You know that feeling when you walk into a theater expecting a stiff, historical drama and instead get hit with a frantic, cockney-accented fever dream? That was the collective experience of everyone who sat down to watch Excalibur King Arthur Legend of the Sword back in 2017. It wasn't just another retelling of the "Sword in the Stone." Not even close. Guy Ritchie basically took the Arthurian cycle, shook it like a polaroid picture, and threw it against a wall to see what stuck. Honestly, some of it stuck beautifully, while other parts felt like a chaotic mess that confused the hell out of casual fans.
The movie didn't try to be Le Morte d'Arthur. It didn't care about being Malory or Geoffrey of Monmouth. Instead, it gave us Charlie Hunnam as a street-wise Arthur who grew up in a brothel and basically acts like a medieval gangster. It's jarring. It's loud. And it’s actually a lot more interesting to talk about years later than the generic epics that play it safe.
The Excalibur King Arthur Legend of the Sword Version of the Myth
Most people think of Excalibur as this shimmering, holy relic that only a "pure" king can hold. Ritchie’s film treats it more like a radioactive battery or a cursed power tool. When Arthur first grabs the hilt in Excalibur King Arthur Legend of the Sword, he doesn't feel a sense of divine right; he basically has a seizure. He blacks out. The sword isn't just a weapon—it's a sensory overload.
This is where the movie gets polarizing. You've got these "slow-mo" power-up sequences where Arthur swings the sword and time literally warps around him. It feels more like a video game boss fight than a historical duel. If you're a purist, you probably hated this. If you like the idea of the sword being a supernatural entity that chooses its master by breaking their mind first, it’s kinda brilliant.
Jude Law and the Price of Power
Let's talk about Vortigern. Jude Law plays him with this cold, desperate arrogance that makes him one of the better villains in recent fantasy cinema. In the traditional legends, Vortigern is often just a stepping stone or a failed king who tries to build a tower that keeps falling down because of dragons. In this movie? He’s a guy who sacrifices his own family to a tentacled monster in the basement just to keep his crown.
There's this specific scene where he’s talking to the "Syrens"—these grotesque, oily creatures—and it’s genuinely unsettling. It shifts the tone from a heist movie to dark fantasy in about three seconds flat. This isn't the Camelot of "Once and Future King." It’s a world where magic is slimy, expensive, and usually costs you your soul.
📖 Related: Why American Beauty by the Grateful Dead is Still the Gold Standard of Americana
Why Everyone Was Confused by the "Lady in the Lake" (Or Lack Thereof)
One of the weirdest choices in Excalibur King Arthur Legend of the Sword was the Mage. Played by Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, she's never actually called "Guinevere" or "The Lady in the Lake," though she clearly fills a supernatural void. Merlin is mentioned, but he’s basically an off-screen legend.
The Mage controls animals. She has these blacked-out eyes when she’s doing her thing. It’s a massive departure from the elegant, shimmering lady rising from the water. In this version, the sword comes from the Lady in the Lake, but she’s more of a cosmic entity than a gift-giver. Arthur’s relationship with the sword is mediated by this Mage, who acts as a sort of supernatural handler. It’s a gritty, utilitarian take on magic that fits the "London street kid" vibe Arthur has going on.
The Problem With the "Born King" Narrative
Critically, the film struggled because it tried to have it both ways. It wanted Arthur to be a self-made man—a guy who built himself up from nothing in the slums of Londinium—but it also relied on the "Born King" trope where his bloodline makes him special.
- He’s a street brawler.
- He’s also the son of Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana).
- He hates the sword, but he’s the only one who can use it.
This tension is where a lot of critics felt the movie stumbled. You can't really have a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" story when the hero is literally destined by God and magic to win. It sort of saps the stakes. When Arthur finally accepts the sword, he becomes an unstoppable force, which is cool to look at but leaves the character with nowhere to go emotionally.
Behind the Scenes: A Franchise That Never Was
Warner Bros. didn't just want one movie. They wanted a six-film cinematic universe. Imagine that. We were supposed to get Lancelot, Guinevere, and maybe even a standalone Merlin movie. But Excalibur King Arthur Legend of the Sword bombed. Hard. It made around $148 million against a budget that was reportedly over $175 million. That’s a "studio-closing" level of math.
👉 See also: Why October London Make Me Wanna Is the Soul Revival We Actually Needed
The failure came down to marketing and timing. It came out in May 2017, sandwiched between Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Wonder Woman. It didn't stand a chance. Plus, the trailers made it look like a generic CGI-fest, failing to capture the unique, fast-talking Guy Ritchie energy that actually makes the first hour of the movie pretty fun.
The Music is Actually the Best Part
If you haven't heard Daniel Pemberton's score for this movie, go to Spotify right now. It is incredible. It uses breathing, heavy thumping, and unconventional folk instruments to create a soundscape that feels ancient and modern at the same time. The track "The Born King" is a masterpiece of tension. It’s arguably the most "human" part of the whole production because it feels raw and visceral, unlike the polished orchestral scores we usually get in fantasy.
Comparing the Legend to the Screen
If we look at the historical sources, the "real" Arthur (if he existed) was likely a Romano-British war leader fighting off Saxon invaders in the 5th or 6th century. He wouldn't have lived in a giant stone castle like Camelot; he would have lived in a hill fort.
The movie basically ignores history in favor of "Dark Ages Punk." The elephants are the size of skyscrapers. The towers are impossibly tall. It’s a fantasy world that uses the Arthurian names as a skin.
- The Sword: In the movie, Uther turns to stone to protect Excalibur. In the books, it's usually either pulled from an anvil/stone or given by the Lady in the Lake. Ritchie blends these.
- The Round Table: It only appears at the very end of the film as a construction project. It’s a "prequel" move that feels a bit hollow since we never got the sequel.
- The Knights: Bedivere and Percival are there, but they’re reimagined as members of a resistance cell. It feels more like Robin Hood than Le Morte d'Arthur.
The Verdict on Excalibur King Arthur Legend of the Sword
Is it a "good" movie? Honestly, it depends on what you want from your legends. If you want a faithful adaptation of the myths, you will hate this. It’s sacrilegious to the source material. But if you want a stylistic experiment that treats the sword like a weapon of mass destruction and the King as a reluctant mob boss, it’s a blast.
✨ Don't miss: How to Watch The Wolf and the Lion Without Getting Lost in the Wild
The movie’s biggest legacy isn't its box office or its sequels—it’s the way it tried to deconstruct the "chosen one" trope by making the chosen one a guy who really, really didn't want the job. It’s a messy, loud, flawed piece of cinema that deserves a second look, if only for the sheer audacity of its style.
How to Appreciate the Movie Today
To get the most out of Excalibur King Arthur Legend of the Sword, stop looking for the myth. Look for the "Ritchie-isms."
- Watch the opening montage of Arthur growing up; the editing is top-tier.
- Listen for the dialogue rhythms during the "how the plan went wrong" sequences.
- Pay attention to the costume design—Arthur’s shearling coat is genuinely iconic, even if it looks like it belongs in a 2020s fashion boutique.
If you’re looking to dive deeper into the actual history versus the Hollywood version, you should check out The Discovery of King Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe. He’s one of the leading experts who tried to pin down the "real" man behind the myth. You’ll find that the real story is much quieter, much more political, and contains significantly fewer 300-foot elephants.
Next Steps for the Arthurian Fan:
- Watch the 1981 "Excalibur" film: If you want the definitive, operatic, "shining armor" version of the story. It’s the antithesis of the 2017 movie.
- Read "The Winter King" by Bernard Cornwell: For a gritty, realistic take on what a 5th-century Arthur might have actually looked like.
- Listen to the 2017 Soundtrack: Specifically for the track "The Devil and the Huntsman." It changes how you view the movie's atmosphere entirely.