King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

"There hasn’t been a decent King Arthur movie since John Boorman’s pretty but portentous Excalibur (1981). But now that swords, sorcery and SFX are bigger business than ever, thanks to GoT and LOTR, it was only a matter of time before someone tried to kickstart a new franchise with a visionary director. Step forward Warner Bros and Guy Ritchie with the first in what was at one point apparently conceived as, whisper it, a six-part series."

"Just a loud, obnoxious parade of flashy set pieces, as one visually busy, belligerent action scene after another marches by, each making less sense than the last..."

"This is a tonal misfire, its characters cut down by a blitzkrieg of whip pans, CGI and thunderous percussion."

"Put your fingers in your ears when the talking starts, and you might enjoy the view."

"A lot of shenanigans, detours and filler, some bad, some good and all of it disposable."

"Ritchie’s film is at all times over the top, crashing around its digital landscapes in all manner of beserkness..."

"King Arthur sees Ritchie taking on one of the founding myths of Pomgolia. And losing."

"If nothing else, this is a heck of a lot more entertaining than the staid 2004 King Arthur film starring Clive Owen."

"Loud, bombastic and thuddingly obvious, this is a vulgar movie for vulgar times."

"If you’re easily pleased by a bit of well-rendered CGI spectacle and cod-fantasy set dressing, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword will scratch that itch."

"Devolves into a jumbled affair, weighed down by confusing supernatural elements and a lazy reliance on visual effects."