredible and reliable as he's ever been which makes his character, Vortigern, a formidable foe. Overall, I'm not saying that "King Arthur: Legend of The Sword" is not an entertaining film if you're a style-over-substance kind of an audience, but just be aware that you'll be viewing Arthur through Guy Ritchie's filters.

Will keep it short and simple. If you don't get/understand the (British) humour (i.e you don't think the jokes are funny), dialogue and fast "flashbacky" editing style presented in Lock Stock and Snatch, you will hate this movie. Easy as that. For us who understand what constitutes a Ritchie movie will be more likely than not, like the movie.

*Minor Spoilers Ahead* The movie beings at the start of a big battle. The Mage army is smashing through King Uther's defences. Uther (Eric Bana) decides to take the battle into his own hands, despite his brother Vortigern's (Jude Law) reservations. Uther jumps onto the leading war elephant and slays the Mage king, ending the battle. After the battle, there are conflicting arguments on how to deal with the fallout. Previously the feuding kingdoms lived in harmony so some of Uther's generals: Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou) and Bill (Aidan Gillen) want to seek peace while Vortigern proposes hunting down the Mages and killing them. Uther agrees that a temporary peace should be reached and while some leave the meeting happy, others are angry and will not back down. Uther senses this and packs up his wife and his son Arthur (later played by Charlie Hunnam) to leave the castle at night.

If you've looked at the reviews for this movie, they're really scathing. I would never argue that this movie is a complete success but critics have been too quick to slam this movie. There's some really good stuff in here. I tend to like most of Guy Ritchie's movies and one of the biggest reasons is that his characters have tons of camaraderie. This is often helped by some stellar dialogue too. They make you laugh but it also helps you believe in the relationships between the characters. That was the strongest part of King Arthur for me. My favourite scenes weren't the big action set pieces, they were the parts where Arthur and his crew were taking care of business in Londinium or sabotaging the villain's operation. Other than the occasional slip up with modern day phrasing (I don't think anyone said razzle-dazzle in the medieval ages?) it reminded me of Jason Statham's dialogue in Snatch. It was generally solid and I laughed throughout the movie.

Guy Ritchie has been at this long enough that he's developed his own way doing action. In some of his projects it works great (Sherlock Holmes has some really great action scenes) and in other projects it doesn't. I thought the actions scenes in Legend of the Sword were good in some areas and they weren't so great in others. I saw this with a friend and she said the action reminded her of video games. She's not wrong. When Arthur uses Excalibur, its like unlocking a special ability in a video game. The CGI is decent (it better be with a $175 million budget) but the movie also can't seem to decide how far into fantasy it wants to go. So the action is a mixed bag, the ending goes too crazy but it didn't affect the overall grade too much.

The acting is also pretty mixed. I actually really liked Charlie Hunnam as Arthur. He's had a tough road transitioning to movies but he had the charisma and the right physicality to pull this role off. I also really liked some of the actors in supporting parts: Aiden Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, Neil Maskell and Kingsley Ben-Adir are all respectively funny and they were believable as a crew. Getting into some of the performances I didn't like as much, I don't want to blame Jude Law because he was trying but Vortigern was a lacklustre character for me. I also thought Astrid Bergès-Frisbey was weak. Her character seemed like something that could have been cut out and she was really wooden as The Mage.

This movie reminds me of 2 other Warner Bros. releases from last year that had a mixed measure of success; The Legend of Tarzan and Suicide Squad. Both of those movie were completely trashed by critics and were flawed products. But they also had some really cool parts and strong aspects that people just threw aside when judging the movie. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword falls into that category for me. The action is mixed, the acting is mixed and the story takes some pretty big liberties from the King Arthur legend and the historical period. But you have some great dialogue, interesting characters, a decent leading performance and some big action set pieces that are impressive. This wasn't the train wreck that I expected and if you're interested in seeing this, don't be afraid to give it a shot. I would be closer to a 6.5/10 but I'll round up to a 7/10.

Perhaps this movie means more to people who have some kind of attachment or attraction to the King Arthur legend already. That's the only way I can explain how so many people are giving this movie gushing 10/10 reviews.

For me, it was a largely vapid CGI-fest completely devoid of realism or reality. It's pretty much on par with your latest superhero / Avengers type of movie, with fast cut action sequences, explosions, things flying around the screen, and stylized slow motion. I expected more than this from Guy Ritchie.

I also didn't expect it to be so much of a "fantasy" film. I was expecting / hoping for a historical action movie but there is almost no history here. Everything is stylized and made up. The armour and weapons are all made up, the castles are unbelievable and fantastic (huge towers, arches, 1000 ft bridges, etc), African and Asian characters have been inserted, and there are almost no historical references.

So it all kind of mashes together into 2 hours of fantasy-action featuring characters you don't really care about and that have no grounding in any reality that seems to make sense. And you can tell they want to turn this into a franchise with several more sequels. Thankfully we may be spared this horrible future as I hear it's bombing at the box office (there were 2 other people in my theatre). It's a bad film I would never want to see again.

The King Arthur legend and Charlie Hunnam are a tempting combination. As a result, this film was not disappointment at all. Even though there are many bad reviews on the Internet. Here are proves that King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a great example of a film-craft.

The piece works on the principle of contrast, which Guy Richie handles very well. It combines old looking costumes and setting with more modern soundtrack, quick tempo, sophisticated editing. The whole movie has a rhythm. It is far from obvious safe way movie makers often tend to fall back.

The editing in time is something to highlight. Creators work chronologically with the wider story but get into time loops with smaller story sequences. The collages of flashbacks and flash forwards are challenging for viewer's attention and keep him entertained. It is often funny in slightly absurd way while using clearly film techniques to create humor.

It leaves out all needless sentiment and balances Arthur's character. Luckily, here is no exaggerated romantic line, just a small gentle one, not interrupting the plot.

So, why King Arthur again? Let's face it, all movie themes come back to theaters over and over again. The market is crowded. This film encourages to use film techniques in its repletion. On the other hand, it is not the example when technology is all what the film is about. It is balanced and serves its purpose here. This movie is about the story but also about the art how to tell the story.

The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn't one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then - ultimately - a lot of enjoyment.

Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods. Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn't heard of him either but he was in the "Lost City of Z") does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in 'Olde-English' from Russell Crowe, since the lad's Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès- Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.

Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton ("Steve Jobs", "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.") which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.

Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior's "Sherlock Holmes" films (in a similar style) and also "Edge of Tomorrow". The style is typified with Arthur's growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.

I saw the film in 3D - not a particularly favourite format, but quite well done. Though rather in the "trying too hard" category with lots of fires and drifting embers... you know the sort.

It's not bloody Shakespeare. It's not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun.

(I added some high comedy to this review with a strong Cockney angle, but boring old IMDb said it had too many spelling mistakes!! Visit bob-the-movie-man.com to see the full review. Thanks!).

The legend of King Arthur and Excalibur has been been told many times by the cinema and television. John Boorman's "Excalibur" and Walt Disney "The Sword in the Stone" are certainly among my favorite versions of this legend. The versions that I have seen have different stories but the storyline are similar; therefore, most of the worldwide viewers have a similar view of King Arthur and Excalibur.

Guy Ritchie has decided to deconstruct and reinvent the legend using an unpleasant character and based on CGI in most of the scenes. The result entertains as an adventure especially for young generations that like special effects. However it is absolutely frustrating for those that are familiar with the legend and that likes cinema as something more than CGIs. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Rei Arthur: A Lenda da Espada" ("King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword")

I dont remember the day i found this movie, but between the acting, the score, and the photography...it really feels epic,EPIC everything in this movie, the acting, the soundtrack-this is one of the best soundtracks ever made-the landscapes, the scenes...make you feel like you are living what arthur and his sword, his destiny feels...is addictive, is so easy to watch because everybody here really believes what they are playing.

If you enjoy like me story teling with many scenes that go deeper, a score that is perfect for every scene, and the photography...this is a masterpiece.

I can watch this every day.

The heart of King Arthur and Excalibur is still there. The underdog finding his way through a journey of self discovery to become the legendary king that wheels the sword. Guy Richie's version gives this story a edgy version with great street fights and battles and a villian to hate in Jude Law's protrayal of an evil King driven by desire of power. Charlie Hunnam's as the street hustler Arthur is a pleasant and refreshing take on the known character. The only issue I had was that the story felt clunky. The pacing between the character development, story conflict and action was never evenly represented. It had moments of greatness and it just fell short of being a great movie, but this beginning story is enjoyable to watch and sets the stage for possible adventures for King Arthur and this Knights.

If you want none stop action from start to finish then this is definitely a film for you. The characters are likable with lots of familiar faces throughout. Loved the special effects and the soundtrack is brilliant as it matches the style of filming (it's one that I'll be adding to my collection).

It's a real shame people slated this film before it's proper release.... pop to your local cinema and judge for yourself and I think you will be pleasantly surprised!

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) is the modern day Hollywood Blockbuster version of the legendary King Arthur story co-written and directed by Guy Ritchie. This movie famously bombed at the box office and was lambasted by critics and while I can understand some of the criticism, I had a fun time with this movie.

Positives for King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017): This movie is probably my first and only experience with the story of King Arthur and I liked the modern day versions of the classic story. The production value looks spectacular with the costumes design, movie sets and landscapes. The cast does a great job with their performances including Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Jude Law and Eric Bana. I liked seeing Charlie Hunnam as this version of King Arthur and he does bring some gravitas to the character. I enjoyed the journey we go on with King Arthur as he looks to gain his place as king and vanquish the evil. As with any Guy Ritchie movie, the interactions between characters are a lot of fun. The special effects for the creatures look good with maybe a couple of missteps. The action sequences are a lot of fun and have a good blockbuster energy to them. And finally, the final battle between King Arthur and the big bad was absolutely badass.

Negatives for King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017): This movie has that generic Hollywood Blockbuster feel that I've seen in a lot of movies nowadays. It also feels like this movie is trying so hard to be like Lord of the Rings, which obviously doesn't work. And finally, the big bad is just a dumb CGI ERJB.

Overall, King Arthur Legend: of the Sword (2017) has its fair share of problems, but I don't think it's a bad movie. I do highly recommend this movie to anyone who is willing to give it a chance and form their win opinions on the movie.

Guy Ritchie should stick at what he's best at. Movies like Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Rocknrolla. Those are the style movies he should make and not one about King Arthur. King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword is a big budget movie, no doubt about that, with alot of effort with the special effects, CGI's, costumes and extras. But the problem is the story and the acting. The story is just weak, and sometimes makes no sense at all. Even with all the special effects, that are nicely shot, it still remains boring to watch. The acting was just mediocre, it looked like they were reading their script all the time. Charlie Hunnam can only play Jax, his character in Sons Of Anarchy. I was literally waiting for him to step on his bike and drive away. I don't know what women see in him, his acting is very monotone and average. The acting of Astrid Bergès-Frisbey playing The Mage was also just mediocre. It looked all fake, just like the whole story. With such a high budget you would expect quality, but besides the filming and the special effects it's just below average. Disappointment!

The true test of a fantastic movie is when you get immersed in it. When the show grabs your attention at the onset and keeps you interested the entire time. Your mind doesn't wander about anything else but whats happening on the silver screen. And that is precisely what this movie does. Loved the beginning with the fantasy action. Immediately developed a dislike for the villain well played by Law. Charlie Hunnam had the presence and moxie to carry the lead role for the first time. Most characters were very well developed and the story line was tight. Really enjoyed the soundtrack too. Entertainment at its finest.

Don't let the critics on Rotten Tomatoes fool you. The critic score was 27%, but the audience gave it a 77 %. Sadly the critics only want to give a movie a great rating when there's an oppressed group wronged, and this movie is not that.

Here's to hoping there's a King Arthur II - Knights of the Round Table

I will tell you that a few days ago I saw on GMA or one of the news stations that does movie reviews that this movie might be a flop. I disagree. The movie had good acting, a decent story line and really good special effects. How many times can Camelot be redone? This remake is good and the two hours went by quickly which for me is a good sign of a movie.