Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Spoonixel Amateur movie with Big budget

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

TwoWardrobes One star for the wolf poking it's head out from behind the tree, that was hilarious, wasn't supposed to be but I have to give a star if I have a big belly laugh. One star for the Welsh actors and naming conventions, which is at least a nod to the origin of the tales.The rest of it, frigging hell. I mean, with bells on. It's an absolute train wreck from start to finish. Dialogue is clunky, sound appalling, special effects aren't special (they're barely effects), storyline is a bit daft. I won't comment about the acting because they had so little to work with!Arthur's son being the protagonist and that son being Owain Ddantgwyn would be enough for anyone with even passing interest in Arthurian legend or Welsh history to kick a puppy.But ... they get a thumbs up for the wolf-tree shot. I was rolling around with laughter.

Daryl White I consider myself to be another among the duped RedBox renters. Should of came here first to read reviews then I would have taken heed that this King Arthur-Excalibur Rising May 4 2017 was not the similarly entitled King Arthur-Legend of the Sword May 12 2017 I was looking for. Back I go to the rental realm in search of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972591/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Sadly, I could not grasp the story line as everything except the soundtrack was horrid. Bad: casting, wardrobe, choreography, acting, writing, directing and more distracted me from the subject matter. This movie oozes in that low budget feel. I also preferred the 1981 Excalibur with it's lack of CGI era. I feel no shame for taking a nap mid way through this King Arthur.Other than the grand musical score, the other positive is the actor who played Merlin. Simon Armstrong http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1409802/?ref_=tt_cl_t5 was nearly a ringer for Ian McKellen's Gandalf. Coincidence? I dub thee 2.5 star movie to be the lowest rated IMDb movie of all time.

David E First, I am pretty forgiving of movies. I watch to enjoy myself. I can deal with mediocre movies and still enjoy myself. Second, I don't mind the re-telling or re-imagination of a tale. For example Excalibur 1981 is amazing. I also enjoyed the 2004 version of King Arthur with Clive Owen. 2 very different approaches to King Arthur. Now, about this movie. As I said in the title, wow, and not in a good way. The acting isn't just bad, it's laughable. The story is an interesting idea that gets lost in the horrible script and horrible CGI. And making Merlin look like a cut-rate Gandalf was a bad idea. The Lady of the Lake lives in a scum filled pond. One good thing is the movie is 99 minutes; about 30 minutes less than a real movie. One other good part was the opening scene of the Battle of Camlann. After that, it is all down hill. Thanks Redbox for the bait and switch. You see, I only saw this movie because I thought I was renting a different movie. Who knew there were 2 movies in 2017 named King Arthur. I guess I should have paid closer attention to the subtitles. There is no reason Redbox should have this horrible of a movie to rent. The only reason I can think is they wanted my $1.50 now and then pay again when King Arthur Legend of the Sword is released. So, watch this movie if it is cheap or free but be prepared. Set your expectations very low and you might do alright.

Stewart Reeve As the title of my post says, this is a good historical/fantasy movie.It moves at a great pace; sure, it is stylised, but it is also different, and that just adds to its appeal.Go and see it to be entertained, and let it be what it is. It does not deserve the degree of negative comments it is receiving - people: relax, and enjoy a good ride! I enjoyed this film and hope they make more.