User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 96 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 53 out of 96
  2. Negative: 23 out of 96

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 7, 2013
    0
    Despite being about King Arthur, It's simply name only, It does not follow the true Arthur story at all and that's sort of disappointing. As for the film itself, The acting is ok but hurt by the poorly written dialogue and god awful story. The action is ok but rather unrealistic. It's basically a very generic action film in an Arthur setting and that simply does not work what so ever.
  2. Feb 24, 2013
    4
    It was really cool to see King Arthur from a more historical viewpoint, rather than the mythological one that's been done and done. The movie had its moments, but overall it was pretty dull. I can't recommend something that put me to sleep.
  3. Feb 3, 2014
    1
    Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.
Metascore
46

Mixed or average reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 39
  2. Negative: 8 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: Marc Peyser
    40
    Unfortunately, none of this is very much fun. The cinematography is dark and depressing. The dialogue is stilted. And for some reason, director Antoine Fuqua has even ditched the Arthur/Guinevere/ Lancelot love triangle.
  2. Fuqua deliberately downplays the fantastical in King Arthur, but the gritty faux realism wears itself out quickly. You've seen one lancing, you've seen them all.
  3. An engrossing, highly intelligent reimagining of the legend of Arthur.