Film Review: “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017)

Guy Ritchie’s (re)interpretation of the legend of King Arthur is utterly ridiculous — and rather pointless.

If you know anything about my general movie-watching practice, you know that I’m a very generous (I might even say credulous) viewer. I’m usually pretty willing to go with the flow and to give any film, no matter how ridiculous or seemingly bad it is, the benefit of the doubt. There’s something to be said, I think, for being a generous sort of film critic.

Unfortunately, there are always times when you come across a film that is just so bananas that there’s no way to sugarcoat it. Guy Ritchie’s 2017 film King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is one of those movies. Don’t get me wrong. I was entertained while I was watching it, and at just over 2 hours long it doesn’t give you time to get bored (a small mercy in this age of narratively bloated superhero movies). However, I have to admit that this movie just isn’t very good as a movie about King Arthur, though I do think that it works well as a fairly generic fantasy adventure flick.

In terms of plot, King Arthur is a rather simple film. After his father is slain by his uncle, the young boy Arthur finds his way to Londinium, where he’s taken in by a generous group of prostitutes…