Well, at least you found one guy Hunnam has more charisma than. 
Spoilers Guy Ritchie's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword Pre-Release Thread
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
I've read both and enjoyed them. Whyte's went on a little too long. Cornwell's has a grittier edge, while Whyte's tends to suffer from a "I must explain how this part of the myth can work in reality" syndrome that's almost Trekkian.
I got The Winter King as an advanced copy at a publishing trade show in the 90s, but put off reading it for a few years. I had already read several of Whyte's series before I finally read the Winter King.
If I remember correctly, the final books weren't part of Whyte's original plan for the series. He was inspired by Orson Scott Card's Ender's Shadow and saw an opportunity to tell a side story and revisit earlier events.
Some books in the historical Arthur vein I'd recommend:
Tony Hays' The Killing Way. This is the first book in a series of historical mysteries, believe it or not.
Kim Iverson Headlee's Dawnflight. This book is chock full of Romano-Brits, Celts, and Picts.
Parke Godwin's Firelord. This was one of the first historical Arthur novels I read, so I'm fond of it.
Courtway Jones' In the Shadow of the Oak King. This, then, was the first historical Arthur novel I read. Though, calling it "historical" is a little misleading. Jones fuses the story of Malory's Morte d'Arthur to an historical fifth century Britain background. So, you have the familiar story melded to the politics of the Celts, Picts, and Romano-Brits, the clash of Celtic paganism and early Christianity, etc.
And one that's a little different, Robert Rice's The Last Pendragon. A generation has passed since Arthur fell at Camlann, and the Celtic/Romano-Brit alliance that Arthur forged is now failing against the invading Saxons.
Helen Hollick's series, which begins with The Kingmaking, is supposed to be very, very good, but I haven't read it yet.
Incredible! This started of as an Excalibur (1981) remake and ended up as a gender-swapped Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) remake! 
I just hope the San Francisco Chronicle assigns its lead critic Mick Lasalle to review this one, as he's had some choice words to say about Ritchie in the past:
Lasalle on RocknRolla:
Lasalle on Sherlock Holmes:
Lasalle on Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows:
Lasalle on The Man from U.N.C.L.E.:
Lasalle on RocknRolla:
Let's just say, for example, that a filmmaker can't tell a story. Let's say that he's hopelessly bereft of that all-important ability. What can he do to compensate? One strategy he might adopt would be to present this incapacity as a style statement, so when the whole movie collapses in a pathetic mess, he can stand back and say, "Cool, huh? I meant that to happen."
Lasalle on Sherlock Holmes:
Guy Ritchie is the worst screenwriter in the world, but, to be fair, he is not the worst director. He is only the worst director of the people who actually get to make movies. As we speak, there are human beings walking the Earth - perhaps as many as a half dozen of them - with less directorial talent, but they've been safely diverted into other activities.
Lasalle on Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows:
In "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows," two criminal masterminds go on a cruel rampage through London, but the more dangerous of the two is the one behind the camera.
[...] "The movie isn't much, but Guy Ritchie is a director with panache." I heard someone say that at an advance screening of this movie, and that's precisely the kind of sentiment that bad directors depend on. Unable to tell a story, unable to inflect scenes, unable to shape the actors' performances, a bad director will call attention to himself with some signature fluff and flash. In the case of Ritchie, we're talking about crazy quick cutting in the fight scenes, jarring angles and some unexpected use of slow motion.
[...] "The movie isn't much, but Guy Ritchie is a director with panache." I heard someone say that at an advance screening of this movie, and that's precisely the kind of sentiment that bad directors depend on. Unable to tell a story, unable to inflect scenes, unable to shape the actors' performances, a bad director will call attention to himself with some signature fluff and flash. In the case of Ritchie, we're talking about crazy quick cutting in the fight scenes, jarring angles and some unexpected use of slow motion.
The goal is to get you to notice the director's presence, so that you won't notice that this same director is flummoxed by the basic requisites of his craft.
Lasalle on The Man from U.N.C.L.E.:
By the standards of most action movies, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” is a mess. Instead of building toward a big finish, it gets more sluggish as it wears on. What little narrative drive it has drops out by the middle of the picture, and there are odd digressions that indicate a director who is confident he can take his audience anywhere — but this director’s confidence is misplaced. [...] By these and other measures, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E” would easily stand out as any other director’s career worst.
But this is a Guy Ritchie movie, and by Guy Ritchie standards, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” is “Citizen Kane.” There are a couple of decent sequences, and a few laughs. Here and there, he places the camera in just the right place, and one has to wonder if this is just a fluke — like the chimpanzee who composes a sonnet by sitting at a keyboard long enough — or if Ritchie is getting better.
In any case, here’s one telling detail. There are two torture sequences in the film, involving electrodes and an individual strapped to a chair and screaming. Yet it never once seems like a metaphor for what the audience is going through. For Ritchie, that’s progress.
But this is a Guy Ritchie movie, and by Guy Ritchie standards, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” is “Citizen Kane.” There are a couple of decent sequences, and a few laughs. Here and there, he places the camera in just the right place, and one has to wonder if this is just a fluke — like the chimpanzee who composes a sonnet by sitting at a keyboard long enough — or if Ritchie is getting better.
In any case, here’s one telling detail. There are two torture sequences in the film, involving electrodes and an individual strapped to a chair and screaming. Yet it never once seems like a metaphor for what the audience is going through. For Ritchie, that’s progress.
Of the films Ritchie has directed, the only one's I've seen are the two Sherlock Holmes films and I enjoyed them both, as for this, I have no intention in watching it, mainly because the stories around King Arthur hold no appeal what so ever.
Overstylized historic setting action. Looks like fun to me.
How many films did Uwe Bolle make?
He directed at least 30.
Exactly. So, Ritchie is way behind
And then some because Ritchie's films actually make a lot of money. 
^^ Well, except for "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.", "Revolver", and of course, "Swept Away". But his Sherlock Holmes movies were pretty big hits, and the rest of his movies were successful for their niche.
IMO Ritchie is an artist who needs limitations. Lock Stock is fantastic but after it and Snatch he got complete control over his future projects and, well, they are what they are. It seems to happen a lot. I can only imagine how much better the last couple Game of Thrones novels would have been if GRRM'S editor had the power to tell him to cut out half the content.
I'd never heard of this film before coming across this thread. Ritchie's work on the two Sherlock Holmes films was okay but the two felt more like hyperactive superhero films rather than 19th century mysteries. The Man from Uncle was entertaining but suffered from the same problem. By the look of these underwhelming trailers, it'll be the same story again and that's really too bad. Excalibur is my favorite Aurthurian film but I like seeing other takes. This one holds no interest for me at all.