Good idea lost in the noise

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

An alternative version of the King Arthur legend. As a boy, Arthur is left orphaned after his father, King Uther Pendragon, and mother are killed in a war waged against them by Vortigern, who then assumes the throne. Arthur flees and is raised in a brothel, knowing very little of his birthright. Vortigern wants Arthur dead, to ensure there is no claimant to the throne. The legends foretell that only the next king will be able to draw Excalibur, Uther's sword, from the rock where it is lodged. So, in an effort to identify Arthur, Vortigern forces all the young men of Arthur's age to attempt to draw out the sword. Now it is Arthur's turn.A fairly weak, dumbed-down, style-over-substance of the King Arthur legend. From the opening scenes you know this is going to more about special effects and over-the-top supernatural nonsense than good old-fashioned plot and character depth. The middle section isn't too bad, however, as this is where director Guy Ritchie plays to his strength. Here we see Arthur as a cocky, confident young entrepreneur / criminal. It was like an English gangster movie and reminded me of Ritchie's better works - 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Snatch', just set in medieval times. The movie flowed well at this point, driven by the lightness and humour.Then it was back to CGI-saturated action scenes and more supernatural nonsense. Quite a disappointment after having some hope that this might be at least half-decent. For a far better, and still the most definitive, version of King Arthur, watch Excalibur (1981) instead.

The Cockneys in a Londinium that would not know Bows Bells for another thousand years (Arthurian legend dates 5th-6th century AD, Bows Bells 15th-16th century) was simply too much disbelief to suspend. That plus all the Ritchie trademark camera tricks and dialog stylistics seemed a bit done to death and inappropriate, making me ask myself, 'What precisely is the director attempting to get accomplished here?'But, I'm glad a gave it a second chance, because once you get past all that and the off-track story, there really is a lot to admire about the film.I grew up in the 60's and 70's when there was only one or two movies per theater, no such thing as even VCRs and a movie could reasonably expect to remain in a theater for at least a month (or, in the case of the original "Star Wars", in excess of 4 years). That meant a lot of repeat business (I saw SW 25 times in its original run in theaters). You had a chance to get to know a movie -- deeply -- in those bygone days.This movie brought those experiences back to me. Because -- underlying all its trite coverings -- there lurks a movie of irresistible visual details, admirably subtle acting skill, and surprising emotional impact.I told a friend of mine (who also likes movies, not just 'splosions and boobs) that great movies grow more profound with each re-watching; you notice tiny details that you hadn't -- couldn't have! -- noticed before and they change the entire context of the movie...It's just that you had to look past this movie's somewhat hideous exterior to see into its virtuous and beautiful soul. I've now seen this movie over 8 times and turns out, she's actually a beauty, indeed... I'd give it an 8; but gotta subtract 1 star for initial impression.

I really enjoyed the mythological aspect as that's my favorite part of the legend. The heist element was a good choice but there were too many montages. Because of the rushed style It felt more like a TV show at parts but I would like to see more of this world. Rounded up score cause i would like to see a sequel and some of the reviews are too harsh in my opinion.

This is a perfect movie, why does everyone hate this movie, I loved this movie.