Camelot

Rating:
Summary: undescribable
Review: Richard Harris was unforgetable. Ever since I saw the movie on the screen, I could not get the memory of Mr. Harris singing "Camelot" out of my mind. The story, the setting and all the actors were superb. Such a memory is a treasure. I was working for a video store in Elk City, Ok, and decided to look it up and order it for myself. I am so glad I did. Now I have it in my video library.

Rating:
Summary: Richard Harris IS King Richard.
Review: This is a beautifully moving film. Wonderful music. Worth the price just to see/hear Richard as he confronts his wife's betrayal with his beloved Lancelot. Great scene.

Rating:
Summary: "Camelot" shines anew in restored letterbox version
Review: The three stars are for the gorgeous restoration done to this film (my gosh, it actually IS in color!) and it's soundtrack.
The theme of "might for right, justice for all" is my favorite thing about "Camelot"; as for the way the story is told in this film, um, well... On the plus side, Vanessa Redgrave is dazzling as Guenevere, and enjoys wonderful chemistry with Richard Harris (the scene of their first meeting is charm incarnate).
Also includes "making of/behind-the-scenes" documentary & footage of opening night premiere party including interviews w/Richard Harris, director Joshua Logan, and producer Jack L. Warner. More than worth the price(180 minutes of film + 47 minutes of above-mentioned extras).

Rating:
Summary: ugh!!!!!
Review: This is the worst movie musical ever made.It's hard to believe
that this piece of junk was made by the same producer who did
the magnificent "My Fair Lady".I've read that Jack Warner spent
$18 million on the production.Yes,it looks good.But the script
is terrible-not that the show was great,anyway.And the entire
cast overacts badly.One critic called it "an appalling film with
only good orchestrations to recommend it".Well,he's right.At
least Alfred Newman and Ken Darby did a great job with the score.
Their work makes the soundtrack listenable.Other than that,a poor
script,atrocious direction(Vincente Minnelli and George Cukor
weren't available???),and SEVERE MISCASTING add up to a complete
misfire.Forget it-listen to the soundtrack CD or the Broadway
cast album and watch "My Fair Lady " or "Gigi" instead.

Rating:
Summary: It Still Rocks!
Review: I just don't even care what all these "Broadway Babies" think about the film version of "Camelot". I have seen this movie over and over and still love it. No printing presses in Medieval times? SO WHAT?! It's a movie. Get it? Movie- fantasy, fun, suspension of reality for a few precious hours.

Richard Harris is great as Arthur, very excited and ready to do good, Ginny is s very lithe and young, and ready to get into trouble, and Lance ready for a fall.

The costumes are SO cool. I didn't like them back in the 80's, but they wear well. The sets are pretty and the choreography is sweet.

Don't listen to the whiners and moaners. This is a classic, beautiful film!

Rating:
Summary: Such a disappointment...
Review: My earliest memory is seeing an outdoor community theatre performance of Camelot on a warm summer night. There was romance, there was drama and tragedy, there were swords and real horses and fire. It captivated my sisters and me so much we each remember it in a visceral way. As a result, every few years I return to this movie with renewed hope (I have selective memory loss when it comes to the classics being butchered on film) but always end up disappointed. This movie is such a terrible failure.
I love Richard Harris, and his acting is strong, but he just doesn't have the voice for the role. Sadly, no one in this production of one of my favorite musicals does - such a shame. Redgrave is simply wrong for the role, and Nero seems a parody of what Lancelot should be.
Even the strangely dated sets and costumes would be excusable if the performances were better, but unfortunately the entire thing falls flat. The themes of duty, love, passion, and betrayal seem limp in the hands of the stars and the director.
When King Arthur reprises Camelot at the end, a good production should capture a moment as heartbreaking as the moment when Robert Preston reminds Ron Howard that he "always think(s) there's a band" in the Music Man. Instead, the only heartbreak here is that one of the great gems of Musical Theatre was squandered on such a failure of a cinematic production.

Rating:
Summary: My personal tastes have really changed!
Review: How many times did I see this film in the theatre as a kid? Six,I think.I worshiped the score,the set, the actors and life seemed so magical and mystical.I have changed and become quite jaded as I approach 50! Watching CAMELOT tonight really showed that to me.Nearly forty years later I found myself laughing at the eye shadow, the hairstyles,the hippy-looking subjects and being restless with the slow pace of the whole thing.I still love the musical numbers of the show, but this version just seemed to me now lost in another time that for me really never was.The concept of Camelot seemed very appealing to my Kennedy loving kids mind.Now I have seen too much of the world and I just can't buy any of it.This is probably why the work of Stephen Sondheim so appeals to me now. Frankly I am a little bummed out that this movie did not recapture the innocense of youth for me. I would love to see this wonderful show remade in Sam Mendes' hands.I still love,though, the rawness and roughness of Harris' and Redgraves' voices over Burton and Andrews.Hmmm...maybe some of my personal tastes havn't changed after all!

Rating:
Summary: Should Have Been A Classic, But...
Review: One of my fondest childhood memories is being taken to the Majestic Theatre in New York to see Richard Burton and Julie Andrews in Camelot. It was a magical experience and one of the reasons why I have a lifelong love of musicals. Naturally, I could not wait for Camelot to be filmed. When it was, way back in 1967, I was extremely disappointed. Seeing it again - or, rather, trying to sit through it - has not changed that opinion.

All the ingredients were there for a classic musical: an enchanted setting, familiar characters, a brilliant score, a script with flashes of wit. So what if the choreography was minimal? Instead we got a musical with plot and characters, comedy and drama. At least, we got that when it was on the stage.

Where did the film go wrong? The casting nearly doomed it - a musical populated with non-singers. Of course, that in itself is not always a problem (see West Side Story) but here the actors try to sing for themselves. King Arthur's songs were written to be what Alan Jay Lerner described as "talk-sung" and worked as well for Richard Burton as the method had for Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady. But Richard Harris had delusions of vocal grandeur and destroyed every song he touched. And Vanessa Redgrave...not to mention Franco Nero...? Still, the film might have survived the casting if it had a better director. Joshua Logan was really a stage director and had little feel for cinema (see South Pacific if you doubt that). Camelot's direction is that it had no direction. Example: At the end of the film, during what should have been a brilliantly dramatic and unforgettable moment, the camera zooms IN on Richard Harris, almost going up his nostrils, instead of pulling back to reveal the entire scene.

Visually, some of the film is quite impressive. But three hours is a long time to look at just costumes and scenery. And some bits are just laughable - such as spreading the word about Camelot throughout the land with flyers. (a) They didn't have printing presses then because (b) hardly anyone could read. But that's the sort of film it is - you need to suspend your belief along with your expectations.

There are many good and even great musicals available on DVD. Buy any or all of them instead of Camelot.

Rating:
Summary: superb!
Review: WARNING: I saw Camelot as a child when it was first released-it made an impression. I then read the OFK by T.H. WHITE in one day and wrote an honors thesis on the development of the Arthurian legend in college. So yes,the story had some resonance for me. But why do I think Camelot works, whereas Excalibur, the latest King Arthur film and all the earlier films don't really? Because Camelot remembers 1)That audiences are more interested in people (character(s)) than plot. The people NOT the battles, NOT the magic, NOT the SPFX. (See why Spiderman2 works, or LOTR) And (2)Camelot is the ONLY version of the story that had a TRIANGLE--where 3 people care about each other EQUALLY, yet it still breaks. And the only way you get that tragedy is if both Guenevere and Lancelot love Arthur as much as they love each other. Otherwise it's just another adulterous affair, and Arthur is a cuckold we don't give a damn about.
Re production: The sets were not cardboard. They filmed on-location in Spain at Coca, Alcazar of Segovia etc. etc. Warners backlot built actual bricks/morter castle courtyard & real forest.

Rating:
Summary: ugh!!!!!
Review: This is the worst movie musical ever made.It's hard to believe
that this piece of junk was made by the same producer who did
the magnificent "My Fair Lady".I've read that Jack Warner spent
$18 million on the production.Yes,it looks good.But the script
is terrible-not that the show was great,anyway.And the entire
cast overacts badly.One critic called it "an appalling film with
only good orchestrations to recommend it".Well,he's right.At
least Alfred Newman and Ken Darby did a great job with the score.
Their work makes the soundtrack listenable.Other than that,a poor
script,atrocious direction(Vincente Minnelli and George Cukor
weren't available???),and SEVERE MISCASTING add up to a complete
misfire.Forget it-listen to the soundtrack CD or the Broadway
cast album and watch "My Fair Lady " or "Gigi" instead.