Rating: 
Summary: Mediaeval masterpiece
Review: John Boorman says that he made his design staff watch Terry Gilliam's Jabberwocky over and over again to get the correct atmosphere for this piece, and it shows. This is about as realistic and dirty as grail romances get, with an amoral Merlin played meticulously by Nicol Williamson, Nigel Terry's Arthur with feet of Clay, and a sinning and repentant Lancelot played by Nicholas Clay. John Boorman also proves that he knows how to spot talent, with support from Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne and Liam Neeson all lending this movie gravitas and quality. The story is cleverly adapted from Arthurian romance, taking liberties here and there, but entirely in keeping with the tradition of such storytelling.A beautiful film you will want to watch time and time again. It's a shame there are no extras on the DVD
Rating: 
Summary: Pain
Review: A swift massacre of beauty's rooting, one hour into Painbath, one's eyes will become one with the Not. Soon, you realize, each swordthrust has been born in your artery, bleeding the only dependance. It's value attempts a visual supplement, but its own mockery is not even traced sufficiently for the overseeing mythlover. I'm not sure where these other reviewers find home, but clearly there a cry is not equivalent to a leavedrop, nor a tree ancestor to Language. Clearly there Myrddin is crossed in agony, not even sufficiently graphed in pain, supplanted by a garish screen. Meanwhile, Brythonic tree roots still utter words, though muffled and misunderstood.
Rating: 
Summary: Enter the coils of the Dragon
Review: It's amazing anyone could despise this film. Excalibur is a lush and passionate retelling of the King Aurther legend that still holds its own to this day. And it did, in fact, set a standard for sword and sorcery filmmaking. Though it has its share of weak links (which film doesn't?), Excalibur scores far more hits than misses. The cast is excellent. Patrick Stewart as Gawain, Gabriel Byrne as Uther Pendragon, Helen Mirren as Morgana, Nigel Terry who plays Arthur all shine and turn in memorable performances. But the standout would be Nicol Williamson's Merlin. Over the top? Nope. Campy? Wrong again. He IS Merlin: comical, cynical -- yet wise and powerful. Both witness and puppet master. The score by Trevor Jones masterfully combines Richard Wagner and Carl Orff with his own original composition. Boorman's interpretation keeps all the mysticism of the legend intact, while placing the fantastic events in a real time and place. The director goes a long way to capture the griminess of the Dark Ages. The combination of realism and mysticism in Excalibur have never been realized in such great harmony until Peter Jackson's unforgettable Lord of the Rings came along. Ironically, John Boorman had intended to make Lord of the Rings before he settled for filming Excalibur. The only weakness worth noting would be the ambitious storyline. Boorman has so much ground, and characters, to cover, it threatens to dull the films emotional power. Aside from this, Excalibur is an astounding achievement.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best Fantasies ever made.
Review: It is such a Awesome and only Great Vision of King Arthur and the Knights of the round Table. It's the adventures of the famed
King that seeks a special Sword called " Excalibur". Can't tell you the rest, cause you must see this awesome and intense classic of fantasy cinema.
Rating:
Summary: Horrible? HORRIBLE?
Review: Pretense knows no bounds, apparently. When exactly did folks like alexislounor (really?) lose the ability to be entertained for the sake of entertainent alone. This film is nothing more or less than the Arthurian Legend for the masses, and a great story is still nothing but. If a film review by ANYONE claims that the Arthurian Legend has not been treated "realistically" (see alexislounor), do yourself a favor and run screaming in the opposite direction. This is a well-made film by an underrated director.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding "Story"
Review: If you do not enjoy a "story", then this movie is not for you. Do not expect a "slice 'em and dice 'em" action packed "shoot 'em up" movie. This is not it. This is a wonderful story of a mythical past. Remember, this movie was made over 20 years ago and the special effects and acting reflect that. There are no eye sizzling computer animated creatures or scenes. However, if you get into the story of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Excalibur & the Knights of the Round Table; you will enjoy this film. I give this movie five stars because I love the legend.
Rating:
Summary: junk! (Save the mosic)
Review: When I was little, I heard the classic tune "O fortuna" for the first time as a sound track of this movie. Finally, yesterday, I had a chance to watch the movie itself. I started with great expectation only to be deeply disappointed. Not consistent, no climax, no character development...just storytelling. Battle scene was disappointing too. Generallly just handful of soilders fight. Even I saw one of a sword simple bent (but the knight 'stabbed' by the bent sword was killed!). Duel scenes look ridiculous. Nudity made me doubt the whole movie. IMHO, it seems to be a cheesy one. Just very long movie without any fun or merit. One star is due to Patrick Stewart of Startrek fame. Excalibur is not worth my 2.5 bucks.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible
Review: Set in a mythical land called Camelot, Excalibur is John Boorman's vision of the Arthurian legend. Loosely based on Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur, the film chronicles the legendary King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Taking us with the sword Excalibur, we see Merlin handing it to Uther, who uses the sword for his own selfish means. After that, Uther places the sword in a boulder, which only the future king will be able to remove. Along comes simple Arthur, knowing nothing of the legend, who pulls the sword out to save himself a thrashing for losing Kay's sword. Therefore he is destined to be crowned King, with the great sorcerer Merlin as his esteemed guide.
Soon after, Guenever enters the picture. Boorman depicts her as being gypsy-like, and largely lacking in any developed personality (not that Arthur had any either). Guenever inevitably betrays Arthur with the invincible knight Lancelot (who ironically gains his power from his virtue). An emphasis is placed on their sordid relationship, and the Garden of Eden scene is symbolic of tasting the forbidden fruit (adultery) and being propelled from the garden of paradise. The sins of Arthur's father, Uther, come back to haunt him in the form of a she-witch named Morgana, his sister. Morgana imprisons Merlin in ice in "the realm where all things are possible". After plenty of poor acting and misty special effects, punctuated by sporadic flairs of grandiosity and poorly built upon drama, Morgana's son by Arthur battles against Arthur and they mortally wound each other.
I disliked the movie, perhaps because I previously read a book called The Once and Future King by T. H. White that chronicled the Arthurian legends much more realistically. The book gave the characters actual personalities, while the film made them rather flat, heavily dependent on the way we had already built the mythical characters in our minds. The movie was unrealistic to an almost surreal degree, portraying the Arthurian time (if there was such a time) as being both a dream and a nightmare at once. The dark battle scenes and incestuous scenes convey the nightmare side.
The actors were terribly wrong for the parts. Their painful self-consciousness makes them appear ludicrous, while the actor playing Arthur had no depth whatsoever. They just did not appear serious about making the film-it almost came off as a joke. While it is understandable why the movie should be condensed, it would have perhaps been better to only portray part of the Arthurian legend rather than packing it all into a clumsy story treatment.
On a more positive note, there were several lovely scenes (purely in the aesthetic sense) and some very skillful camera work. However, this did not neutralize the poor aspects of the film, and overall I would only recommend this film for laughs (particularly Merlin's overblown persona).
Rating:
Summary: Save Your Money
Review: The DVD gets two stars for setting, tackling the Arthur legend and trying to do it with some respect and restraint. However, beautiful scenery and excellent camera work can't negate a clumsy story treatment (granted Le morte d'Arthur is a rich work that is difficult to translate onto the screen, but perhaps an extra half hour to an hour wouldn't have hurt). Nigel Terry turns in a dismal performance. He seems horribly out of his depth through the entire picture except, perhaps, at the very end when Arthur dies; it's at this point he gives the character a maturity and dignity that is lacking in the adult Arthur throughout most of the film. Nicol Williamson looks like he's filling a contractual obligation and seems to play Merlin for laughs. The rest of the actors go about their parts in a pained, self-conscious fashion with embarrassing results. Buy Le morte d'Arthur (from Amazon, of course, if available) and read the legend, instead.
Rating:
Summary: Love it
Review: This is an incredible mythical story. I really love this movie. I have always like knight and gothic tales but, this was well done and the battle scenes were good too. Classic tale of King Arthur brought to life in a large scale way.
|
