Rating: 
Summary: Ex-Excalibur
Review: I have always loved the classic tale of King Arthur and Knights of the round table. John Boorman's work on this movie is truly extensive with much attention to realistic costume and creating an atmosphere that would be expected for the tale. However, I would differ from many of the positive reviews here based on the fact that its strict adherence to the many parts of the storyline actually hurt the context of the movie. In fact, it is often better to depart from the story to let it be told with such anticipation and flexibility that it becomes new again. Boorman completely fails to do this. Truly, this handicaps the potential of the story to progress with anything more than a witnessing experience, leaving the viewer unfulfilled and wanting when the climax of themes arrive. Such that it is case when the Morganna rapes her own brother and the production chooses to ignore the transformation of the child character who results from that union, who also challenges his father, the king. In fact, the absence of this entire section of the story would not even add or subtract from the overall clarity of it as the episode seems to be included only because it is a "part of it." In contrast, Nicol Williamson gives a great performance as Merlin, along with Liam Neeson, and Patrick Stewart. An important factor to alert viewers is that this film contains nudity of a sexual nature, that really only vaguely serves to mention lust, but otherwise is a cheap bribe of eye-candy for the audience. I would attributed this to either poor directing or questionable writing, but in all truth, it simply should have been axed in the editing room. Many other parts of the storyline could be criticized but it would be better to comment that attempts are made to display scenes that needed better special effects, which did not have to happen in the first place (such as the dreamstate of Percival during his quest to find the Holy Grail). I didn't find the cheezy effects to elevate the movie in any way, and it appeared to do just the opposite. I have no choice but to give this movie three stars because while it has many major flaws that distract the viewer from entertainment, it still has some robust merit for attempting to capture the time period and events with accuracy. I would recommend "Merlin" with Sam Neil or even "First Knight" with Sean Connery, not because these movies by any means follow the Excalibur story, but because they follow the most important rule for movies...they are enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Theme/Plot Intertwine
Review: The plot is King Arthur, but the Theme is about the one God and Christianity. The symbolism and metaphors are everywhere in this film. My favorite is the Grail on the breastplate(s) in Arthur and Gwennivere's wedding - very subtly done - a primeval if not primordial scene in which the motifs of Early Christianity and the sun/nature worshippers of the day were very much in a symbiotic and coexistent relationship. The magnificence of this film is in the intertwining of the Arthur legend, the inverted crucifix of St. Peter as sword and the land.
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: real magic
Review: This film isn't perfect...in fact it seems to go beyond that kind of judgement. There is a real spark of magic here. Virtualy none of the characters are played as real people but rather they are shown as archtypes. This film is full of deep symbolism and was made with real love for the source material. Unlike most Hollywoodised medieval films there is no attempt to portray modern concepts and motivations (which is refreshing). I will be very suprised if anyone ever does a better version of the legend than this.
Rating:
Summary: Did they do any research?
Review: While I enjoyed this movie, I was repulsed by what they did to the legend, especially where Morganna and Merlin were concirned. They seem to have entirely forgotten Avalon, and confuse Morganna with Nimue.
Morganna was Arthur's half sister, daughter of Duke Gorlois and Igraine and his nemisis (which christianty has turned evil, but even this movie took it beyond that).
Nimue is the one whom Merlin taught and later imprissoned him. Nimue not Morganna.
Not to mention that Lancelot is the Lady of the Lake's son.
And the fact they turned paganism into necromancing! Celtics worshipped a triple Goddess, the mother, the maiden, and the crone, not devils as necromancers do! They blashphemized an entire religon with this movie
Rating: 
Summary: This film gets better with age!
Review: Also gets better as the movie goes along too! It starts out just awful but very slowly evolves into the great film it really is. I marvelled at the future stars who were in this movie- Gabriel Byrne as Uther Pendragon, Liam Neeson as Sir Gawaine, Helen Mirren as Morgana, Patrick Stewart(!!!) as King Leodegrance! Wow! Nigel Terry and Cherie Lunghi both gave wonderfully understated performances as King Arthur and Guinevere, Nicol Williamson is a funny and gripping Merlin, and Nicholas Clay wasn't half bad as Lancelot. I wouldn't recommend this for kids, but teenagers who love fantasy and medieval stories will get a kick out of it.
Rating: 
Summary: Excalibur
Review: I like King Arthur, Merlin, Excalibur (etc.) stories. This one followed the basic story we all know. But this movie has horrible acting, directing, and special effect. It didn't portray the characters well at all.
To top it off it's very long - I have no problem with long movies, but to have to endure a long movie that is as bad as this is more then I can handle. I do not recommend this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Practically unwatchable
Review: I don't care for the King Arthur tale much, and would not have gotten this movie except my boyfriend wanted to see it. He had seen it twenty years ago, when he was a little kid, and loved it. He liked it again when we viewed it tonight, but I really saw no merit in it. It was poorly acted, had a terrible, redubbed sountrack that made the actors sound almost comically bad, it was choppily put-together. It was overall, a shallow and totally ridiculous story with characters I couldn't relate to at all. I saw no moral tale here, mostly just a lot of bad sword fights and fake looking blood oozing over cheesy aluminum armour. Bad movie. I'm tellin' ya! Three hours of silly, overblown nonsense.
Rating:
Summary: SPELLBOUND
Review: OH, yes indeeed - this is one for all ages, beautifully cast, costumed, photographed, etc. etc. etc.FASCINATING TO WATCH after two decades is it? [and we make such a fuss over the current "Ring Cycle"] This one's also pre-CGI - and such splendor. New faces of that time include Gabriel Byrne and Liam Neeson - but it's the brilliance of Nicol Williamson and Merlin and Helen Mirren as Morgana that impress and continue to impress. A rare treat for myth lovers! [Great 'repeat' shots - the Lady of the Lake vs Mr. Boorman's shotgun holding hand in 'Deliverance' and for more fun there's always ZARDOZ!]
Rating:
Summary: It'll do...
Review: I'm a big fan of the Arthurian Legends and this movie hurts me deep down.I kept thinking this would be a great movie and my mythology teacher even praised it before letting the class watch most of it but guess what folks?It seems my mythology teacher is just stupid!!!The people in my class were either making fun of the movie,sleeping or doing their homework because the movie seemed so lame.I tried to watch it but the facts weren't 100% correct as I was expecting,the actors were terrible and don't get me starting on the "dazzling effects and time" that they put into this movie.If you're bored one day then I dare you to try and watch this movie,otherwise forget it.The only good part of this movie was the character Morganna or Morgan le Fay as we normally call her.
|
