Rating: 
Summary: Bring on the Wagner!
Review: The Arthurian legend (see, it's a "legend", synonymous with "myth", as opposed to "history"), which exists in different versions, is an amalgam of several myths dating from various periods, and this film is just bringing them together into a whole that's fancifully fictional, majestically mythical, and dreamily dazzling. So what if we're seeing intercourse in full armor, over-the-top combat scenes, and weaponry that wasn't copied from a museum exhibit? Really, who cares? In fact, I think the film's refusal to "truthfully recreate" period props, from armor to outfits to architecture, is rather a plus. Lancelot's shiny aluminum suit is quite fetching, and Morgana's breast plates put Madonna's old Gaultier bra to shame. The movie has some fine actors, not a few funny lines, and breathtaking scenery, but what I love most is the film's gloomily mythical, indeed wagnerian, atmosphere, which is largely thanks to its soundtrack. The Wagner score works perfectly (the Excalibur theme from Goetterdaemmerung, heavy with foreboding, is an especially brilliant touch). In fact, you might start listening to Wagner after seeing this. (I did.)
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointingly clunky film
Review: This could & should have been so much better. One wonders how a really good director capable of making Point Blank & Deliverance created this.... First, there's the casting. While I have no problems with Terry, Lunghi or Clay in more contemporary parts, they're really in way over their heads as Arthur, Guinevere & Lancelot. Perhaps it's the curse of modernism that makes so many actors today so bloody self-conscious & low-key. It seems to effect the overall staging as well making the round table scenes look like a 1960s fashion shoot ...cocktail party. While on the subject, why are all the knights wearing their (brightly polished?!) armor to table? This looks like something intended for 5th graders. From Prince Valiant to Excalibur, movies haven't done well by Arthur. My recommendation: read The Once & Future King (White) AND Arthur Rex (Berger), two brilliantly written, enthralling books.
Rating: 
Summary: Perhaps the greatest movie ever made
Review: This has perhaps the greatest cast of character actors i have ever seen. This movie does not need giant stars or killer action seens to sell. If you watch this movie and cannot believe you are actually there, there is something wrong. Nigel Terry does a spectacular job in protraying Merlin. This is full of realistic sword fighting seens, and has the most movingt soundtrack any movie has yet to add (even better than the god father's). Main theme is takin from the opera "Oh Fortuna". Full of mystic, majic, and tremendous love story, this is a 10 star movie.
Rating:
Summary: Fantasy, Drama, Unsurpassed
Review: Along with other great fantasy films (Clash of the Titans, etc) Excalibur is a visually stunning and well-acted film that is sure to capture fans and non-fans alike. Boorman directs a sublime retelling of Thomas Malory's age-old epic of King Arthur and his knights, Camelot, and the corruption of the Round Table, the final conflict with Mordred and Arthur's glorious death. This version is at once colorful, seductive, and sweeping. For some younger viewers, be aware of some nudity, sex and violence. The music, taken from excerpts of Wagner's incredbile Ring of the Nibelung opera i.e. Siegfried's Funeral March, Prelude to Tristan and Isolde, and Carl Orff's incredible chorus piece "O Fortuna", it is wonderful music appropriate to the tale of passion, darkness, magic and drama. You will find no other film version nearly as enticing as Excalibur. For hard-core fans, read Malory's Morte D'athur and White's "The Once and Future King."
Rating: 
Summary: One of the most BORING movies I have ever seen!
Review: I finally gave in and purchased this DVD based on the high reviews I have heard from people over the years. I couldn't have been more disappointed! What in the world were they thinking?? I found the movie miscast, poorly acted, poorly scripted, visually dark and dull, and (as is typical for the most boring of movies) painfully long! Save yourself some money by renting or borrowing this movie before you buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: No spanish
Review: Great DVD, image and sound. Too bad that I cannot show it to my spanish-speaking friends due to lack of overdub and/or subtitles in spanish
Rating:
Summary: Dated and overrated
Review: I never saw "Excalibur" when it was released in theaters, but a friend of mine did, and he raved about it. When the DVD became available, I grabbed it, eager to see what my friend - and numerous professional critics - thought was an amazing film.To put it mildly, "Excalibur" was disappointing. While I can see why my friend liked it back in 1981 - we were both 14 at the time - it holds little for me as an adult. The landscapes are suitably green and lush for Arthurian England, but the acting is amateurish, the special effects second rate (even for their time), and the story - while fairly faithful to the original - is told in less-than-gripping fashion. Alright, it's actually flat-out boring. (And I consider myself a patient viewer.) The quality of the DVD transfer is quite good, and it's interesting to see Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson and Gabriel Byrne in early work, but viewing "Excalibur" is a chore. John Boorman has made MUCH better films ("Deliverance", "The Emerald Forest"), and for the life of me, I really cannot figure out why this movie is held in such high esteem. Maybe everyone who likes it first saw it as a 14 year old boy in the early eighties...
Rating:
Summary: The Best Merlin Yet!
Review: I'm a long-standing lover of the Arthurian fiction cycle. I've read most of the books (including Malory's "Morte d'Arthur") available in the English language, and have developed my own fondnesses for characters. "Excalibur," for the most part, shows England as it might have been during Arthur's time ... muddy, bloody and wet (as opposed to the more frequent portrayals showing Camelot looking clean and pristine). The best part of this film, in my opinion, is the casting of Merlin. Nicol Williamson now defines that role for me, and is the meter by which any other portrayal is measured. The film is also visually beautiful, with some truly marvelous special effects (particularly the transformation of Uther to look like Gorlois when he visits Igraine). Well worth your time!
Rating:
Summary: Fair but nothing to be "amazed" by.
Review: I own this DVD only because it was given to me for Christmas. I myself would never buy it. When I first saw Excalibur back in the 80's, I thought it was rather boring. Today I don't think it is as much boring as it is dark and dull. The acting is pretty bad and any of the characters are likable. Arthur's voice annoys the heck out of me and the rest seem to be unhappy with their lives and always mad at each other. Merlin runs around and, like a broken record, does his magic with a single spell. Speciall effects are very poor, too. The scene where Uther, under Merlin's spell, rides his horse on the way to Tintagel Castle made me laugh. He looked like riding on one of those "quarter-horse-toys" that can be found in a shopping mall. I gave Excalibur two stars because it is overall "watchable" and it does have a few good scenes. However, I consider it as a one time event.
Rating:
Summary: excellent movie
Review: I'm a fan of the middle ages and fantasy alike. I've read lots of books when it comes to King Arthur and this movie stays true to the legends for the most part.It is an older movie but its better than any other Arthur based movies.
|
