Guy Ritchie’s attempt at a Knights Round Table movie was supposed to be the "Iron Man" of medieval fantasy. It wasn't. When King Arthur: Legend of the Sword hit theaters in 2017, the goal wasn't just to tell a story about a guy pulling a sword from a stone. Warner Bros. actually wanted a massive, six-film cinematic universe. They spent $175 million on the production alone, excluding the tens of millions poured into marketing. But then, the box office numbers came in. It was a disaster.
The movie ended up losing the studio around $150 million. People stayed away in droves.
Why? It’s complicated. If you look at the film now, it’s actually kind of a blast. It has that signature Ritchie kinetic energy—fast cuts, non-linear storytelling, and street-smart dialogue. Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur not as a noble prince, but as a gritty London "lad" raised in a brothel. It’s basically Snatch with broadswords and giant elephants. Yet, that’s exactly what rubbed traditionalists the wrong way.
What Actually Happened with the Knights Round Table Movie
To understand the failure, you have to look at the landscape of 2017. We were right in the middle of "Cinematic Universe Fever." Every studio wanted their own MCU. The plan for this Knights Round Table movie was to introduce Arthur, then give individual films to Lancelot, Merlin, and the rest of the gang, eventually bringing them all together.
But audiences were tired. They were tired of origin stories that spent more time setting up sequels than telling a self-contained tale.
The casting was solid, though. You had Jude Law chewing the scenery as the villainous Vortigern. You had Eric Bana. Even David Beckham had a weird, heavily-prosthetic cameo that arguably took people out of the moment. But the heart of the film was the reimagining of the myth. This wasn't Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d'Arthur. Ritchie’s Arthur is a reluctant hero who runs a small-scale protection racket before fate kicks him in the teeth. It’s a fascinating take, honestly. It just didn't find its people when it needed them most.
The Problem with Reimagining Legend
Arthurian legend is tricky. It’s been done to death. From the goofy fun of First Knight to the gritty realism of the 2004 King Arthur (the one with Clive Owen), Hollywood keeps trying to find a "definitive" modern version.
Ritchie went the opposite direction. He went full high-fantasy.
He added "Mage" characters and 300-foot-tall elephants that looked like they walked off the set of Lord of the Rings. This tonal whiplash was a major sticking point for critics. One minute you’re watching a fast-talking heist sequence, and the next, there’s a demonic tower being built with blood sacrifices. It’s a lot. Most people just wanted a classic Knights Round Table movie, and what they got was a psychedelic, rock-and-roll fever dream.
The Production Hell and Editing Woes
There are rumors, pretty well-founded ones, that the original cut of the film was over three hours long. If you watch the movie closely, you can see the scars of the editing room. Entire characters seem to disappear or have their arcs compressed into three-second montages.
Joby Harold, the screenwriter, spent years developing the script. He wanted it to be grounded. Then Guy Ritchie came on board and did what Guy Ritchie does—he "Ritchiefied" it.
- The film was delayed several times.
- The release date moved from summer 2016 to early 2017, then finally to May.
- May 2017 was a suicide mission; it opened against Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
You don't put a weird, experimental medieval epic against a Marvel juggernaut unless you’ve already given up on it. The studio saw the writing on the wall. The tracking was soft, and the "rotten" score on Rotten Tomatoes (which sits at 31% from critics) killed any momentum. Interestingly, the audience score is much higher, around 69%. That’s a huge gap. It suggests that while critics hated the departure from tradition, regular viewers actually kind of liked the weirdness.
Why It’s Better Than You Remember
Honestly, if you watch it today on a streaming service without the baggage of "franchise expectations," it’s a great time. The soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton is a masterpiece of breathing, thumping, and screaming instruments. It doesn't sound like any other fantasy movie.
And Charlie Hunnam is actually great. He brings a physical intensity to the role that makes the Excalibur fight scenes feel visceral. When he finally unleashes the power of the sword, the movie turns into a video game in the best way possible. The slowed-down "bullet time" shots of Arthur carving through an army are pure spectacle. It’s just a shame we’ll never see the rest of the Knights. We were promised a Round Table, but we only got the guy who built it.
The Missing Pieces: Lancelot and Guinevere
One of the weirdest things about this Knights Round Table movie is the lack of, well, the Knights.
Sir Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou) and Sir Percival (Kingsley Ben-Adir) are there, but they aren't the legendary icons we know. Lancelot is nowhere to be found. Guinevere isn't even in the movie—the female lead is simply "The Mage" (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), and while some speculate she was meant to be Guinevere in a later draft, she remains a mysterious figure.
This was a bold choice. It was also a fatal one.
By withholding the most famous elements of the legend for future movies that never happened, the film felt incomplete. It’s all setup and no payoff. You can’t build a house and tell people the roof will be coming in two years if they pay for the floor now. They won't buy it.
What Other Arthurian Movies Can Teach Us
Look at The Green Knight (2021). It was a massive success for A24, not because it was a blockbuster, but because it leaned into the weirdness without trying to be a franchise. It stayed true to a single, haunting vision.
The Knights Round Table movie of 2017 tried to be two things at once: a gritty Guy Ritchie crime flick and a billion-dollar CGI extravaganza. Those two things fight each other for 126 minutes.
If you look back further, Excalibur (1981) remains the gold standard for many. It was operatic and strange. Ritchie tried to capture that "strangeness" but filtered it through a modern lens that felt a bit too "cool" for its own good.
Actionable Takeaways for Movie Buffs and History Nerds
If you’re diving back into the world of Arthurian cinema or looking to understand why this specific genre keeps tripping over itself, there are a few things to keep in mind.
Watch Legend of the Sword as a standalone. Ignore the sequel bait. Treat it like a high-budget experimental film about a guy with a magic sword. It works much better that way.
Listen to the score. Even if you hate the movie, Daniel Pemberton's work is an education in how to use sound to tell a story. It’s raw and percussive.
Compare the "Street Arthur" to the "Romance Arthur." Read a summary of Le Morte d'Arthur and then watch the film. It’s a fascinating study in how we adapt old myths for new audiences. Does the "gangster" archetype work for a king? That’s for you to decide.
✨ Don't miss: Movies in Theaters Jacksonville IL: What You’ll Actually Find Playing Right Now
Look for the cameos. Beyond Beckham, there are several nods to the wider mythos that were meant to be picked up in the sequels. It’s like looking at the ruins of a city that was never built.
The Knights Round Table movie we got was messy, loud, and expensive. It was a failure by every financial metric. But in the years since, it has developed a bit of a cult following. It’s a reminder that sometimes, being interesting is better than being perfect. Warner Bros. might have lost a fortune, but they ended up making one of the most unique-looking failures in Hollywood history.
If you're looking for a traditional retelling, stick to the books. But if you want to see a king punch his way through a magical landscape to the sound of heavy breathing and industrial drums, give the 2017 film another shot. Just don't expect a sequel. That ship has long since sailed, or rather, that sword has stayed firmly in the stone.
To explore the themes of the movie further, compare the 2017 version with the 2004 King Arthur and the 1981 Excalibur. You will see three completely different visions of Britain's founding myth, each reflecting the anxieties and styles of the era it was made in. Examining these shifts provides the best insight into why our fascination with the Round Table never truly dies, even when the movies do.