Review of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) by Argonaut — 16 May 2017

Most of the critics' statements are just bad excuses for them being unable to stomach the storytelling of Guy Ritchie. Or they are simply biased against fantasy.

Not tr00 story? Seen through Rithcie's filter? Common, that's the whole point: we have already seen so-called true versions of King Arthur, we already know the story, we want the execution. And it's a damn fine one.

Underdeveloped secondary chars? Yes, it all revolves around protagonist and antagonist, it is a classic fairy tale. Not a 5-season series here. All supporting actors deliver strong performances.

Too much VFX? Go and see yet another super-hero cocktail you gave a good score last week, was it really any better than this fantasy film? VFX is inseparable part of all uncanny narratives, live with it.

Bad writing? Well, I might be interested to see a version where they talk in verse, but I bet the street talk was much more common in dark ages. The king and his buddies are street-wise, not university wise.

Finally, I think this version of King Arthur is as good and as valid as any before it. The film is good, go see it. I do not believe in sequels, but for the first time in 10 years, I am actually craving one.

Oh, and I am very glad it did not steer away from dark-fantasy tale to e.g. throw-in some second-hand romance. There's simply no time for romancing, when you have to learn how to fight your demons.