Critics: 'King Arthur' is 'vulgar, phony-looking' ... but tell us what you really thought

It's unclear why Guy Ritchie decided Hollywood needed a King Arthur reboot -- apart from the fact that Hollywood's do-over obsession hasn't lost steam in 2017. Nevertheless, his spin on King Arthur and his knights has arrived and generally underwhelmed critics, despite Ritchie's promising work with Sherlock Holmes and a highly-publicized David Beckham cameo, which tanked.

The Telegraph's Robbie Collin described King Arthur: Legend of the Sword as "so misshapen and inert, your imagination and memory never come close to being sparked by it. Just sticking with the plot soaks up every ounce of concentration you have."

Yikes. Read more of the films reviews below.

David Beckham's acting debut

Before throwing it over to critics, let us allow Twitter to describe Becks' performance as Trigger in the film.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Ah yes, which brings us to...

Director Guy Ritchie

Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter:

Loud, bombastic and thuddingly obvious, this is a vulgar movie for vulgar times. Such synchronicity alone makes it worthy of cultural consideration of a certain kind. But it also can't be denied that Ritchie, who hasn't been deemed a director of creative interest since his early Lock, Stock ... and Snatch days, and certainly least of all for his hugely lucrative Sherlock Holmes entries, does pull off some quick-witted and clever sequences here; he doesn't want to bore or approach narrative conventionally, so he's found ways of conveying a good deal of information very quickly, taking an aggressive approach to supplying backstory and never ever slipping into solemnity or sanctimony.

Peter DeBruge, Variety

Ritchie’s overwrought sense of flamboyance isn’t nearly queer enough to achieve “so bad it’s good” self-parody. Rather, he comes across as an aging rebel worried about being judged un-hip, clearly over-compensating in order to remain one step ahead of fellow stylists Zack Snyder (300), Tarsem Singh (Mirror Mirror), and Alex Proyas (Gods of Egypt) — all of whose genuinely outrageous, inadvertently awful work appears to be a source of inspiration here.

Gregory Wakeman, Cinemablend

Guy Ritchie doesn't give you a moment's rest to be bored. It's full pelt stuff, which at times is somewhat of a detriment to proceedings, especially since, in all honesty, by the film's end, I was unable to precisely explain how and what had just transpired, as the final sequence in particular is rather hectic. But for the most part, though, you're left happy and joyful at just how outrageous a spectacle the film is, as Guy Ritchie makes sure sure that the special effects heavy blockbuster, which are seamlessly integrated, still has a swagger and drive that you just can't take your eyes off of.

Robbie Collin, The Telegraph

Ritchie’s filmmaking has always thrived at manly close quarters, in quotable moments: anyone who saw his reboot of The Man From U.N.C.L.E. will already know the cut of Henry Cavill’s suit and Armie Hammer’s jawline were all the special effects that wildly underrated film needed. The problem with a King Arthur blockbuster is that it needs sweep and scope, and the attempts at spectacle here feel far outside the director’s comfort zone. 

Those visuals, tho

Peter DeBruge, Variety:

It’s epic, in the sense that it features elaborate CG backdrops swarming with thousands of virtual extras, and it’s extravagant, to the extent that Warner Bros. flushed away millions of dollars to produce this gaudy eyesore. But ultimately, King Arthur is just a loud, obnoxious parade of flashy set pieces, as one visually busy, belligerent action scene after another marches by, each making less sense than the last, but all intended to overwhelm.

Kevin P. Sullivan, Entertainment Weekly:

[Arthur's friends are] rascals you want to spend some hang time with. But the film never allows you to. There are too many phony-looking special-effects sequences of giant marauding elephants and magical eel creatures to get to. It doesn’t matter if they don’t help the story; what seems to matter is that Ritchie had enough money at his disposal to conjure them, so why not spend it? Hunnam and his charismatic band of merry pranksters get lost in the sea of pixels.

Robbie Collin, The Telegraph

For one thing, the aesthetic is frantic and indistinct: the camerawork makes the Bourne films look like Bresson, while everything on screen is the colour of builder’s tea and bourbon biscuits. For another, the scale is frequently incomprehensible: an early siege on Camelot involves elephants as big as cruise ships, a design choice that renders the entire set-piece ludicrous. 

At least the performances were ... okay?

Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter:

Hunnam is game for the rugged demands placed upon him and takes the physical punishment administered to him in stride. Playing the figure of unalloyed evil here, Law gives the malice of this man who would be king full rein, while Bana provides convincing contrast as the betrayed brother.

Peter DeBruge, Variety:

At least Hunnam has the potential to be the next Brad Pitt, having begun his career in a series of demanding acting roles — including a long run on FX’s “Sons of Anarchy” — before making the transition to blockbuster screen idol. He’s got presence, along with a sense of vulnerability that’s essential to the Arthur role.

Gregory Wakeman, Cinemablend

Jude Law is sublime as the deliciously evil Vortigern. Charlie Hunnam is towering as King Arthur, and emanates a power and charm that you want from your leading man, as he's able to sell the action, comedy, internal conflict, and drama in his scenes with ease, while the supporting cast of Aidan Gillen, Djimon Hounsou, Kingsley Ben-Adir and Neil Maskell each chime in impressively, too.

Scott Mendelson, Forbes

Hunnam is okay in the sense that he doesn't make the movie worse, but he is constantly propped up by more charismatic actors (Djimon Hounsou and Aidan Gillen among others) and delivers a painfully generic performance leaving us with little earned interest in his quest or his destiny.