Rating: 
Summary: A delightful musical!
Review: I highly recommend this movie musical of "Camelot." It is a very beautiful story, with wonderful songs and costumes. I'd give it more stars if I could. It's a beautiful love story.
Rating:
Summary: Emotional, Ethereal, Classic
Review: Camelot has a rather dated look to it in some ways. The reds and oranges, greens, and earth tones were colors that were all popular back in the late '60's, and may have been realistic for the time period depicted in the film. However, I don't suppose it would have been realistic for Richard Harris to wear the eyeshadow that has been mentioned in other reviews, or for Vanessa Redgrave to wear her hair in a Leeway bang or to have false eyelashes. As this was 1967, and many of the British actors in this film were Blitz survivors the film has a strong anti-war message especially towards the end.
The cinematography and audio are both sharp and glorious. Richard Harris' singing has more emotion than Richard Burton's did in the stage production of "Camelot". Harris'pensive version of "How to Handle A Woman" is moving, although slightly chauvinistic. Like her performance,Vanessa Redgrave's contralto is sensuous and subtle in contrast to Julie Andrews' soprano in the original stage version.--Perfect for a ballad like "I Loved You Once In Silence". It's nice that the two leads were capable of doing their own singing unlike Franco Nero, whose quizzical-faced Lancelot got better as the film progressed. It would have been interesting to see what could have been done with the three songs that were left out of the film-"Before I Gaze at You Again", "Fie on Goodness", and "The Seven Deadly Virtues"- the last of which could have been sung by David Hemmings' Mordred with such relish! In the event that such a film could be remade today (Why not? It's happened with "South Pacific"), I've often thought of who could do the parts justice. I've thought of Michael Crawford as King Arthur because at least he can sing, Sarah Brightman could still be Guenevere even though she's in her forties now, Christian Slater could match, if not outdo David Hemmings in sleaziness as Mordred, and Mel Gibson could be a Lancelot to whom even a King could forgive himself for losing his wife's affections.--Just a thought.
But the 1967 cast still shines like a jewel as has gracefully withstood the test of time.
Rating:
Summary: Dark and Bright
Review: If I'd reviewed this a few years ago, I would have given it a 3 instead of 5, but over time, it's grown on me, and is now one of my favorite cinematic tellings of the story.
Rating: 
Summary: One VERY Brief shining moment
Review: The story of a successful man with a heart of gold who is jilted when his love runs away with a younger fellah. That sounds like the plot to Camelot, but is actually my own personal story of why I own Camelot in my movie collection. I was dating a girl (definately not a Guenevere) who was in love with all things Camelot. I bought this movie and we watched it often. Should I have been suprised when one day she did not show up at home and in fact had moved in with a younger fellah? (He was definately no Lancelot either.) But, set my story in Medievel times and what've you got... Camelot, from the creative team of Lerner and Loewe had a shaky transition from stage to screen. Initially, the stage production has a strange story structure. Each scene contains one or two songs with the exception of two very long plot exposition scenes which are songless. It is also rare for the main character's goals to be challenged and compromised and still claiming an upbeat ending. These elements rarely work on stage and it does not help the screen version with some 'unique' casting. Like the film version of South Pacific, Joshua Logan stumbles through direction of the show for the same reasons his stage productions were so brilliant. Many times, the film is shot in extremely uncomfortable close-ups and the overall pacing is uneven. The casting itself brought about much controversy. The casting of Richard Harris as Arthur upset many who wanted Richard Burton to reprise his role. These fans are usually way off the mark in their demands, always assuming that Burton (or whomever they are championing) was overlooked for the role. Many times, the person is unavailable or in many case, wants way too much money or control of the film production. But that control may have been a good thing if it would have stopped the production from hiring Franco Nero whose dialogue had to be completely dubbed. Which brings up an even more peculiar question, Why wasn't Vanessa Redgrave's schoolgirl singing voice dubbed. I'm sure Marni Nixon could have brought some much needed strength to the role. So, Camelot has been hailed by some as the worst movie musical of its decade. I cannot rightly agree with that, in fact, there are some wonderful elements. Great performances, wonderful art direction, beautiful orchestrations among them.
Rating: 
Summary: There once was never a Camelot like this
Review: Joshua Logan dreadfully directed this film for full impact on the snooze-o-meter. The picture wavers in tone, but it does have skillful bits of genius tucked in among his labored directorial blunders. This is very uncharacteristic filmmaking from Logan. Richard Harris' King Arthur is terribly acted and unfathomable in the first half, but he achieves some effective moments later in the film. The movie is somewhat saved by a good performance by David Hemmings and the screen presence of Franco Nero. It's a film you really wanted to like but you are just not able to. It's a shame.
Rating:
Summary: A good movie, but somewhat long
Review: This was a good movie, but at times it became long and tedious, and the watcher just sits there wondering when it will be over. The characters were very appealing, however, and you can connect with them. It is a good telling of the traditional Arthur story, though, I think, and I would definitely recommend it to people who enjoy the legends. Peace out!
Rating:
Summary: thumbs down
Review: It's a bit much asking us to buy a video for the orchestration and costumes. I didn't pay much attention to the costumes, but as it happens, I found the orchestration rather syrupy. (Newman tries hard to turn "If Ever I Would Leave You" into "The Street Where You Leave" and fails. The movie would be better off if he didn't try so hard.) In any case, a musical in which "it's the music that counts" is a musical in which the principals have voices and actually sing their songs. Lowe's work is slaughtered here. Some points of (possible) interest: Lancelot's songs are dubbed in (by someone other than Franco Nero); Guenevere's songs are not: Redgrave sings them--sort of. Arthur never calls Guenevere "Ginny"; he calls her "Jenny". (Those who have read the book--"The Once and Future King"--know this. Those who have not read the book ought to.)
Rating:
Summary: It's the Music that Really Counts Here!
Review: In the annals of musical theater, there are more than a few great scores. Among them is Lerner and Loewe's "Camelot" which has more than its share of great songs that shine away from the musical play.In 1964, Jack Warner produced "My Fair Lady" at Warner Brothers. It was an excellent film, if a bit too cautious. The play was a phenomenon and Jack didn't want anyone mucking about with it. Going to see it was almost as exciting as going to church, even though the film itself was entertaining and beautiful to look at. Four years later, Warner attempted to do the same thing with "Camelot." In many ways, he failed, but in a couple of others, he outshone "My Fair Lady" and many other fine movie musicals. First, but not foremost, he enlisted the talents of John Truscott to design the film. No medieval tale has ever benefitted from so fine a vision. His sets and costumes are among the finest -- yet most realistic -- ever created. Second, and this is the best part (for me) -- he acquired the services of the finest composer/conductor Hollywood has ever produced. Alfred Newman had already won 8 Academy Awards prior to scoring "Camelot." Newman was one of a handful of composers who invented film scoring in the 1930s and 1940s. As head of the Fox music department from 1940-1959, Newman had the best orchestrators, best musicians and best composers working for him at Fox than could be found anywhere else. For "Camelot," Newman had a free hand, along with his associate Ken Darby who had worked with Newman for nearly 20 years, collaborating on such film musicals as "Carousel," "The King and I" and "South Pacific." The reason I'm making such a fuss over this -- in addition to the fact that "Camelot" earned Newman his 9th Oscar -- is that "Camelot" rates as one of the best scored musicals in film history and on this DVD, you can hear the entire musical score, free of dialogue and solo vocals, in 5.1CH stereo! What separates "Camelot" from "My Fair Lady" is that in the latter, Warner would not let conductor Andre Previn alter the basic orchestrations of the play. Previn had some leeway, and it really shows in the score when he cuts loose. By and large, though, this did not include songs....just musical underscore/transitions. Newman, on the other hand, virtually co-composed the entire score. Using the thematic material, he wrote a rousing, Erich-Wolfgang-Korngoldian ("Robin Hood," "The Sea Hawk," etc.) underscore that rouses you, thrills you and makes you feel great even if the film drama itself can't quite live up to it. Now watching a film for this isolated score feature alone is something only die-hard music lovers could tolerate, but it's there and can be enjoyed by anyone. Think of it as a full-orchestra karaoke feature and you can sing your favortie songs backed by one of the finest Hollywood orchestras ever assembled! I've always been partial to "Camelot" for the score, the sets and the luminous presence of Vanessa Redgrave. In truth, however, "Camelot" never looked as good in its first-run roadshow performances as it does on this DVD. This movie shimmers and sparkles and glows. It looks absolutely NEW. The sound does show its age in spots. If only Arthur didn't run around all the time calling Guinevere and Lancelot "Ginny" and "Lance." (Lance. Ginny. Ginny. Lance.). That almost ruins the film for me -- that and Arthur's eccentric blue eye shadow. It's a whale of a movie. And the score is one of the finest ever committed to film.
Rating:
Summary: The most wonderful rendition of King Arthur ever!
Review: I absolutely fell in love with this movie from the very first song! Guenivere (Redgrave) is very convincing, as are Arthur (Harris) and Lancelot. Harris is amazing as Athur. One feels all of his pain, his hopes, his confusion. King Pellinore, Arthers good friend, is a welcome comady relief. My favorite line? "How can you get a fair decision from people so impartial?" from Pellinore. The songs are generally very lively, although there are a few beautiful love songs. The costumes and scenery were amazing! (Keep an eye out for the guys with lots of dark eyeshadow, and remember, everyone in the movie has blue eyes.) The first time I saw this movie it climbed the list to one of my favorites. Camelot is a true classic, a must-have for broadway lovers, a must-see for anyone who has ever dreamed an impossible dream!
Rating:
Summary: The most wonderful rendition of King Arthur ever!
Review: I absolutely fell in love with this movie from the very first song! Guenivere (Redgrave) is very convincing, as are Aurthur (Harris) and Lancelot. Harris is amazing as Authur. One feels all of his pain, his hopes, his confusion. King Pellinore, Aurthers good friend, is a welcome comady relief. My favorite line? "How can you get a fair decision from people so impartial?" from Pellinore. The songs are generally very lively, although there are a few beautiful love songs. The costumes and scenery were amazing! (Keep an eye out for the guys with lots of dark eyeshadow, and remember, everyone in the movie has blue eyes.) The first time I saw this movie it climbed the list to one of my favorites. Camelot is a true classic, a must-have for broadway lovers, a must-see for anyone who has ever dreamed an impossible dream!
|
