Critic scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more favorable reviews.
An engrossing, highly intelligent reimagining of the legend of Arthur. Read full review
Not a bad movie, although it could have been better. It isn't flat-out silly like "Troy," its actors look at home as their characters, and director Antoine Fuqua curtails the use of computer effects in the battle scenes, which involve mostly real people. Read full review
In a movie like this one, a little madness is its own Holy Grail. Read full review
King Arthur does to this legend what "Troy" did to Homer, with one important difference: It's a better movie. Read full review
For better or worse, but surely satisfying novelty needs, Jerry Bruckheimer's King Arthur is set much earlier than usual and against the crumbling Roman Empire, which may even (or not) be historically legitimate. Read full review
Strains credulity at every turn. Read full review
This version has action, yes, but the love triangle among Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot is diluted, and there's nothing exuberant about a dutiful slog through the muck. Read full review
This glum and grandiose new King Arthur has little to do with the Camelot monarch we've come to know through books and film. Read full review
Bleak, remarkably turgid, tediously violent, devoid of drama, deprived of magic, stripped of romance and, except for one of the oddest boy-meets-girl scenes in movie history, a befuddled and befuddling excuse for entertainment. Read full review
In King Arthur, everything goes wrong. The film combines the plodding sincerity of a Ph.D. dissertation with the brains of a high-concept Jerry Bruckheimer- produced blockbuster (which it is), and no one benefits. Read full review