Camelot

Rating:
Summary: Flawed but pleasing melodrama
Review: Reviewers pick on the film's weaknesses, but overall, I think it is winning. Here are my top disagreements with fellow viewers:

1) Blue eyeshadow. This adds to the exoticism of the medieval setting, in which courtiers were often dandy types, and strange fashions came and went.

2) Stage cast vs. film cast. Overall, I'd say the film audience got the best of it. Most of all, Richard Harris, who campaigned for the part, plays Arthur with such puckish enthusiasm, dramatizing the conflict between the human boy/man and the beloved king. Famous and drunk, Richard Burton would never have brought so much charm to the role. (Later Harris became famous and drunk.) Vanessa Redgrave's ethereal yet sensual charmisma convinces us that she is the fickle queen who dismantled Camelot; Julie Andrews' girl next door quality would never have had the same magic.

3) Franco Nero was no Olivier, but his handsome doll-like appearance and stiffness actually drive the humor home in the hilarious "C'est Moi." He comes across as a slick and shallow narcissist, making us feel worse for the all-too-human Arthur.

4) Singing voices. In most musicals the singing voices are dubbed. Here they sang as they acted, giving the songs a rough but natural quality. Harris is a good singer. Redgrave's voice is delicate but this emphasizes her charm. Nero? Oh well.

5) The film could have benefited from some editing. It does get a little pompous. The score relies too heavily on the songs, sometimes forecasting them before they have actually been performed, which bugs me.

6) The highly detailed set is wonderful and has aged well.

Humor and sweet, manipulative emotion win the day. You have to be willing to go along with this film, as its original audience was.

Rating:
Summary: You're Kidding, Right???
Review: This is the worse stage-to-film musical ever made. No one can sing, the film is one big close-up, and it's way too long. MGM tried to buy the rights and would have made it with the original stage cast. Too bad Warner Bros. won. The audience lost big with this one. Yea, it looks good occasionally, but the whole experience is one of the biggest duds of all time. Josh Logan should have never been allowed to direct the film versions of his stage shows. He ruined the film of South Pacific, and did it again with Camelot. Maybe someone will remake it soon the right way. It would be a good candidate for a made-for-TV film musical, now that they are popping up again. We can only hope...

Rating:
Summary: A Fleeting Wisp Of Glory: Emotional Music Drama
Review: I am an advocate of all the arts and Broadway musicals have descended from the noble art of opera. The musical era of the early twentieth century did not die in the face of the Cuba/Missile conflict, nor in the war years of Vietnam. The brilliant musical masters, Rogers and Hammerstein and Lerner and Lowe were incredibly gifted, providing audiences with catchy melodies, romance and powerful dramatic emotions. In Lerner and Lowe's Camelot, we are immersed by the love triange between Arthur, Guenevere and Lancelot, which seems small next to the bigger picture- the stability of Camelot. Camelot is the ideal world, the perfect society, Utopia, Paradise. With the aid of the good wizard sage Merlin, Arthur assumed heavy responsibility as king and head of the Round Table, a fellowship of knights on the quest for the Holy Grail and sworn to uphold justice and balance in the world. This peace was upset by war and by the problematic situation that arose when Guenevere fell in love with Arthur's best friend and champion knight, Lancelot.

In this excellent DVD, the 60's film is back with full glory. We realize why this musical appealed to a generation that was insistent on peace. Richard Harris is the perfect Arthur, idealistic, romantic, wise, mature, and in his scenes with Merlin we do see the pararellism with the writings of T.H. Lawrence's "Once And Future King" and the magic (Arthur becomes a goldfish, communes with nature, etc, is similar to the Disney interpretion, "The Sword In The Stone". Richard Harris sings superbly in his solos, "Camelot," and "How To Handle A Woman". Vanessa Redgrave was not the original stage interpreter of Guenevere. The credit belongs to Julie Andrews, whose light voice, cheerful, innocent and sweet temperament is directly polar opposite to Guenevere's lusty, earthy, darker-voiced portrayal. But in my personal opinion, Vanessa Redgrave captures the true Guenevere. This is evident in her song "Where are the Joys of Maidenhood ?" "Take me to the Fair", "The Lusty Month of May" and her melancholy duet with Lancelot "I loved You Once In Silence". Franco Nero as Lancelot is charming, comedic, witty, a direct opposite to the upright Arthur, but we are sympathetic with his situation when his humanity comes through. He decides to break up with Guenevere out of his own love and respect for Arthur. Unfortunately, that is the moment when their affair is discovered, and the rest is history. Arthur battles Mordred, both of them lose and die, and Camelot disappears into the pages of myth. The rousing choruses are striking, especially in the wedding of Guenevere and Arthur and when Guenevere is sentenced to be burned at the stake. The finale is unsurpassed, as Arthur says: "Ask anyone if they've ever heard the story, and if they have not, say it loud and clear; that once there was a fleeting wisp of glory..called Camelot".

Rating:
Summary: A magnificent retelling of the Arthurian legend
Review: An exceptional adaptation of a hit Broadway musical about the legend of King Arthur's mistily-remembered reign in the time of chivalrous knighthood and England's transition from the Dark Ages into the Enlightenment. The plot is magnigficent, opening with a capering Richard Harris, whose introductory scenes are so over the top and mincey that even the most enlightened boyfriend/hubby will find his fingers wandering for the remote or searching for a brewski. But King Arthur, like the film, gathers gravitas as the story unfolds... The classic triangle between Arthur, Guinnevere and Lancelot is retold as a parable for the civilizing of England itself -- Arthur allows himself to be cuckholded not for his love of a friend (which is the traditional view), but because to seek revenge would be to slide back into the might-makes-right barbarity and rule by force that he seeks to supplant as king of the newly unified England. As a figurehead, he is trapped in more ways than one, and his character squirms painfully under our gaze, like a butterfly on a collector's pin. The mix of humor and pathos is deftly played, and by the end, we're all swept up by the inevitable, inexorable tragedy, yet can still relish Harris' lusty hamminess. I'm not that knowlegable about musical theatre, but I thought this film was swell.

Rating:
Summary: Flawed but enjoyable version
Review: This is a very well done version of the Arthurian legends, and despite the fact that it has bad choreograhy, DESPITE the fact Franco Nero's acting is sub Ed Wood, and DESPITE the fact it IS a little long, it STILL has quite a few good moments, and as a whole is a good film for the family.

Rating:
Summary: I really like this version
Review: Unlike the critics and the customer comments i find this musical version WONDERFUL! What puzzles me is why do people compare this title to "The Kennedys." If anything that is an insult to a great motion picture. But i digress.....I find the musical numbers most fitting to the scenes that are going on with the story. My favorite is "Lusty Month of May" and if you have a 5.1 Stereo System this number surrounds you with beautiful music and so with "If Ever i Could Leave You." My eyes tear-up terribly during that number. I don't know how anyone couldn't fall in love with this movie.Also this movie is in it's original Roadshow Format with it's arousing Round Table speech from Richard Harris as the music builds just before "Intermission." It gives me chills just writing about it.Dispite the other reviews, see for yourself if this 60's musical will touch a cord with you and i don't care what people think of Vanessa Redgrave, this movie was made for her. She's brilliant!

Rating:
Summary: Arthur meets the '60s
Review: Richard Harris (may he rest in peace) was truly one of the greatest actors to come out of the Emerald Isles. Here, like usual, he gives a commanding performance. Many of the other characters are also well played. Unfortunately, unlike some timeless films of the medieval era (Becket comes to mind), this film has 60s written all over it, from the hippie hairdos to Mordred's "Beatles" outfit. Moreover, the music is completely disconnected with the story. While I am a fan of musicals, I believe the music should fit the story. For example, State Fair, the Sound of Music, and Singing in the Rain are some of the greatest films ever made. Camelot just does not fit the bill.

Rating:
Summary: Tepid and vastly inferior to the Broadway version
Review: Having grown up listening to the Broadway album recording of "Camelot," my hopes were dashed upon recently viewing this DVD. Having never realized that there were two soundtrack albums for Camelot, it never occured to me that I wouldn't be hearing the stirring singing of the Broadway album, including the villainous songs of Mordred, which were easily my favorite pieces in the whole work.

In addition to not hearing "The Seven Deadly Virtues" and "Fie on Goodness" -- two of the greatest villain songs of all time, without question -- the musical and acting performances overall here are subpar at best. Richard Harris seems to be trying to do his whole performance via his eyebrows, which wiggle about on his forehead like catepillars trying to escape his face. Vanessa Redgrave, for all her justly deserved reputation as an actress, looks more underfed than radiant as Guenevere and Franco Nearo seems to be having a lot of fun in an entirely different film.

Director Joshua Logan did the real damage to this story, though, with a disjointed directing style that focusses more on interesting scenes and bits than making a coherent tale. Time passes at varying rates, with never any warning to that effect, and while some of the issues with the script are leftovers from the play, there's no excuse for not making a more coherent film, cutting and adding to the book as needed.

On the whole, this is a highly disappointing movie, and the DVD has a slapped together feel, with pale text in a squiggly font placed atop bright backgrounds, making much of the additional content -- which is anemic compared to disks like "Shrek" -- unreadable and unusable.

This is a renter, and even then, only if you've exhausted every other choice at your local video rental shop.

Rating:
Summary: a piece of magic
Review: this film is great but (don't misunderstand me) it took too long to be made... a small hit on broadway in 1960 (it opened on dec.3rd 1960 and people expected a new "my fair lady") with burton, andrews and goulet, it really did match a whole "concept" that was very actual at that time: the "perfect" america (it was jfk's favourite broadway show). the world had changed a lot in 1968/69. woodstock, vietnam were happening and a more realist group of moviemakers were working on films like "easy rider", "they shoot horses, don't they?" etc. was there still place for such dreams? richard harris is a great king arthur, vanessa redgrave a beautiful guenevere (i wonder how andrews would have been recreating her original role... josh logan could not be persuaded to let her play guenevere for lack of sex-appeal... the "von trapp/poppins image" in america would continue to be quite damaging to the career of this actress...) although her voice far too inexpressive. franco nero is beautiful to look at, but seems to be crying all the time. production was sumptuous etc. etc. nowadayy a "museum piece" it is still marvelous to watch... it has magic! well, that is what camelot meant, wasn't it?
very enjoyable...

Rating:
Summary: Is the Broadway play on vhs/dvd?
Review: I liked "Camelot" (1967), with Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, and Franco Nero. On it's own, it is very good. The stars do their best, and that's saying alot. There are no "wink-wink, nod-nod" hints toward JFK and that "Camelot". The songs are memorable, and were probably sung by the actors themselves. The film never seems too long, or too short. The location setting looks like long-ago England, and France. The stars act and sound like people from long ago, not as though they time traveled from the 1960's. It is a great combined tale of people who, on the one hand who probably did live in the past, and at the same time, are the stuff of legends. It is also the story of important people centuries ago who had the same human failings as the people of today do, even you or I. Where the film falters, thru no blame of the movie's actual stars, is in comparrison to the Broadway actors. Richard Burton, Julie Andrews, and Robert Goulet. Mr. Harris, Ms. Redgrave, and Mr. Nero are just not in the same ballpark. Comparing the play's cd to the movie's cd only shows how much better the theatre's performers really were. When asked to star in the movie; Richard Burton said no; then J. Andrews said no, then probably everyone else in the play said no; which made the movie producers have to recast all the parts. The movie casting department did a wonderful job, but, I hope, someone had a video tape of the original Broadway cast doing the play. I do recommend seeing the movie, on VHS or DVD.