KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD

There are some things I liked about KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD but those things are nothing to make me recommend seeing the film. As I was watching the movie I entertained the idea of it working well as a double feature with THE FORCE AWAKENS, and everybody slowly leaving (or falling asleep) before KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD ended. I'm sad to report that this film is garbage. It's disappointing really, because I am a big fan of director Guy Ritchie. I loved his last film MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.

This isn't going to be an angry post about how much I thought the movie sucked, because I kinda figured as such anyways. I knew something wasn't quite right about KING ARTHUR: LOTS from the very first trailer. For me the Guy Ritchie style just didn't seem to fit with medieval stuff. (I'm not a fan of the A KNIGHT'S TALE treatment.) The second indication that the movie was probably a disaster was because there was a release delay and they changed the title too. LEGEND OF THE SWORD was a late addition.

The decision was final, I was going to pass on the film when it hit theaters this May.

But, a week or two ago I receive an email from AMC Theaters inviting me to a special sneak preview so of course I went. This was the first time our AMC Theater hosted a sneak preview like this. I hope there is more in the future because the staff at Springfield 11 need the experience. The event was chaos. I barely got in with only 4 seats remaining.

I cannot believe KING ARTHUR: LOTS is being released as a summer movie? It's more like a January release to be honest.

Here's the IMDB synopsis:

Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not.

Arthur "coming up the hard way" and raised in a brothel really feels like the Guy Ritchie contribution, mostly everything else certainly seems like studio meddling. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if KING ARTHUR: LOTS was more the studios idea than Ritchie's? Meaning, Guy maybe wanted to do a sequel to ROCKNROLLA and Warner Bros agreed only on the condition that he direct their King Arthur movie that has been in development hell? I know that's probably a stretch, but that's what I'm going with.

I've seen lots of movies and I think I know a film taken from the director's hands when I see one. The story of King Arthur meets SNATCH doesn't need giant elephants with armor or heavy CGI action involving the sword Excalibur? Seriously, every time Arthur uses the sword we're treated to a X-Men movie or Zack Snyder effect extravaganza!

Yes, I know Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films had slo-mo and CGI, but nothing like this my friend! It's as if WB said we need this to look like our HOBBIT films or something?

Time to say something nice. I liked the costume design, the bad guys had this Kylo Ren thing going on. Hence me saying the whole double feature with THE FORCE AWAKENS. I've always found similarities with Excalibur and Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber.

I also liked a couple of the action scenes. The best one is probably the failed assassination attempt on the evil king.

In conclusion, I wouldn't recommend KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD to my worst enemy. Save your time and money and seek out EXCALIBUR (1981) instead, or just watch LORD OF THE RINGS for the umpteenth time.

I'm glad I saw this movie for free; otherwise, I would be really mad.