“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” lumbers on for more than two hours, weighed down with oversized elephants and excessively populated action sequences. 1.5 stars out of 4.

Share story

Did the world need another King Arthur movie? Specifically, did the world need this King Arthur movie? Directed by Guy Ritchie, with none of the wit displayed in “Sherlock Holmes” and “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.,” “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” lumbers on for more than two hours, weighed down with oversized elephants, excessively populated action sequences, and weirdly sudden occurrence of slow motion, as if the film is yawning. As well it might.

Charlie Hunnam — dressed in white, presumably so we can spot him in those crowd scenes — plays young Arthur, who grows up in a brothel (nearly every woman in this movie is either a prostitute or a murder victim) before pulling that legendary sword from the stone. He then runs afoul of his villainous uncle Vortigern (Jude Law, whose talents are wasted here), who likes to spend time skulking in an underground cavelike lagoon where I kept hoping the Phantom of the Opera might turn up.

Movie Review ★½  

‘King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,’ with Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Eric Bana. Directed by Guy Ritchie, from a screenplay by Joby Harold, Ritchie and Lionel Wigram. 126 minutes. Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action, some suggestive content and brief strong language. Several theaters.

Explosions, ear-slicing, snake-wrangling and chaotic battles ensue, rendered in unnecessary 3D and, ultimately, entirely forgettable. Did I actually see “King Arthur” the other night? Or was it all just a very loud dream?