when discussing disappointing attempts to bring a classic to life, king arthur: legend of the sword may be the worst offender of that in 2017. much like ghost in the shell, the writing was on the wall for guy ritchie's disastrous retelling of the arthurian myth. for months, stories leaked about a difficult production and costly reshoots. when the film came out, it was at least easy to see where the money had gone. the bigger question was why it went there. ritchie cast his film well, at least. but charlie hunnam and the rest of the cast were handicapped by a terrible script that gave them nothing to work with. arthur isn't a compelling character here, as hard as hunnam tries. and the supporting cast are practically interchangable except jude law, having fun as the villainous vortigern. the cast was also overshadowed by an overabundance of special effects in an attempt to give the film a blockbuster feel it didn't need. there were so many effects shots that much of the cgi suffers. the climactic end fight between arthur and the demon knight looks very much like a lesser cutscene from middle-earth: shadows of mordor. that's fine for a video game, but not for a $175 million film. there's a scant amount of fun to be had here or there, mostly thanks to the cast. but all in all, legend of the sword was little more than a costly waste of time for warner bros. and moviegoers alike.