Walk into any pub in London and ask about Guy Ritchie. You’ll hear about Snatch. You’ll hear about Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. But bring up his 2017 swing at the sword-in-the-stone, and the room usually goes quiet. Or someone laughs. Honestly, the reviews for King Arthur: Legend of the Sword read like a crime scene report from a box office disaster that nobody saw coming—yet everyone should have expected.
It’s been years, and the dust has settled. We can finally talk about it without the hype or the immediate sting of a $150 million loss. Was it actually a "medieval mess," or was it just a movie that didn't know who its friends were?
The Great Divide: Critics vs. The "Geezer" Faithful
If you look at Rotten Tomatoes, the numbers tell a weird story. Critics absolutely thrashed it, leaving it with a measly 28%. They called it "hypercaffeinated" and "unmodulated." One reviewer at RogerEbert.com compared the experience to a "cocaine addict wanting to tell you his life story before closing time." Brutal.
But then you look at the audience score.
It sits around 75%. That is a massive gap. Usually, a gap that big means one of two things: either the critics are being "snooty," or the only people who actually went to see the movie were die-hard Guy Ritchie fans who were already sold on his "bloke-core" aesthetic.
📖 Related: Emily Piggford Movies and TV Shows: Why You Recognize That Face
Most reviews for King Arthur from regular viewers praise the energy. They loved the "Born King" sequence—that dizzying, fast-forward montage of Arthur growing up in a brothel, learning to fight, and getting his ribs cracked in the streets of Londinium. It’s classic Ritchie. It’s gritty. It’s fun. But for a lot of people expecting a traditional, noble tale of chivalry? It felt like a slap in the face.
What the Critics Hated (and They Weren't Totally Wrong)
- The "Six-Movie" Hubris: Warner Bros. didn't just want a movie; they wanted a cinematic universe. You can feel it. The film is stuffed with "Mages" who don't have names and lore that feels like it’s being saved for a sequel that we all know is never happening.
- The Visual Chaos: Some scenes look like a $175 million masterpiece. Others look like a PS3 cutscene. The CGI snakes and giant elephants (the size of skyscrapers, for some reason) felt more like Godzilla than Excalibur.
- The Beckham Factor: David Beckham’s cameo. It’s... distracting. He’s fine, I guess? But seeing Becks as a scarred guard while Arthur pulls the sword out takes you right out of the 5th century and drops you into a Pepsi commercial.
Why the Style Actually Worked for Some
Let’s be real: we’ve seen the "chosen one" story a thousand times. Ritchie knew that. He didn't want to give us another slow, brooding hero. Instead, we got Charlie Hunnam playing Arthur as a reluctant street hustler.
This Arthur doesn't want the crown. He basically says, "No thanks, I’m good with my illegal side hustles."
The dialogue is punchy. It’s heavy on the "blokey bantz." When Arthur explains a complicated plan to his crew, the movie cuts back and forth between the explanation and the actual execution. It’s a heist movie tactic. In a fantasy setting, it felt genuinely fresh to some, even if it made the "lore purists" want to scream into their mead.
👉 See also: Elaine Cassidy Movies and TV Shows: Why This Irish Icon Is Still Everywhere
The Jude Law Masterclass
If there is one thing almost all reviews for King Arthur agree on, it’s that Jude Law understood the assignment. As Vortigern, he is peak villain. He’s snaky, he’s wearing incredible capes, and he’s "chewing the scenery" in the best way possible. He brings a level of Shakespearean weight to a movie that otherwise feels like it’s on a triple espresso shot.
The "Legend of the Sword" Identity Crisis
The biggest problem? The movie is basically two different films fighting for control.
One film is a gritty, fast-talking London crime thriller that just happens to have swords. The other is a high-fantasy epic with dark magic and "Tower of Sauron" vibes. They don't always mix well.
When the movie leans into the magic, it loses the "street" charm. When it leans into the street charm, the giant magic elephants feel ridiculous. It’s a tonal tug-of-war.
✨ Don't miss: Ebonie Smith Movies and TV Shows: The Child Star Who Actually Made It Out Okay
Actionable Insights: Should You Actually Watch It?
Forget the 2017 headlines about it being the "flop of the year." If you’re looking for a historical documentary, stay far away. But if you’re in the mood for something specific, here’s the breakdown:
- Watch it for the Score: Daniel Pemberton’s soundtrack is hands-down one of the best of the decade. It uses breathing, stomping, and gritty folk instruments. It’s worth the price of admission alone.
- Skip it if you want "The Round Table": Most of the classic elements—Lancelot, Guinevere, Merlin—are barely there or completely absent. It’s an origin story that never gets to the destination.
- Appreciate the Editing: Even if you hate the story, the way the film compresses time is a masterclass in modern editing. The "Darklands" sequence is a fever dream of efficiency.
At the end of the day, reviews for King Arthur reflect a movie that was too weird for the mainstream and too "Guy Ritchie" for the fantasy fans. It’s a cult classic in the making, mostly because it’s so unashamedly itself. It didn't play it safe. In an era of "formula" blockbusters, maybe that’s worth a re-watch.
To get the most out of it now, ignore the "Legend" part of the title and treat it like a medieval Lock, Stock. Use a decent sound system to catch the heavy percussion of the score. If you go in expecting a brawling, loud, slightly messy action flick rather than a sweeping epic, you might find yourself in that 75% of the audience that actually had a great time.