The return of King Arthur was eagerly awaited. In theaters this Wednesday, October 22. Kaamelott – Part Two, Part 1 It seems to disappoint French critics with its hesitations and unfinished character.
It must be said that expectations were high. The first part of Alexandre Astier gathered more than 2.6 million viewers in July 2021, becoming the biggest success at the French box office since the start of the pandemic. The press then welcomed this film adaptation with relative benevolence, but without overwhelming enthusiasm. This time, the consensus seems much more fragile.
The plot of this second part places Arthur in a new position. According Telerama“King Arthur is tired, even downright depressed” after letting Lancelot escape instead of killing him, incurring the wrath of the gods. The film shows him “spending his days in bed reflecting on the destruction of his palace.” A situation that The Figaro He sums it up like this: “a bedridden King Arthur” who “waits for the movie to show.”
Added to this apathy of the hero is a fragmented narrative. Les Inrocks they describe “a host of former knights, sorcerers, hillbillies and other medieval cartoon characters embodied by an all-star cast” scattered “throughout the four corners of the known world”, giving “the impression of watching a conventional ‘team meeting’ sequence blown up to the scale of a full-length film.” A structure that perplexes: the media speaks of an “interstitial nothingness” between comedy and epic. Release spins a playful metaphor: “kaamelott In the cinema it’s like a role-playing game that doesn’t want to start.”
A prestigious casting but a great absence
The film brings together a five-star cast. Let us mention among others: Alain Chabat, Audrey Fleurot, Christian Clavier, Clovis Cornillac, Daniel Mesguich, Guillaume Gallienne, Thomas VDB. Release It also notes the arrival of “new faces (Virginie Ledoyen, Redouane Bougheraba) parachuted into this micmac with just a couple of replicas for all their luggage.”
The Parisian He emphasizes that “almost the entire cast responded”, although he regrets one important absence: that of Franck Pitiot, alias Perceval. This desertion weighs a lot Le Figaro, which writes: “Sometimes you are missing a single being and everything is depopulated.”
20 minutes believes that Alexandre Astier has chosen to deal with the issue “in a mischievous way” and notes that the director “does not beat around the bush” and “faces the problem head-on.” The online media is one of the only ones that has given it a favorable review: “we liked it (a lot).”
(Not so) funny?
The tone of the film is also divisive. Telerama he regrets “the overly dialogued comic parody (a whole festival of furious punchlines, more confusing, much less funny and convincing than in the original series).”
the inrocks, even more serious, they evoke a “pachydermic jargon” and a “waking linguistic nightmare, punctuated by flashes of ‘branquignols’ or ‘rouupettes’.” The Figaro abounds: “There is little laughter. The burlesque parodies are prolonged.” And the verdict is clear: Alexandre Astier has “lost the satirical and jovial flame of the series.”
This is not the case of Release that recognizes “a true sense of the formula” in Astier, welcoming “dialogues in the pure tradition of the kaamelottfull of slang finds and an anthology of bird names.” The newspaper observes that “everyone comes to do their own act, to contribute their witticisms, and some hit the mark.”
When it comes to the visual spectacle, opinions are more nuanced. 20 minutes enthuses: “It’s beautiful! Alexandre Astier offers a magnificent show with monsters, special effects, luxurious costumes and magnificent landscapes.” The Figaro acknowledges that “the different filming locations are impressively beautiful (especially the passages filmed in Ireland).”
But the world temperaments: “Aesthetically, the ensemble is a bit uneven and the staging, often very frontal, lacks the breath to gain full support.”
The impossible emancipation of the small screen
A transversal criticism emerges: the film’s inability to free itself from its original television format. Release He bluntly formulates this observation: “Astier cannot leave the small screen. The episodic form of the sketch constantly hinders the straight line of the epic.”
The paper points out a fundamental contradiction: “Refusing to decide between his comedy roots and his Tolkien dreams, kaamelott This “trampling logic,” traditionally a source of comedy in the series that pitted “an impatient ‘lord’ against incompetent ‘skates,'” now prevents the film from “breaking free of its original restraints.”
Les Inrocks shares this analysis: “An impression of lead-laden rigidity emerges, as if beneath the piles of trinkets there were only lips that could move.”
A great narrative frustration
A recurring criticism also arises: the feeling of having unfinished business. “The moment the action rears its ugly head, the film stops dead. No narrative plot is concluded,” he complains. The Figaro. The newspaper denounces a “trimmed script cut”, which leaves “the viewer with their mouth watering, condemned to wait for a third film in 2026.”
Les Inrocks Summarize: “It is first and foremost, although it is a sequel to the previous film, essentially a preview of the part (sorry, the ‘part’) that will come next.” The site criticizes a story that “goes on and on without a beginning.” The same for Release. The title emphasizes that this “saga that, soon reaching its midpoint with this new work, gives the impression of not having begun yet.”
the world also shares this observation: “After a first feature film with a crudely structured plot, this sequel develops alternating several scattered narrative lines, which for the moment it is difficult to see where they will lead.” And emphasize: “The exercise is thankless. Here we are judging a film of which we have only seen half of the story.”
“Fan service”?
20 minutes Pointe praises this film as “a rare example of auteur cinema with great spectacle” and adds that “its immense qualities and its small defects are attributable to Alexandre Astier, the only maestro on board. kaamelott It is his world and that is why we love him.”
Release recognizes Astier’s spectacular ambition, “the gigantic armies or the majestic dragons”, but regrets that they remain largely “offscreen”, as in the era of television episodes.
Still, this total creative freedom seems to have led to a film that Telerama describes it as “disappointing”, “based on collusion with fans”, where “Alexandre Astier shows little concern to clarify the situation to the uninitiated.”
With a duration of 2h19 and a second part planned in more than a year, Kaamelott – Part Two, Part 1 It seems like a risky bet. How to summarize Telerama : “The only thing left, at the end of two long hours of circling the Round Table somewhat in vain, is to hope that the master of kaamelott It will be recovered in the third part.” The sequel, in fact, will be released in theaters on November 11, 2026.
Source: BFM TV
