The film was pitched to the studio as Lord of the Rings meets Snatch. Charlie Hunnam, who won the role of King Arthur only after promising Guy Ritchie that he’d bulk up for it, and offered to fight (and win) the other two in consideration (Henry Cavill and Jai Courtney), said that the description sold him on the movie: “That’s a film I wanted to see.” Unfortunately, we can now say that Hunnam was the only one who did. King Arthur bombed big time at the box office this weekend, earning just $17M against its $175M production budget. Sean and I were part of that tiny 17 million dollar sliver, but only because it was opening night at our local drive-in theatre and we just couldn’t stay away.
Full disclosure, the moment the movie began, I turned to Sean and said “I really don’t like 
movies that mix fantasy and historical.” Sean let out a breath. “You’re going to hate this.” He was right. I kind of knew it too. But as soon as I’d said those words, I realized they were too general. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head, but I’m certain there are plenty of movies who get it right. I know I was thinking of The Great Wall when I said it, as King Arthur’s opening scene immediately put that to my mind, which was a rough way to start. It would later remind me of the egregious Ben Hur remake, an even worse comparison.
The premise is, of course, familiar: King Uther (Eric Bana) has a rocking sword named Excalibur and a shitty younger brother named Vortigern (Jude Law, who only plays bad guys since he lost his hair) who doesn’t love anyone as much as he loves himself, and loves power most of all. He’ll stop at nothing to win and keep the crown, and he slays his way through his own immediate family, spilling their blood to make himself king. His kingdom suffers from his megalomania for years, but just when things go really REALLY bad, Excalibur reveals itself, the sword in the stone that no one can liberate. Vortigern 
knows that only his nephew will be able to handle it, so he rounds up all the age-appropriate young men in the kingdom and eventually Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) is revealed. And then it’s game ON. Arthur isn’t really motivated to do battle with his ruthless uncle, but a beautiful mage (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) persuades him that it must be so.
Guy Ritchie’s Arthur was raised in a brothel and is a bit of a thug. His gang is fast-talking, full of the saucy wit we’ve come to expect from a Ritchie movie, only now it’s mixed with magic and sorcery and feels wildly out of place. It’s clear Ritchie is aiming for a stylish, genre-bending effort, with anachronisms he doesn’t quite pull off as well as say, Baz Lurhrmann did in Moulin Rouge or even Brian Helgeland with A Knight’s Tale (although the heavy-breathing score is kind of inspired). This King Arthur is a muscular and masculine movie that’s devoid of plot or character development. There’s no risk of actual tension so instead Ritchie has made sure that “stuff” is always “happening.” The movie just plops you down in the middle of the action, stuff that Ritchie apparently just made up in his head, and expects you to know what he was thinking. If you feel quite confident about your ability to read Guy Ritchie’s mind vis-a-vis magic and ginormous, fantastical pachyderms, you’re set. Otherwise, you’re in for a world of confusion, and the fact that Ritchie is apparently allergic to linear story-telling doesn’t help. One scene is constantly inter-cut with another because Guy Ritchie JUST CAN’T WAIT TO GET TO THE POINT! But will still make you sit through the dreary stuff as well, edited so its dreary-ACTION!-dreary-ACTION!-dreary-ACTION! and you forget which time line you’re actually in, even though they’re probably only separated by about 6 minutes or so, making it all feeling DREARY-DREARY!-DREARIER-DREARIEST!
This was meant to be merely the first installment of a planned six films series; safe to say the other 5 will soon be scrapped. Ritchie might be good at gritty crime dramas, but audiences just aren’t receiving his douchebag approach (hello, David Beckham cameo!) to King Arthur very well. I’ll tell you one redeeming thing though: Charlie Hunnam is indeed fit to be king. Very, very fit. I thought the wardrobe choice for him was interesting but cannot, for the life of me, understand why he wasn’t just shirtless the whole time. His physicality seemed to be of utmost importance to Ritchie, so why not capitalize on his one good idea and call it a day?
ASSHOLES WATCHING MOVIES 
I love this type of film. My favourite king Arthur rendition is Excalibur. Now, as for this film, the look of it alone does not make me swoon to see it. You can’t make this type of film “modern”. I will see it when it comes on video but I doubt they will make another 5 films. No Lancelot or Guinevere in this film I bet
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I loved so much about Snatch and even more about Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels is the convoluted and intersecting plots that still somehow managed to make sense.
The snappy dialogue was great too.
Mallory’s Morte d’Artur has some convoluted and intersecting plots that make it seem like a perfect fit for Ritchie’s style, and snappy, contemporary dialogue wouldn’t hurt.
Too bad he didn’t take that approach.
LikeLike
aw no, what a twit. (Ritchie, not you 🙂 )
LikeLike
I wish Ritchie stopped wasting time on all this nonsense and returned to doing low budget witty gangster flicks
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, I bet he’s about to get more time on his hands, so fingers crossed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I did not know what to expect when first I saw this website name elsewhere. But I must say that the opening tagline got me to stay (“How many assholes[…]?).
And now for this review. I have not seen the movie, and now have no desire to do so, based on this review. Luckily, however, I was entertained by this review. In fact, I laughed my “asshole” off…!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think he is doing Aladdin next. Unless Disney rethinks that move
LikeLike
All I’ll say is that Madonna is, apparently, a total fucking c**t.
LikeLike
Oh, I’m disappointed that this is dreary. I was looking forward to it. Looks like it’s getting netflixed.
LikeLike
Doesn’t David Beckham play a sword or something? Plus, what’s the point of a new King Arthur movie when there’s already a perfect one from Monty Python? CAMELOT! CAMELOT!! CAMELOT!!!! It’s only a model…. shh…!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad I went to see Snatched this weekend instead of this one. Not that Snatched is superior film-making by any stretch of the word. Critics panned. it. But at least I got some laughs out of it.
LikeLike
Good review for what appears to be a bad film. Sounds too much like a Medieval Sons of Anarchy(which, I think, was based on Shakespeare).
LikeLike
Really liked Ritchie’s two ‘Sherlock Holmes’ films. Hope this isn’t as bad as you say! Not that I don’t trust your judgement, of course!
LikeLike
I’ve always liked the King Arthur story but this sounds like a disaster. I was hoping that it would be good, or at least an entertaining movie.
LikeLike
After seeing the trailer I was of the “nope” persuasion. It was just too… jarring? kinetic? busy? Not my thing at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[image: Inline image 1]
LOL – I cannot comment on the article hahahahaha
I wanted to post how much I bloody loved KING ARTHUR – like a 4/5 for me. Best fantasy since LOTR – and Hunnam is hubbabubba.
*Jason King * *Salty Popcorn * *PH: +61 411 730 210 *
[image: Inline image 6] [image: Inline image 4] [image: Inline image 1] [image: Inline image 9] [image: Inline image 5] [image: Inline image 7] [image: Inline image 3] [image: Inline image 8] [image: Inline image 2] [image: Inline image 10]
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:31 PM, ASSHOLES WATCHING MOVIES wrote:
> Jay posted: “The film was pitched to the studio as Lord of the Rings meets > Snatch. Charlie Hunnam, who won the role of King Arthur only after > promising Guy Ritchie that he’d bulk up for it, and offered to fight (and > win) the other two in consideration (Henry Cavill an” >
LikeLike
Well I definitely won’t argue the hubbabubbaness 😉
LikeLike
I predicted this failure. I enjoy Guy Ritchie and Charlie H, but they were morons for thinking it could work. And what is up with a David Beckham cameo? Is he now suddenly a movie star?
LikeLike
Well since this role was tiny, misplaced, and widely mocked, I’m guessing it’ll stall his career.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oooft. I saw the trailer for this and thought “what’s this now?”… 6AD (or so) and hipster King Arthur and his crew are walking about like extras from a Mumford & Sons video. With swords and the likes, of course. Phenomenal.
LikeLike
You’ve got it nailed down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah it’s looking like a stinker, shame cos it looked pretty fun. I really like watching Charlie Hunam in lead roles.
LikeLike
Me too!
LikeLike
Your review was very entertaining, though I don’t think this is my kind of movie.
LikeLike
Great post
Amazing blog
Wonderful blogger u r
LikeLike
Saw the trailer and went’ nope’ … so, thanks for taking one for the team. 🙂
LikeLike
I’ll see (almost) anything during drive in season!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are always other things to occupy oneself at a drive-in, if the movie’s bad. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly right!
Case in point: this weekend they’re showing Baywatch. Ugh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We were going to go and see this, but still have yet to pull the trigger. Just something about it….
LikeLike
Yeah, you might enjoy it more if you aren’t paying a lot of money for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A friend was telling me about this one so of course I had to come here and search for the review. This gal friend of mine said she swooned over the lead actor. I didn’t realize it did so poorly at the theatre. Given your review, I’m thinking I won’t rush to see it 😉
LikeLike
It came and went so fast; now I know why. All that money, talent and a rich story source was all wasted. I really wanted to see it too. I will see it; but this is really a shame. Thanks Jay for an honest and accurate review 😊
LikeLike