Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Swords
Review: Waiting for the next installment of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, I watched Excalibur for the first time in quite a long while. I had remembered liking it, but was very surprised how well it still stood up. Indeed, in spirit, it reminds me a fair amount of Jackson's film, in that it doesn't shy away from the darker side of the relevant work. The story could easily have been stretched into 2 installments, but it nevertheless doesn't feel like it is overly compressed. Visually lush and ambitious in scope, I would rank it along with Jackson's film as my favorite fantasy pic's to date. Now, with the massive success of Jackson's film, hopefully someone will also take on The Silmarillion (or even the major portions of it)....
Rating: 
Summary: Didn't Quite Connect With This Viewer.
Review: I've always avoided watching Excalibur because HBO always shows the PG version, and I wanted to see it the way the director wanted it seen. So I was quite excited to get the DVD. And I was sorta disappointed. The movie looks great, and Director John Boorman gets points for telling the WHOLE story, from the downfall of Arthur's father, Uther, to the rise and fall of Arthur himself. I think the main problem was Nigel Terry, the actor portraying King Arthur- He just didn't seem to have the gravitas for such an epic role, and his pop-eyed look kept making me think I was watching an episode of BlackAdder, or Monty Python and The Holy Grail. Nicol Williamson is a lot of fun, in a campy way, as Merlin, and his scenes with Helen Mirren, the Sorceress Morgana, are great, and made me wish for more of them. The epic battle at the end seemed kind of small-scale, and very rushed, and a main character is impaled, and an instant later the lance is gone, and no one seemed to pull it out. That continuity error really freaked me out.....sloppy! Overall it wasn't such a bad movie, but not such a great one either. To me, John Boorman will always be the man behind The Exorcist II.....Yuck!
Rating: 
Summary: One of my favourite films ever
Review: You probably know the story of King Arthur & the Round Table already. So... Though I've read a lot of movie reviews that pick upon this film, I love the themes it portrays - especially the flawed hero. Even King Arthur has his faults. I've loved this film from the moment I saw it on the big screen. Filmed in Ireland it is a wonderful visual feast accompanied by a great score. John Boorman's use of classical pieces, such as Carmina Burana would make you think that they were written especially for this film (as in John Boorman's earlier work - Zardoz). It features many faces then not well known; Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Helen Mirren, and Gabriel Byrne, as well as lessor known stars Nigel Terry & Cherrie Lunghi as the king & queen.
Rating:
Summary: An Irishman makes the best film about this British king!!
Review: Not only is "Excalibur's" director from Ireland, the film is shot in Ireland! Erin Go Bragh! I first watched this movie at the age of 14, and 12 1/2 years later it remains one of my all-time faves. This film got royally [cheated] by the Oscars, IMHO. Why it did not receive at least a nomination for Best Picture, and Best Supporting Actor for Nicol Williamson, is beyond me. The biggest travesty of justice was the failure of the Academy to nominate Trevor Jones' superb score as Best Musical Score. His use of "O Fortuna", et al, was the first-ever piece of operatic music I ever took a liking to. At the risk of sounding sacriligeous and disloyal to my faith, Jones' treatment of "Kyrie Eleison" during the Arhur/Guenevere wedding is the best rendition I've heard anywhere, better than any Mass I've personally attended. (Fellow Catholics, please don't excommunicate me for that one!) Furthermore, without giving away too much of the ending, the combination of background music and visual imagery when Sir Perceval casts the sword back to the Lady of the Lake is simply stunning. "Down scope!" (: Without a doubt, the scene in which Arthur is conceived is one of the wierdest sex scenes ever done on film. I mean, Uther getting his jollies in a full suit of armor? I guess they had a different concept of "safe sex" back then! HA! One cannot help but wonder about John Boorman's decision to cast his own daughter for such a scene! It's too bad that Nigel Terry didn't get more filmic exposure after this film (then again, Mark Hamill never really went anywhere after "Star Wars" either), but as I understand, he does more theater than film anyway. It's ironic that none of the main characters were played by "big-name" actors; besides Terry (Arthur) and Williamson (Merlin), the late Nicolas Clay--rest in peace--(Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Guenevere), and Helen Mirren (Morganna) aren't exactly household names with the present-day movie-going public either, which is a shame as they are/were all extremely taltented performers. Conversely, it's pleasantly ironic that somewhat smaller characters like Uther, Leondegrance, and Gawain are portrayed by folks who *do* become big-name stars, namely Gabriel Byrne, Patrick Stewart, and Liam Neeson (another great Irishman)! It's also interesting to see young Byrne play the ...role of Uther Pendragon, as he's played rather wimpy characters in many of his other films. The actions scenes are exciting and delightfully gory. Granted, they're a tad unrealistic: mere swords defeat steel plate armor way too easily, when in fact even the chain mail armor the knights wore beneath the plate could withstand most sword blows. But what the heck, this is fantasy and escapism, after all, so sit back and enjoy the ride! Having read and mostly enjoyed Malory's "LeMorte Darthur," I note two significant omissions in "Excalibur" which nonetheless do not detract from the overall quality of the film: (1) we never see or hear of Sir Galahad, and (2) Sir Tristram of Lyoness is skipped over, for which I'm actually thankful as I found it to be the most excessively long, dragged-out and least enjoyable section of the book. Oh well, there's only so much of the legend you can cover in 140 minutes!
Rating:
Summary: Nigel Terry is excelent.
Review: This is a great film. It has everything from combat, Romance, Betrayal, Downfall, and tragedy. You name it! the film of importants. I like this because of the action and drama. I've seen it for my Miths And Legends class while I was in High School. If you like it, you can buy it. I highly recommend this.
Rating:
Summary: Sometimes the Brits do something right...
Review: This is an excellent retelling of the Arthurian legend. I think that if someone had to come up with a faithful distillation of the ENORMOUS Le Morte D'Arthur and cram it into two hours with a limited budget, this is about as close as anyone could come. There are necessarily some very glaring changes from Malory, but the story doesn't at all suffer from them. The acting is, for the most part, very competent. Nigel Terry does an excellent job of portraying Arthur over many years, and Nicol Williamson DEFINES the character of Merlin. The chemistry between the two is what lends the film most of its believability. The acting as well as the set direction and cinematography allow the film to seem real and gritty, yet keep it's rich and beautiful fairy tale-like quality. Clean armor shines, but knights bleed and get muddy when they fight 8-) I also love the driving score, dominated by Carl Orff's famous O Fortuna, from Carmina Burana, the only opera I come close to liking (The first time I heard it was in this movie, and I never get tired of listening to it). I don't give it five stars because of the use of the effects. I realize a BBC-type production is going to have a limited budget, and I wouldn't fault it for that, but at times they just get ridiculous. Director Boorman chose to use intermittent green light as a symbolic representation of the power of nature, but he uses it ALL THE TIME, and its a bit silly. Also, Merlin's cave is pretty corny, as Boorman admits if you listen to the commentary on the DVD. These things can't be blamed on budget. The second half of the film seems a little rushed, and the Grail quest is a bit too easily resolved. It could easily have been another hour longer without seeming to drag, as there are certainly enough of Malory's tales to draw from. On the whole, the film is absolutely brilliant. I first saw it when I was very young (too young perhaps- Brits aren't sqeamish about nudity), and it remains my favorite version of the Arthur cycle yet.
Rating:
Summary: ¿Aaaaac-ting!¿ "Brilliant!" Master Thespian would be proud.
Review: This is a well-done, if graphic, telling of the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, with a supporting cast that's even more stellar than the main players. This adaptation goes all the way back to the last days of Arthur's father, Luther Pendragon (smartly played by Gabriel Byrne), and how Arthur was born, which not many may know about. King Arthur's life is portrayed with elaborate drama and many brutally violent sequences in this film, but then again, that's the way the legend goes.
The best part of this movie lies in its cast, with some now-famous faces dotting the screen. Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson turn in excellent performances as Arthur's fellow knights, and Nicol Williamson (last seen as Cogliostro in "Spawn") makes both a scary and hilarious Merlin.
The special effects are a little on the cheesy side, but not bad for a film that's over thirty years old. The acting was a tad overdone for my taste as well, but I think the director was going for a dramatic a telling as possible...as if the viewer was reading it out of a storybook. To each his own, I suppose.
Regardless of familiarity with the story of King Arthur, I would recommend "Excalibur" as a better-than-average action film with a superior cast...just bring a lunch, for this story's a long one (2 hrs, 20 min!). Don't worry, though, your attention will be sufficiently held.
Rating:
Summary: A good adaptation
Review: This movie is an interesting re-telling of the classic Arthurian legend. And there are a few surprises. You get to see Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) in his first movie! But what surprised me most was the violence. Far more graphic than I expected when I got it. The commentary is realtime with the movie and the director rambles at times. Still, he had some interesting nuggets in there. Overall this is a good re-telling, with a nearly all Irish cast, but it doesn't really leave you with this desire to immediately see it again.
Rating: 
Summary: knights in shining armour??????
Review: the "legend of arthur" takes place in the fifth century, no castles, but hill forts made of wood and soil, (braveheart was more like the dark ages in their presentation and braveheart happened in the 13th century) arthur and his companions did have shining armour....chain mail and leather at best. pure 80's glitter the movie did not work for me. boorman has done better work. in his defense no one has done much with "arthur" in films. i hope some one does soon.
Rating:
Summary: 'Excalibur'(needs THX digital quality)
Review: I noticed they removed the original and awesome 'Movie Poster' artwork from the box cover,the next thing to go will be the sound and picture quality. A pattern is starting to form here,its called decay. This movie is a 'master piece' and should be given the respect its due. I know its probably better on DVD,but if decay follows VHS,it will surely follow DVD. Carl Orff's (German Composer) 'Carmina Burana-O Fortuna' is awesome,Richard Wagner's (German Composer)'Siegfried's funeral march'(Ring Cycle) isn't bad either,oh ya,some faces you'll know like Patrick Stewart (Star Trek the Next Generation) and Liam Neeson (Star Wars 'The Phantom Menace').
|
