User ReviewsReview this title
Everyones acting was really good, especially Jude Law (who was maybe too convincing) and Charlie Hunnam(?). The little boy called Blue stole every scene he was in.
Guy Ritchie did a cracking job, the music and camera angles plus general style of the film made it interesting and quick paced with some witty banter.
Did have a couple of general questions, why did building a taller tower mean he had more power? Where was Merlin? Who was Maggie? Was this Mage girl actually Merlin? How did he not remember what happened he was like 8? The three women in the basement, who were they?
But all in all I loved it, and would probably watch it again :)
Apart from the cool action sequences, the movie also had some dramatic moments and surprises. I really think that the way Guy Ritchie directed this movie made it very enjoyable. I did feel some similarities with other movies that he directed like the 2009 Sherlock Holmes movie and its sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows in 2011, especially in the part of using pieces of flash backs to explain something.
I think the special effects to the movie was very good, which should not be a surprise considering it has a USD 175 million budget. My only worry is with such hefty budget, it may not be having a large profit since the movie itself might not appeal to some hardline fans of the folklore of King Arthur, Excalibur, mages and so on, due to the rather unusual way of story telling. Some people might also feel that the movie lacks the cruelty & violence of a medieval era war kind of movie such as Kingdom of Heaven or Game of Thrones TV series. For my personal view though, this movie was just nice since its attraction is certainly on the way the story being told, and again, its fighting sequence.
The sound effects of the movie were very good. Some background music truly gave extra sense of suspense or sadness and so on. The duration of 2 hours was just perfect to me, and I honestly felt there was no dull moment. There was no post-credit scene for you to wait, except if you enjoy listening to the soundtrack song & music. Before I forgot, there was a cameo appearance of the popular soccer player David Beckham. Let's see if you noticed him.
So for those who want to enjoy a nice action adventure film in the medieval period with some sword and sorcery plus the background of King Arthur with the knights of the round table, then you would definitely enjoy this one (especially if you are a fan of Guy Ritchie's works). Now if you are not a fan of this kind of movie or you prefer a more bloody/violent movie, then perhaps this one would be a bit soft.
For my complete review, pls have a look at michaelnontonmulu.blogspot.co.id
Before I expound further, let me say this: if you like the movie's trailers, like a fair bit of action but don't particularly care about how every bit of it fits into a story, don't particularly care about the traditional legend(s) of King Arthur, like a bunch of fantasy mixed in, and plenty of (now run-of-the-mill) CGI, you might like this movie. Reading further may unnecessarily dissuade you from watching it.
Of course, if you've seen the trailers, you know that there really are (ridiculously large, CGI) elephants in the film. The other, proverbial, elephants in the room are how far the movie strays from the legendary King Arthur story.
Now, in fairness, legends (King Arthur, in this case) being what they are, it is difficult to know where reality ends and fantasy begins. Nonetheless, even though the legend has changed somewhat over the years (as legends are wont to do), this movie bears little resemblance to the story that moviegoers familiar with Arthur will expect.
Merlin? Rendered unimportant and replaced by a (gender-PC?) beautiful female mage, who remains nameless. (I suppose the lack of a name was supposed to lend some air of irresistible mystery to her. It failed, miserably.) (sigh)
Bedivere, the handsomest of Arthur's knights (almost in the entire land), one-handed, he of the muscular build? Well, at least he had the build. Some, including Bedivere, were obviously cast in a fit of PC multiculturalism. Please. Save it for where it makes sense.
Guinevere? Lancelot? Missing. David Beckham managed to land a spot, though. Go figure.
I read Ritchie's bio here on IMDb. It's stated there that Ritchie thought film school graduates made "boring and unwatchable" films. His disdain for the work of others seems to go beyond those who've studied film art. Huh. That doesn't stop Ritchie from leaning on the creations of others to sell a flick.
Ritchie has a flashy -- often manic -- presentation style. I'll give him some benefit of doubt in presuming that he does so in an effort to create a sense of action. Unfortunately, it often serves more to make stories incoherent.
In watching Richie's Sherlock Holmes re-imaginings, I couldn't shake a feeling of Ritchie's lack of respect for Doyles' Holmes. I get the same sense of lack of respect for traditional tales of King Arthur.
I could go on and on, picking the film apart, but all of it boils down to the simple appearance that Ritchie is simply capitalizing on the popularity of someone else' story -- King Arthur and the legend of Excalibur -- by using the name in the title, then remaking the entire story to suit a flight of his fancy.
Ritchie might as well have just left the sword out of the story and dropped the name of Arthur from the story -- and title. Then he could have gone anywhere he wanted with the story without disappointing moviegoers drawn in by the title. It might have stood on its own as a fair (by no means great) action/fantasy film. As a retelling of the King Arthur legend, it is a disappointment.
On second thought, considering Richie sold the idea to the movie studio as King-Arthur-meets-The-Lord-of-the-Rings, perhaps he should have just named the movie accordingly. Then the Tolkien influence (and the use of Tolkien's oliphants) would make much more sense. Then, too, moviegoers would know better than to expect a movie simply about the King Arthur legend, which the current title implies.
Don't let the critics on Rotten Tomatoes fool you. The critic score was 27%, but the audience gave it a 77 %. Sadly the critics only want to give a movie a great rating when there's an oppressed group wronged, and this movie is not that.
Here's to hoping there's a King Arthur II - Knights of the Round Table
For me, it was a largely vapid CGI-fest completely devoid of realism or reality. It's pretty much on par with your latest superhero / Avengers type of movie, with fast cut action sequences, explosions, things flying around the screen, and stylized slow motion. I expected more than this from Guy Ritchie.
I also didn't expect it to be so much of a "fantasy" film. I was expecting / hoping for a historical action movie but there is almost no history here. Everything is stylized and made up. The armour and weapons are all made up, the castles are unbelievable and fantastic (huge towers, arches, 1000 ft bridges, etc), African and Asian characters have been inserted, and there are almost no historical references.
So it all kind of mashes together into 2 hours of fantasy-action featuring characters you don't really care about and that have no grounding in any reality that seems to make sense. And you can tell they want to turn this into a franchise with several more sequels. Thankfully we may be spared this horrible future as I hear it's bombing at the box office (there were 2 other people in my theatre). It's a bad film I would never want to see again.
I went in expecting to see a by-the-numbers generic fantasy like the ones Disney churns out regularly. But instead I was surprised to find that Guy Ritchie has applied to King Arthur the same style and technique that made his Sherlock Holmes films so beloved.
In this film is the witty dialogue and creative editing we've (at least some of us) have come to love from Guy Ritchie. There was never a boring scene throughout. The action is good, the effects are good, but it is the manner of delivery of it all that brings this to greatness.
The acting is solid, some characters are less developed than others but I did not feel that this hurt the movie at all.
I've seen King Arthur movies before but have never seen it told in this manner, it is to King Arthur what Batman Begins was to Batman.
Should you see it? If you did not enjoy Guy Ritchie's other works, especially the Sherlock Holmes films then you may have issues with his style, but if you were entertained by any of his other films then there should be no reason for you to not be entertained here also.
I appreciated that the story didn't have a deux ex machina type of solution to political issues so I was pleasantly surprised that Arthur's problems actually started when he got the power.
Loved Jude Law's acting more than the protagonist's. Totally disliked the Mage's acting, it felt like I was watching a model trying to look fierce.
I would give 10/10 for the AMAZING soundtrack and background music, great pieces, masterfully used.
First of all lets talk about the first 10 minutes of the movie and the trailer. To be honest i loved the first minutes of the movie but that's just because most of the cool things you see in the trailer happen in the first 10 minutes. The movie starts off by giving you the impression that this movie is gonna have a huge war in it with mystical creatures (in this scenario it was elephants the size of Manhattan skyscrapers) and thousands of soldiers fighting and warlocks and a bunch of cool s#!t like that. But after those first 10 minutes the typical Guy Richie comes in and everything is downhill from there...
Now we all know the movies the director is famous for.. snatch, lock stock, Sherlock Holmes. These movies are fast paced with fun dialogue and fantastic storytelling that suits those movies just fine. With this movie it just somehow doesn't fit. When you think about King Arthur u think about noblemen and heroics and fighting for the little man. Now there are some moments in the movie where Arthur shows he cares about someone other than himself and has a chance to me humble but then it gets ruined because Guy Ritchie needs his characters to be funny and "know it all-y" (not a word I know but..).
Not lets talk about the other characters. After seeing the movie I don't actually know the name of any other character other than Arthur. Because you just didn't give a s#!t. If every character that had been introduced (even though there where practically no introductions for any of them) had been killed at some point in the movie I wouldn't have cared because you never got a chance to get to know them at all. Not that these characters were interesting at all to begin with. Very flat and boring characters. Bad acting and very bat material.
Which brings me to the script. The script itself was very bad as well. An example. One of Arthurs friends is laying on the floor in a building. The guys son comes in and pretends to work there. The king puts a knife to the throat of Arthurs friend. Arthur comes in and puts a knife to the throat of one of the soldiers in the kings army. Arthur is standing in the doorway and the kid is there with him. Arthur has a knife to the soldiers throat because the king has a knife to his friends throat. The king then slits his friends throat... and Arthur lets the soldier go? Why? It makes now sense at all. Another thing, every single "action" scene in this movie, and there are very few of those, are cut short by editing or just plain and simple very bad directing by Guy Ritchie. The camera angle and everything is just s#!t almost every single time. Everything interesting in this movie is cut short because of s#!tty directing.
There is a moment in the movie where Arthur has to go to the shadow lands, or some s#!t like that (i don't remember the name), to... well i don't know why exactly it was but i recall it being about him connecting better to the sword or something. Anyway he goes to she shadow lands and its like a big deal that he is going there because its supposedly very dangerous. He goes there and the director gives us about a minute to see all the amazing creatures Arthur fought, now mind you.. we don't actually see him fighting any of them, he just shows us clips and cuts and then in one minute hes back from the dreadful shadow lands and we saw nothing of it and he is no closer to the sword than he was when he went in there...
I can write for another hour but in conclusion the best thing about the movie is Eric Bana and he dies after 5 minutes so...
Worst movie iv'e seen of the year.
ps. And you can't have a king Arthur film without Merlin.. I mean what is that?
In fact, even knowing what will be the ending (we all know the good old story of King Arthur), I enjoyed the film from the beginning to the very last phrase.
A quick turn of events did not give me a chance to be bored. The camera showed the history of the future king with a completely new perspective. Dialogues were ridiculous even mentioning them after watching the movie. Music that perfectly complements the story depending on the course of events. Little details through the movie constantly reminding you that you are watching a Guy Ritchie's work.
One of the must-see films if you like action, combined with nice humor and not an ordinary style of storytelling.
So what you should expect and what you will get from this movie is: - Charlie Hunnam (excellent actor with huge potential) - Jude Law (no need of comment here, this movie won't be the same without him). Hunnam and Law were one of the reasons I wanted to watch this movie - Hell of a good soundtrack - Excellent overall atmosphere and FX - 100% Guy Ritchie movie - Fun
What you should NOT expect from this movie is regular King Arthur story - quite the same if you had expected a regular WWII story from Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards. And the only thing I felt missing to get a 100% fun from the new Ritchie's movie was Vinnie Jones :)
I hope you'll enjoy it as I did on my Friday's cinema evening!!!
This adaptation (and I use that term pretty damn loosely) begins with Camelot under siege by the evil wizard Mordred who controls evil elephants the size of skyscrapers (elephants, of course, being native to medieval England). Arthur is a child at this point and witnesses his father's death at the hands of his uncle, who was secretly conspiring with Mordred (I think). Arthur gets away and is brought up in poverty until he eventually pulls the sword from the stone and begins a quest to retake the kingdom. Even if you only have a passing knowledge of the Arthur legend, you may have noticed that I didn't mention a few key characters. Characters like oh, I don't know, freaking Merlin. And Lancelot. And Guenevere. And Morgana. Aside from a brief mention of Merlin, none of them are in this movie. That would be like remaking Star Wars and not mentioning Han Solo, Darth Vader, Princess Leia or the force. Maybe they were saving them for the sequel, which we sure as hell aren't getting. It is one thing to take liberties with a story that has been told a million times. It is another thing to leave out the main characters.
Let's talk about the editing in this film. One of my core beliefs with film editing is that the audience should be able to tell what order the scenes should go in. This movie somehow manages to fail that criterion. Scenes are interspliced with preceding scenes so that you are simultaneously watching an action scene and the scene in which the characters are planning what to do in the action scene. Did that sound confusing? Try watching it. I often didn't know if a scene was taking place in the immediate past, present or immediate future or if it was a dream or a hallucination. There is one scene that I still can't figure out when it was supposed to take place. That is an almost stunning failure of basic narrative structure. Additionally, large patches of time are covered in montage sequences. Arthur's entire upbringing and a sequence when he is dropped off on Kong Island to fight monsters to make him stronger (or something) are glossed over in about two minutes of quick-cut scenes. Word around the interwebs is that the film's original cut clocked in at a mighty excessive 3 and ½ hours and their solution to this was to edit entire groups of scenes together into these montages to get the movie down to 2 hours. If you make a 3 and ½ hour fantasy epic, then release that and put an intermission in the middle. Don't butcher it and make me pay full price for a nearly incomprehensible Cliff's Notes version of the damn thing.
Also, Excalibur has been upgraded in this film and can now turn Arthur into The Flash. When wielding the sword, he seems to slow down time and can casually mow down dozens of people single- handedly. Why doesn't he just do that all the time, then? Good question. Even in the final battle with the big bad (who looks suspiciously like Shao Kahn from Mortal Kombat), he completely forgets that he could end the fight in 2 seconds. The only conflict or suspense in this film only exist because the hero conveniently forgets that he has super powers. Similarly, he has a female wizard friend (let's call her Not-Merlin) that can control animals. She spends the whole movie controlling birds and dogs and whatnot, until the end when she suddenly summons a snake the size of the freaking Lincoln Tunnel that decimates a room full of bad guys. Dumbass, why didn't you do that in the first place? If I was Arthur, I would ask Not-Merlin why she has been screwing around this whole time when her death serpent could have solved all of this before the opening credits ended. Movie, if you are going to give such powers to your characters, you also have to give reasons why they can't just solve all their problems with such powers. Otherwise, you have failed.
This movie is a perfect storm of modern cinematic crap. It's too dark (both literally and figuratively), it's terribly edited, it has awful CGI that reduces every threat to a video game character and it sacrifices character and story in favor of flashy nonsense that insults the audience's intelligence. If you want to watch a King Arthur movie, I highly recommend watching Excalibur from 1981. It's not a perfect film, but it's a hell of a lot better than this pile of crap.
There was a battle in which the evil mages that were seizing power were apparently casting spells from the tops of gigantic elephants, but we never saw them actually wielding magic. We just saw people being blown back by explosions. In the meantime, they just showed the mages' glowing eyes. So when Eric Bana's character beheaded the main mage (which ALSO wasn't even shown) it makes it all the more meaningless.
At one point, in one of the worst examples of foreshadowing (if it can even be called such) that I've ever seen in a film, someone reminds a group that Jude Law's character studied with the evil mages. His response: "What are you implying?" Smash cut to Jude performing an evil ritual whereby he became the new king. Aaaaaaand someone please kill me.
When it finally got around to Charlie Humman taking over the main rebel role, I couldn't have cared less. As other people have noted, he is dead-faced and expressionless. I couldn't have cared less if he regained his family's power.
I'm going to go with two stars just because the tentacled demon creature with three women that Jude worships was one creepy positive in this dumpster fire.
People going into this movie shouldn't be expecting something similar to the King Arthur films they're accustomed to. Guy Ritchie took the King Arthur character that everyone knows and turned him into someone like-able. This is the definitive King Arthur movie for a couple of reasons.
The story isn't dense and boring. It focuses on a concise narrative which doesn't spoon feed history or plot details to a viewer. The story is happening through the characters, as it should in any good movie.
Camera movement is fresh and provokes adrenaline. It's hard to look away.
Something to consider. this is the first movie in a planned MCU like universe. Not a standalone movie.
Bottom line - Go see this movie for yourself, if you're someone who loves looking at reviews. You can safely disregard them in this case.
So where to start.
The acting from Charlie Hunnam (I loved him as Jax Teller) is laughable. Almost as laughable with how "pretty" he was in one of the final fight sequences of the film even though he had just taken a pasting. He is so wooden, so unbelievable that it is hard to take him seriously or believe anyone would follow him. It helps then that the rest of the acting is shoddy too. The female mage is so flat she may as well be horizontal. David Beckham's cameo is out of place and painful and... Well what did you expect when they saw fit to employ "Denny from Eastenders"? The lad can't act in the soap, let alone a movie. Any time a soap actor appears in a "blockbuster" I get that sinking feeling... Let's not forget that Charlie started in Byker Grove though but we can't hold that against him. We can hold this film against him.
Jude Law was decent enough, stepping away from his usual type of character. One of the only characters you could believe in but one you're not supposed to like. The problem being, as he is the only believable character in the film - you can't help but root for him.
The rest of the performances were paint by numbers, collecting a pay check and if this was the best Guy Ritchie could get from them - perhaps he isn't fit for being a director? And - to be fair - he probably isn't. At least, this type of film. He nailed Snatch and Lock, Stock - that much is a given and there are traces of that directorial style in this film (characters recalling stories and flitting between them talking and flash back sequences for example) but the problem is - it felt forced and out of place here. Put with that the fact Guy simply cannot direct action - you have a problem. It felt like two films. One film where you can get suckered in with the stories the characters are telling and the other, you're wishing your life away watching rubbish CGI, limp acting and a muddled mess of a fight sequence. Seriously - why so many slow motion shots of Charlie cutting through wood?!
In one scene where he uses the sword, it happened so fast that I still don't really know what happened. And the fight at the end? I still don't know who hit who for the best part of it. Although, given how pristine Charlie looked afterwards, I am guessing he had time to pop off to a spa whilst the Big Bad fought alone.
The script is as much to blame as the cast and crew though. It's a mess, jumbled up with too many dialogue sections spliced with flashbacks that aren't necessary. For this kind of film - perhaps a more linear story would have made more sense? As mentioned above, it felt like a film of two halves because of the constant jumping back and forth and switching to medieval sword play. It was also trying to be funny when that too missed the mark. The audience laughed a couple of times (a couple more than myself) but that was it.
This is the first time I have stepped from a Guy Ritchie film and felt such bitter disappointment. Had this been someone's first film, I doubt they would ever work again.
I was stunned. I got much more than I ever expected. This is a must see movie, have no doubt. I have to say that every time Jude Law, Djimon Hounsou, or Eric Bana was in the scene, they drown out all other characters. Just great acting on their part. What a pleasure to see. That kind of screen presence is magical. At first, I didn't catch on as to how well cast Astrid Berges-Frisbey was, but it came out as a masterful pick of a superb actor. Nice work to the casting director, good job!
In no way do I mean to take away from any of the other actors, all nailed their parts, every single one!
Guy Ritchie outdid himself. I enjoyed his technique in Sherlock, but this was even a tad bit of an improvement.
The music caught my attention and held it. Just a great job, impressive plus.
All in all, I couldn't have been more impressed at such a stunning movie. The story was done well, the casting was spot on, the acting shined, music captured, and the direction should be awarded.
Go see this one.
I have to say that I found it truly awful in almost every respect. It had clearly cost a bit of money to make, and it does use some quite fancy computer-produced action graphics, but this doesn't compensate for a boring and badly told story-line - with some of the most pathetic dialogue you are ever likely to hear. To make matters worse, none other than David Beckham manages to show up (as himself it seems) somewhere in the middle to spout some garbage. Even those who can claim to have some acting credentials fail to make their words worth listening to.
The movie already seems to have several positive reviews here – but I can only assume that these must come from the ultra-geek community, rather than from your average punter who fancies an entertaining night at the movies. A lesson learned the hard way, and a waste of time and money.
This movie has so little to do with the traditional legend of Arthur, Excalibur and Camelot, that it seems eminently appropriate to direct those viewers who have an interest in better deliveries of the legend to John Boorman's Excalibur.
This current treatment is ideal for those whose experience of cinema began with the advent of gore as the central factor of cinematic experience.
That, in itself, is simply an historical development that has to do with audience expectation and would not, in itself, be so disappointing, if it were not for the fact that The Legend Of The Sword has absolutely nothing to do with the legend that has been preserved in poetry, prose and film over generations--rendered in it's best cinema representation at the hands of Boorman, in Excalibur.
The "modern" or relevant source of the legend has always been Mallory's Morte d'Arthur, and that work drew its strength from a legend that was shared across the Celtic world (yes, the Britons were also Celts) about a redeeming king or savior who would draw his strength from magical sources. That's how the world was at one time. I'm not too sure that it's very different, now.
Mallory's original work is actually a study of human behavior in pre-Christian time, a quasi analysis of pre-Christian morality that suggests an inevitably necessary investigation of the validity of the impending new belief in a single god.
That idea was the central philosophical principle of Boorman's Excalibur. The current treatment, The Legend Of The Sword, has nothing to do with that. It is simply a Quentin Tarantino similar gore fest, and actually not even as entertaining as Tarantino might have achieved with the same material. In short, it's ridiculous, unfortunately ridiculous. It's an embarrassment, given the legend on which it is supposed to be based.
in all honesty, it was a waste of time.
i like Charlie Hunnam--he was great as a hamlet on a motorcycle--but this garbage is something that i hope he becomes famous enough to publicly regret.
Perhaps the worst thing of all was having to wonder about why Jude Law, who has delivered some very worthy performances, and, here, provokes nothing but audience remorse about his career.
Maybe those who've never known anything about the legend might find this movie interesting, but i would worry about the amount of illicit influence they would have to ingest to make that possible.
honestly, it's, unfortunately (given the potential actor talent involved) not worth the the time. it's garbage.
All in all, don't waste your time on this.
I am not a cynical person and I tend to see the good in something, most of the time cynical people will feel the need to crucify an artifact if it disrupts their sensibilities. But it is rare when a film touches someone so deeply that they who seldom type a review to type one.
I went into the film expecting an excellent film and it exceeded expectations, from what I saw from the trailer I knew this wasn't going to be another forgettable blockbuster film with no character. The trailer itself had creativity which is lacking in most films today, an appeal, a certain style that offers uniqueness and it's this uniqueness that gives the film significant value.
I loved the structure of the storytelling, we are introduced to plenty of characters and somehow the film gets across the feeling that we know each and every character introduced. This is the function of these fast pasted micro stories within the film, you need to be paying attention to keep up. While keeping interest within the main character and his struggles. It can be noted that the film has the lovable rogue trope down to a T.
If not paying attention and fully immersing yourself within this film its artistry could be overlooked or the denouement may be an 'ok' or 'I got entertained just as I expected to be' and may be seen as just another big blockbuster film, the fact that it came out one week after GotG would not help this case.
The FX are incredible and well put together in a cohesive manner, you will see the famous Guy Ritchie slow-mo action sequences. Incredible zoom in-out and pan across on action sequences much like Assassins Creed. All to communicate to the viewer exactly what is going on and where.
I understand there are a thousand different contributing factors that make someone like or dislike a film.
I am in a good place within my life and I am a great lover of fantasy, this story captivated me and made me feel empathy toward the characters. The way the story was told was relevant today it was quick and fast paced for today's attention spans. I greatly enjoyed the English slang humour it was quick wit at its best and to see within a fantasy film was a delight. It has shown the fantasy genre in a new light and hopefully inspires other film artists to apply out of the box thinking when creating fantasy films.
I can see how people not from the UK would not get the humour and may not fully understand the distinctions between meaning and intention.
Everyone will take away something different depending where you are within your life and as to what reason we watch films. You can take away an entertaining fast pasted fantasy film where good triumphs evil. Alternatively, you can take away philosophical means after all that is the single principle of storytelling. For me, it related to the journey of finding yourself and your purpose and most importantly that we all have the strength to become the person we are. Themes of death were prominent, as was loyalty and family.
All in all excellent film will watch again.
Apart from the fuzzy graphics the story was an abomination and an insult to the memory of King Arthur. There was very little story and the characters acted in such an unbelievable and clichéd fashion that you tended to try and forget them as irrelevant to the excessive computer violence.
If you rate John Boormans's Excalibur as a 10 then this is a 0.0001
There are better ways to spend £125 million
It's a real shame people slated this film before it's proper release.... pop to your local cinema and judge for yourself and I think you will be pleasantly surprised!
At this stage, you become frustrated because now we get to hear from the evil king, played by Jude Law. In this role as the evil king, Jude Law throughout the entire film looks like he has a frozen fart face and he has to smell his stinky farts for eternity. But he talks incessantly just to hear himself drone on and on. And he isn't the only one. There are other men in this film that just talk too much for no other reason other than to bog down the flow of the film. I wanted to bail on this film on more than one occasion. It seems as if the writer wanted to inject some contemporary dynamics of what a well rounded 21st century man should feel like. He must be in touch with his feelings. Please, spare me. This is the medieval times. They were brutal and vicious in war. You get a tamped down version of the brutality.
I've seen a lot of reviews on this film at this site and they give an inordinate number of positive reviews. I suspect that the film company who spent an estimated $175,000,000 on this film has hired film trolls to salt the reviews related to this movie. I can't believe the glowing responses this film has gotten because a lot of people didn't see this movie and this would be a statistically anomaly to have so many positive film reviews for a film that was marginal at best. I gave it a one star. Originally I was going to give it a three star review but after seeing these positive reviews, my suspicions came to the forefront. Like the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a film troll. Bottom line, they squandered a good retelling with way too much unnecessary exposition when it wasn't needed and the lack of action. Some good action comes at 1 hour and 21 minutes into this production. That's way too long. A film hero shouldn't be passing out three times before finally getting the hang of using a weapon. You'll lose the audience quicker than you think.
However, this movie is the ONLY one I have seen where I have cringed from beginning to end.
It is big - has lots of CGI - and that is about the only thing I can say about it.
The story is ridiculous and the acting is worse than imagining Daffy Duck perform Shakespeare (although that would be far more entertaining).
Then there is the awful, dreadful, dire, and ridiculous appearance by David Beckham.
It does not follow that because Beckham is a mate of Richie's that he can act - he obviously can not - and will never be able to.
Of the thousands and thousands of films I have seem in my lifetime there are very, very few I would like to get a refund for if I could. This is one of them.