Rating: 
Summary: Looks good, but hard to understand
Review: So much pain staking attention went into the details that the creators forgot one important aspect; a coherent plot! "Exccalibur" is a lavish telling of the King Arthor legend. It is all here; his mother's indescresion through magick; Arthor pulling Excaliber out of the stone; Lancealot, Guinivere, Merlin, and so on. All the classic scenes are here. The scenery is beautiful. The forest, the castles, the moors, all look so authentic, it is just wonderful. The only thing is, the script is thick with archaic phrases. Once, a magical spell is recited in old Irish. That is where the movie falls apart. Unless you already knew the story, you'd probably be lost. The actors all do a good job. But it is Nicol Williamson who steals the show as wise sage Merlin. It is a good movie, and if you really concentrate, than you can follow the movie. My only complaint that it takes effort and work to really 'get' the movie, which is fine, but aren't movies supposed to entertain us?
Rating: 
Summary: The Best Arthur Saga On Film
Review: Director John Boorman's "Excalibur", released in 1981, became an instant classic and the most graphic and sensual adaptation of the Arthurian saga on film. Drawing the drama from Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, it stars brand-name British stars at the time- Hellen Mirren (as Morgana) Nigel Terry, Nicol Williamson,Cheri Lunghi and even a young Liam Neeson. The film uses dramatic music, mostly Wagner - Tristan and Isolde's Love Music and Siegfried's Funeral March in the finale and closing credits. On DVD, the film looks and sounds fresh and strong as it did back in '81. Merlin seems to be the focus in this adaptation, as we see his rise and fall, but the rising and falling is itself the theme of the drama. King Arthur draws the sword from the stone, is in charge of leading the world into paths of wisdom, goodness and truth- ideals which come apart slowly one by one by the end of the film. Morgana's ambition produces a son by Arthur so that he could replace him on the throne. Mordred and Arthur's battle has them both destroyed. The disintegration of the Round Table is mostly because of Lancelot and Guenevere's adulterous romance, which in the film is portrayed as earthy and highly sexual, including nudity. Some of the film is rather violent although one might claim it's tame by todays' standards and it's nothing like Mel Gibson would direct. The look of the fillm is authentic to the medieval period, the performances are good and the colors-mostly green and metal blues seem to be highly symbolic. A great film to watch. Highly recommended. The DVD comes with the original trailer, bios on the actors and commentary by director John Boorman.
Rating: 
Summary: A boring failure
Review: I just saw this movie in its entirety for the first time and I have to say that it is one of the worst that I've ever seen. I don't see how other reviewers can say that the acting, music, and directing were done well. The voices sound dubbed, the music is heard only a couple times throughout the whole movie, and the scenes are very sloppy as you are never quite sure what is actually going on. Merlin's character is a teeter totter. Sometimes he's weak and stupid, sometimes he's strong and wise. If I was directing this movie I wouldn't focus on one character and then abandon him while trying to involve other characters. As for the special effects, they are terrible even for 1981. I spent most of this movie bored and confused.
Rating:
Summary: The Future has Taken Root in the Present
Review: An excellent movie and a very faithful adaptation of MAllory's Le Morte D'Arthur. This isn't your children's fairy tale however. Put the little ones to bed when you watch this gem. Why you ask. This is the R rated version of King Arthur's tale. There is not shortage of violence, blood and gore associated with that violence, and sex that filled these tales. Yes, these British people were not squeamish with blood and nudity back in 1981, but it does not take away from the movie. It only strengthens it by making it more realistic and belivable. This movie throws in everything from Uther's lust for Igraine and what leads to Arthur being born. Merlin taking Arthur, Arthur pulling Excalibur from the stone, Morgana and Merlin's rivalry, Lancelot and Guinevere's affair, and Mordred vs. Arthur. It also has the quest for the grail, which they could have made a little longer. ... it was too easy. Maybe they were afraid of the movie being to long (alread over two hours). But nevertheless, it gets the job done. The acting is excellent and the cinemetography is exceptional. You almost forget that this movie was from 1981! And I love how funny Merlin can be at times throughout this movie. Excellent stuff!
Rating:
Summary: KING ARTHUR LIVES!
Review: Film adaptations of Malory's "Le Morte Darthur" have never been scarce, and several of them are indeed classics of their kind. But ultimately, in the field of Arthurian movies, there is "Excalibur," and then there is everything else. From the opening night-and-blood veiled battlefield to the closing shot of the mythic Avalon-bound barge, "Excalibur" is a feast for eye and soul alike. Though no movie could ever hope to encapsulate the full scope or grandeur of Arthurian lore, "Excalibur" comes reasonably close, encompassing Arthur's conception, birth, rise to power, and climactic war with enchantress Morgana and illegitimate son Mordred, with many of the legend's highpoints well hit in between. Particularly powerful is director Boorman's portrayal of the Grail Quest, sobering yet inspiring. Some raised on Disney's "Sword in the Stone" and T.H. White's classic books may find Boorman's vision strong meat, but in fact it is a mostly faithful adaptation of Malory supplemented by an awareness of other Athrurian writers as well. One thing in Boorman's heavy favor is that he realizes Arthur himself is indeed the central figure of these myths--not Lancelot, not Merlin, not Guinevere or Perceval. Into this demanding role Boorman thrust little-known Nigel Terry, who meets and exceeds all expectations as the best Arthur ever on screen, a man bound by ideals he cannot fulfill but determined to see them through to the bitter end. Helen Mirren is a glorious and elfin Morgana, and above all Nicol Williamson nearly steals the show as Merlin personified. Half Solomon, half Loki, Williamson's Merlin is an almost unfathomable creature not of this earth, but even he consistently underestimates the inner strength of the young protege he sets on the throne. For Arthur's greatest strength is not his magical sword, but his commitment, his honor, and his faith--and while the walls of Camelot itself may crumble in the grip of Time, these worthy things are eternal. One quarter each romance, fairy tale, Christian allegory and Shakesperean tragedy, "Excalibur" is nothing short of a poem written on celluloid. And, so far at least, the "Le Mortre Darthur's" ultimate cinematic avatar.
Rating:
Summary: Visuals and soundtrack will knock your socks off
Review: Within my memory, there've been only a couple films featuring the legend of King Arthur. However, one of them released in 1981, EXCALIBUR, is the standard by which all others, past and future, must be judged. It's positively stunning in its excellence, and a must-see for any devotee of the tale. In a sense, EXCALIBUR is more a story of Merlin than Arthur since Nicole Williamson's fabulous, unique portrayal of the former overshadows Nigel Terry's role as the latter. However, the film faithfully depicts the Arthurian legend from his conception and birth at Tintagel Castle, to his death at the hands of Mordred. In between are all the other elements of the story one would hope for and expect: Uther Pendragon, the Sword In the Stone, the Battle of Mount Badon, Camelot, the Knights of the Round Table, Sir Lancelot, Guinevere, Sir Percival, the Quest for the Holy Grail, the Lady of the Lake, and Lady Morgana (a.k.a. Morgan La Fey). A note of caution for parents of young children. At times, the film is intensely violent, bloody and sexual. (Gee, it sounds like any normal day at the office.) You are warned. And it's not a movie for squeamish adults, either. The costuming is superb. The brilliant cinematography and film editing, combined with a magnificent soundtrack that includes "Carmina Burana" and "Tristan's Funeral March" at just the right scenes, make EXCALIBUR absolutely awe-inspiring. You'll want to watch it over and over. (I've talked myself into wanting to view it again right now!) The final scene is one you'll wish you could extract from your TV screen and frame, with sound. Oh, my! What a cinematic achievement!
Rating:
Summary: EX-EXCALIBUR
Review: One of the most important aspects of story telling is to decide whether to follow strict adherence to a tale's original inspiration or to depart at points which will enhance its worth upon retelling. You see, telling a story on film is to transfer an experience, an idea, a feeling and imagination. Excalibur is a Masterpiece of detail and attention to costume,location,time and culture, yet John Boorman fails miserably at presenting the story coherently in a visual, emotional, and sensible manner. Many parts of the King Arthur story skip important themes with conclusions that are essential to the point of the cinematography, dialogue and foreshadowing. A viewer should not be burdened with the confusion of sequences that leave out information or that provide cheezy special effects when these parts could simply have been redone or clipped from the movie entirely. There is one part where the character Percival has a dreamlike experience caught in the spell of Morganna and her son, that could simply have been more dramatic as character performance dropping the effects. It was distracting and actually lowered the quality of the movie. Nicol Williamson's performance was exceptional, as well as Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson. As a rated 'R' version, which I had originally expected to be rated for authentically reproduced violence (done well for 1981) should probably be more attributed to the explicit nudity-so nude that in fact to say 'soft-porn' would be conservative. Totally unnecessary are these nude scenes, that it appears to be gratuitous on every level for which these scenes distract viewers from the story. At some point you can only imagine that the dirty minds of the production staff wanted to see Cheri Lunghi naked (a very beautiful woman in this film for certain) but fail to justify the intensity with any dramatic entry or exit. It reduces the the scenes to nothing more than eye candy
which is shame for such excellent film shots. Also, the scene of Morganna raping her bother is reproduced almost mechanically as if it is included just because it is part of the story. There is no dramatic approach or foreshadowing, let alone explanation for her actions (you don't even get an anticipating obsession or inclination whatsoever). Hence, the audience struggles with detraction, confusion, and irritating dialogue throughout the movie. Truly, this movie lacks the kind of entertainment value that comes from making adjustments to legendary tales so that a movie can be made. I can only, in good conscience, give this movie 3 Stars because its positives are truly damaged by its negatives such that it leaves a stain on the legend of the story and a film experience for the audience that demands a reprimand for movie makers. Save your money and consider watching, 'Merlin' with Sam Neil or 'First Knight' with Sean Connery instead, not because these movies painstakingly keep strict adherence to detail of costume, location, culture or even the legend of King Arthur, but because these movies follow the most important rule...they are entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Classic Telling of an Epic Tale
Review: Excalibur is the definitive Aurthurian film. Everything in this film is first rate. The scenery was grand. The castles and battlefields made it all seem real. The staging of the battle scenes was impressive. The fighting was convincing, like these battles were really taking place. They were, if anything, too bloody. The acting was excellent too. Nicol Williamson did a great job of portraying Merlin. Merlin came across as wise, intimidating and stern, but caring. Nicholas Clay and Liam Neeson gave fine performances as the great knights Lancelot and Gawain. Nigel Terry managed his role of Arthur, but not as well as the others. The soundtrack was magnificent. Boorman chose the right music for the right scenes. This music conveyed the varied moods of this film-mystery, excitement, sorrow, and exultation. These elements come together amidst an epic tale- A story of Rise, fall, and redemption; trust, betrayal, and revenge. This film is good enough to watch many times. Even when one becomes familiar with this version of the Arthurian legend, it is still worth watching for its' looks, sounds, and performances. It can stir the emotions of viewers even when they know exactly what to expect.
Rating:
Summary: Great fun!
Review: This is one of my all-time favorites, so please pardon me if I get carried away on a wave of superlatives. Just about every scene has some element that warrants recommendation. I'll begin with the players: Foremost in my mind is Nicholas Clay's haunting portrayal of Sir Lancelot (he was born to play this part--sadly, he passed away due to cancer in 2000); Cherie Lunghi's winsome, impish Guinnevere; Nicol Williamson's eye-catching pyrotechnics as Merlin (which annoyed me at first, but later won me over); Gabriel Byrne's fierce, proud, and doomed Uther Pendragon (for my money, the best performance he's ever given); and last but not least comes Nigel Terry's virtuoso transformation from a bumbling, dutiful son to a brave, boisterous--and for a melancholy ripple of time, heartbroken--King. The composer Trevor Jones makes great use of two musical motifs-Carl Orff's "O Fortuna" and the climax to Wagner's "Tannhauser Overture." The most rousing sequence in the film arrives when King Arthur and his knights leave their castle and take to horse to challenge the evil Morganna. Here, Alex Thompson's cinematography, John Merritt's editing, and "O Fortuna" blend seamlessly. Image, sound, and timing become one-this little montage literally sings! (It was a touch of inspiration to garnish the galloping knights with floating flower petals.) There are few instances in film history where a non-musical has pulled this off (the race scene that ends "Personal Best" and Kelly Reno leading the horse into the ocean in "The Black Stallion" are a couple exceptions that come to mind.) This is John Boorman at his best. Mary Selway did a great job casting the film; there are many bit players sprinkled throughout that stay with me. The sets, the costumes, the art production . . . it's evident that these people were really in the mood to make a movie. What a glorious feast for the senses!
Rating:
Summary: Still the Best Arthur!
Review: At times the acting pushes the envelope a bit, especially Nigel Terry in the title role. But Helen Mirren defines erotic evil as Morganna, while Cherie Lunghi is equally appealing as the fair wife of Arthur. Forget the Disney-fied versions elsewhere, this is a telling of the Arthurian legend that is faithful to the ages. The cinematography is first rate, and the musical score with selections from Carl Orff's Carmena Burana is perfect! Given that this version is 20 years old now, it's a blast to see familiar faces in lesser roles... particularly Patrick Stewart in his pre-Captain Picard days. The nudity and violence might bother some, but they are well within context. This is a wonderful, wonderful movie!
|
