It was alright. The disjointed flashback/current event structure didn't work as well for this movie as I would have liked, and the flashbacks to what Arthur is supposed to "understand" over and over again was pure tedium. The plot got a little melodramatic in places and just wasn't all that strong to begin with as far as versions of the King Arthur story go.

The action was also very eh, heavily marred by CGI use and some desire to emulate 300's combat but do it worse. Still one of the more enjoyable aspects of the movie, but toning down effects and prioritizing more fluid choreography would have gone a long way towards making it truly a redeeming feature even if the rest of the movie was lacking.

It certainly wasn't awful by any means, but it was entertaining. Good enough for a watch that will be called "okay" at the end.

It was ok. I feel "it was fun" is not basis for anything. Most certainly not critical acclaim.

A critic's review is much more trustworthy than 'it was fun'. After all, the movie itself wasn't exactly spectacular. It was forgettable and had much more potential

It is impossible for "Critics" to ruin anything. Unless you're insinuating that a sizeable portion of people who MAY have gone to spend money on this film in theaters, stayed away because they read poor reviews of it. While that's POSSIBLE, it's also far more likely that most people just weren't interested in seeing this to begin with. A Guy Ritchie directed medieval Arthur film just doesn't sound all that great on paper, to be honest. If YOU enjoy it, great. But that doesn't mean critics "held it back".

Critical opinion ultimately means little. Movies that have gotten shit reviews, even in recent history, have still made big money. Like Batman v Superman, and Suicide Squad, and the Transformers films, and the Twilight films, and 50 Shades. People are going to go see what they want to see, even if it's garbage, even if it's critically panned.

In fairness though people who work the 9-5 are tired in the evening and just want some entertainment are going to realistically have a different view to critics who watch just about every major movie and are looking for something else in the movie. Many of the critic's own favourites are the most abysmal arty movies that frankly should never have been made and often lose huge amounts of money. Personally I pretty much ignore critics and just go for the overall reviews of the general population which for me is much more accurate but if its a type of movie I really like I can be more forgiving of the review score. Don't watch as many movies nowadays though I'd rather be gaming, listening to music or browsing the internet and reading most of the time. It's really only scifi movies I really make the effort to watch. Most movies I just come away from thinking I've wasted 2 hours.

People who put little stock in critical reception generally don't watch that many movies, it's a fun diversion rather than a passion or even a hobby. You come to appreciate movies that are well crafted and try new things when you watch crap-tons of films.

I feel you. I'm still trying to understand how a movie like Green Room, for example, scored 79... that's an incredibly high score.. It's the worst movie I've seen in my life. Would give it a 0 (yes, for real), but since it's "different", "unique" and stuff, they seemed to love it. lol

Oh did you watch Valerian yet? Seems interesting but I'm afaird of the YA type of characters I've seen in the trailers.

OP: Saw it in cinema with a few friends they liked it. I was lucky I had a couple of booze in my bag. Helped me go through the movie. 

I actually liked The Green Room :P

I'll take your word and will watch. Thanks for the advice.

But you know, critics try to help, I'm not sure works 100%, but people are dumb. Look those awful superman vs batman with that tetrapod ben affleck. Critics trie to flop it for us, and yet masses of dumb people went there and watched it. Look at that box office.

I'll watch your movie, I'll trust a fellow gamer. Though, I have not lost faith in critics but in people.