King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a dramatic reimagining of the Arthurian legend. It is also evokes much of its director’s hallmark traits. This is Guy Ritchie’s take on King Arthur, for better and for worse.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was a gamble. Budgeted at $175 million and with five sequels planned, WB had franchise desires in mind for it. With that much at stake, it’s odd they would butcher the edit of the film.
Legend of the Sword, for all its insane visuals and Ritchie flair, is a narrative mess. It zooms from plot point to plot point, replacing essential connective tissue with bizarrely narrated montages. It feels like the movie is playing in 1.5x speed.
Couple that with a bland lead (Charlie Hunnam as the titular king) and villain (Jude Law’s Vortigern), who’s essentially evil because the film requires it, and there’s not much to get behind.
Hence why it flopped as hard as a movie can and was lambasted by critics. Legend of the Sword didn’t even recoup its production budget, grossing just $148.7 million worldwide; and it sits at 31% on Rotten Tomatoes with 278 reviews.
Yet, there is still some things to be appreciated. When King Arthur goes full King Arthur, the effects are rather spectacular. That alone is worth the price of admission.
Now, sit back, bow to the king of beers—Budweiser—and warg into a giant snake! I, the Thunderous Wizard (@WriterTLK) and Chumpzilla are debating the merits of sacrificing someone to the tentacle lady.
This Week’s Segments:
- Introduction/Plot Breakdown – Raised on the streets. Born to be king! (00:00)
- Lingering Questions – After a word from our brothers in beer at Hop Nation USA, we discuss why this movie failed. (29:05)
- The “Londinium Calling” Trivia Challenge – The Double Turn Podcast snatches the sword from the stone, and then Chumpzilla challenges me to trivia about the movie. (39:12)
- Recommendations – We offer our picks for the week and next up: We continue “Hops and Period Piece Flops” with Chris Farley’s final leading role, Almost Heroes! (49:43)