Honestly, if you go back and look at the 2017 box office reports, you’d think King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was some kind of cinematic crime. The headlines were brutal. "One of the biggest flops of all time." "A $175 million disaster." Critics absolutely tore it to pieces for being too loud, too fast, and basically feeling like a two-hour music video.
But here is the thing.
If you actually sit down and watch it now, away from the hype and the "failure" narrative, it is kinda... great?
Guy Ritchie didn't want to make a stuffy, historical drama with guys in shiny tin suits talking about honor in rain-drenched fields. We’ve seen that movie. We’ve seen it a dozen times, and frankly, most of them are boring as hell. Instead, he gave us King Arthur with Charlie Hunnam—a version of the myth that feels like a Cockney heist movie crashed head-first into a high-fantasy RPG.
Why the "Failure" Label is Actually Wrong
When people talk about this movie, they always bring up the money. Yes, it lost a fortune. Warner Bros. spent $175 million on the production alone, and it only clawed back about $149 million worldwide. That is a stinging loss. But "unsuccessful" and "bad" are not the same thing.
You’ve probably seen the growth of its cult following on streaming platforms lately. It has that specific Guy Ritchie energy—the rapid-fire dialogue, the non-linear storytelling, and those frantic montages that cover years of life in about ninety seconds.
The "growing up in the brothel" sequence? Masterclass.
💡 You might also like: Greatest Rock and Roll Singers of All Time: Why the Legends Still Own the Mic
It tells you everything you need to know about this Arthur's grit without a single line of boring exposition. He isn't a "chosen one" who wants the crown. He is a street-smart survivor who happens to have royal blood. Charlie Hunnam plays him with this weary, "leave me alone" attitude that feels way more relatable than the usual noble-prince trope.
The Charlie Hunnam Transformation
Charlie Hunnam didn't just show up and read lines. He went full "method" on the physical side. To get into the headspace of a Londinium street kid, he reportedly threw a thousand punches a day. He took up Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu because Guy Ritchie is a black belt and they’d roll together between takes.
He gained 20 pounds of muscle.
That wasn't just for the shirtless scenes, though they certainly didn't hurt the marketing. It was about the "eye of the tiger" mentality. Hunnam has talked about how he wanted to feel like someone who could actually survive the "rough and tumble" of the back alleys.
- The Combat: It’s not just sword swinging. It’s dirty, mma-style fighting.
- The Accent: He leans into his natural roots, sounding like a guy who’d rob you as soon as look at you.
- The Reluctance: This Arthur hates the sword. He tries to run from it.
Most people get this part wrong—they think he’s being "wooden." In reality, he’s playing a man who is genuinely traumatized by the sword because every time he touches it, he relives his parents' murder. It’s a psychological barrier, not just a physical one.
The Jude Law Factor
We have to talk about Jude Law as Vortigern. He is absolutely chewing the scenery in the best way possible. Usually, villains in these movies are either faceless or just "pure evil" for no reason. Law plays Vortigern as a man obsessed with power but also deeply miserable because of what he had to sacrifice to get it.
📖 Related: Ted Nugent State of Shock: Why This 1979 Album Divides Fans Today
He literally kills his own family to feed the "Moat Hag" (those giant tentacle things under the castle) just to keep his power. That is dark. It adds a level of stakes that makes the final showdown feel earned, even if the ending is basically a giant CGI boss fight from a video game.
What the Critics Missed
A lot of the negative reviews complained that the movie was "disjointed."
Well, yeah. It’s Guy Ritchie.
The movie feels like a fever dream because it’s told from the perspective of an unreliable narrator. When Arthur and his crew are explaining a plan to the guards, the camera jumps back and forth between the conversation and the actual events. It’s clever. It’s fast. If you blink, you’ll miss the punchline.
Critics in 2017 wanted another Lord of the Rings. They wanted slow, sweeping shots of mountains. Ritchie gave them giant elephants and David Beckham in a cameo as a scarred guard. It was never meant to be "serious" cinema; it was meant to be a blast.
The Sound of Legend
If you haven't listened to the soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton, do yourself a favor and go find it on Spotify right now. It is unlike any other fantasy score.
👉 See also: Mike Judge Presents: Tales from the Tour Bus Explained (Simply)
It’s got heavy breathing, gravelly stomps, and screeching strings. It sounds like the movie feels: raw, industrial, and ancient all at once. The track "The Born King" is basically a character on its own. It drives the action forward with this relentless, pounding rhythm that makes you want to go out and fight a giant snake.
Is a Sequel Ever Happening?
This is the question that haunts the fans. Originally, this was supposed to be the start of a six-film cinematic universe. We were going to get Merlin. We were going to see the Round Table actually formed. We were going to see Lancelot.
But because the first one "bombed," the studio killed the sequels immediately.
It’s a shame.
Hunnam has expressed interest in returning, but the reality of Hollywood math means we likely won't see this specific version of Camelot again. However, the film has found a massive second life on Netflix and Max. People are finally "getting" it. They’re realizing that it’s a high-octane fantasy heist that doesn’t take itself too seriously.
Actionable Insights for Your Next Rewatch:
If you’re going to give King Arthur with Charlie Hunnam another shot, here is how to enjoy it:
- Turn up the volume. Seriously. The sound design is 50% of the experience.
- Stop looking for "historical accuracy." There were no 300-foot elephants in 5th-century Britain. Just accept the magic.
- Watch the background. Ritchie loves filling the frame with weird little details and "blink-and-you-miss-it" cameos.
- Focus on the editing. The way the story folds in on itself is actually quite brilliant if you pay attention to the transitions.
The movie isn't a "failure" of filmmaking; it was a failure of marketing. They tried to sell it as a standard epic when it was actually an experimental, punk-rock take on a legend. It’s weird, it’s messy, and it’s a total riot.
Give it another look. You might find your new favorite "bad" movie that is actually quite good.