It's hard to try and recommend this latest reimagining of the Arthurian legend. It's not very good, but it comes across as the sort of movie that might be a really cool time to see on the big screen. Unfortunately, by now it's finished its theatrical run, and because its not very good, I can't imagine it will ever get another one. So the one way I would like to see it, is a way it can no longer be seen. Because it's not very good. It's Camelot by way of Middle Earth, and though I do enjoy these smarmy fast talkin' Brits a good deal in my films, the Guy Ritchie formula just doesn't lend itself to these sort of properties. The experiment just barely worked out in the first _Sherlock Holmes_ movie, and he's been getting further and further away from the mark ever since. Now he's lined up to hit _Aladdin_ next? I just don't see the connection. It's a shame to say it, but I really do want Guy Ritchie to get back to his wheelhouse. Or if he's over working on that British gangster vibe, to at the very least get him to move forward with some original IP. _Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**A different take on the sword in the stone!** This one came with a little surprise. I know it was a Guy Ritchie film and I had enjoyed all his previous flicks. But for some reasons, I felt I'm not that interested in this. Even trailer looked okayish. Watching the film now I realised that I've totally misjudged it. Still not a masterpiece, but a much better entertainer. The graphics were awesome. The settings were totally encouraging to glue to it. The story, stunts, with some of the slow- motions, very detailed and muscularly enchanting. Everybody knows the basic storyline of King Arthur. In this, it opened with two brothers feud and following a young man grew up in a brothel. When the city slowly gripped with the myth that the legendary prince would return to the crown, now the king, Vortigern vows to find him first and end the threat. But what comes after him was beyond his expectation. He has to finish it off what he had failed years ago. On the other hand Arthur has all the support, particularly the legendary sword passed on to him by his father. I had liked the Disney animated film back when I was a kid. This was completely a different film. For the live-action, it stood and delivered what viewers had expected. The music was another advantage. All the actors were good. The rise of Charlie Hunnan. His recent films were pushing him to the next level. Surely a lookout star. Despite a poor box office, it is a much better film. Once again the film critics got it all wrong. Good for one time watch. **7/10**

**Lots of action, lots of CGI, lots of money, lots of anachronism mistakes, little historical sense and little investment in the characters in a movie made to be forgotten.** I can't count the films that already exist about the Arthurian legends, or their characters or elements. I could cite several examples, but I believe that each of the readers will be aware of this and will have already seen at least two or three films about it. And the truth is that some of these films are memorable, remarkable. Others not so much. This particular film, I believe, will soon be forgotten. Directed by Guy Ritchie, an ambitious director who gives us satisfying films as easily as he assails us with horrors, it was supposedly the beginning of a sextet of films that will never see the light of day. In fact, this film was so absurdly expensive to produce and release that it had no scope to make a profit for Warner Bros., which, of course, canceled the project. Let's face it, the movie isn't even bad, and it's reasonably entertaining. However, I got the feeling that it didn't really bet on the Arthurian legends, taking only its core elements, and the characters names, to create a new story where the impressive CGI could shine. In fact, it is in the production values, and in the technical aspects, that the film stands out: the CGI is of high quality, it fills the screen with beautiful visual effects, and the final fight between Arthur and Vortigern is, perhaps, one of the examples more finely finished. The sound effects work wonderfully, and produce an almost immersive effect, especially if you have a good surround system available. The costumes, the design of the sets, everything is excellent and very well done. The film was expensive, but we see the money invested. Another of the film's strengths is its lavish cast, in which Jude Law shines in a particular way. Indeed, the actor is living an excellent phase in his career, choosing his projects well and showing signs of maturity and commitment to his work. In this film, he is so skilled and good at what he does that he steals all the attention, giving his character an aura of malice and near-insanity befitting someone corrupted by power. I also really liked Djimon Hounsou's work, and even Charlie Hunnam did well, although I don't really like the way he brought Arthur to life. Eric Bana has a decent job, however he doesn't have room to do much, and neither does the rest of the cast. The film is not good for women: Astrid Frisbey is ridiculously underused, while Annabelle Wallis and Poppy Delevingne are almost reduced to extras. This brings me to the first problem with this film: it is too contemporary to be able to make me feel the atmosphere of the 6th century BC, which is the period where Arthur is believed to have existed. Despite the scenery, the clothes, and even the presence of some elegant architectural elements that we associate with the Roman Empire (destroyed aqueducts, some arcades, some old public baths and even an amphitheatre), the characters are never really people of that time, denouncing the 21st century in the way they behave. And then we still have glaring anachronistic errors like the use of swords (and other weaponry and clothing) from the 13th and 14th century in a movie that was supposed to be set almost 700 years earlier. Another example of anachrony is the presence of the Vikings in the film, when it would be more obvious to have Picts, Angles, Jutes and even some Saxons, which are peoples that have little to do with the Vikings, whose maritime expansion would take place centuries later. Another problem with this film is Ritchie's erratic direction. So fascinated was he by CGI and visuals that the director forgot about the rest. The filming and cinematography work is quite weak and insecure; the editing, on the other hand, seems to make random cuts and is not very effective or subtle. The soundtrack is banal and doesn't stay in the ear. In addition, the overkill in CGI and effects has led the film to feel contrived and devoid of emotion and heart, yet it still feels like an expensive film.