Rating: 
Summary: Dated and Hokey, But Somewhat Entertaining
Review: My primary issues with this movie may seem trivial to many people. However, seeing obviously 1950s-60s era hair-styles and makeup on the women really takes away from this film for me. I am a reenactor by hobby, and we go to great lengths to make sure that our attire and appearance are period. This is not the case here, by any stretch of the imagination. The film is entertaining enough as it touches on the Arthurian legend, but otherwise I was not terribly impressed.
Rating:
Summary: Robert Taylor's Horse was the Best Actor!
Review: Normally, I am able suspend disbelief and really get into this type of movie, but "Knights of the Round Table" somewhat defeated me. If one listens carefully to the opening narrative, the end of the Roman occupation of Britain happened shortly before the High Middle Ages -- and looking at the costumes you can tell they weren't kidding! So putting any question of historical accuracy aside, what would recommend the movie?
First of all, the setting is lovely. The movie seems to have been made in England, or in a corner of a back lot that does a wonderful job of standing in for England. Robert Taylor's Lancelot is handsome, as is Mel Ferrer's King Arthur, while Ava Gardner is beautiful, if slightly mature looking, as Arthur's legendary queen. Taylor, who did such an excellent job in so many movies, including "Ivanhoe," is a little hammy in the role, while Ferrer is strangly passive as Arthur. Gardner probably gives the most natural performance of the lot.
However, to me the acting honors go to Taylor's beautiful horse, who has been trained to instantly respond to his master's voice. The horse is quickly able to figure out how to rescue Lancelot from quicksand, by flinging the reins out over the bog with uncanny head tosses until Taylor catches them and is dragged to safety. That is only matched by Taylor singlehandedly overturning a huge monolith at Stonehenge with the touch of his hand!
However, the movie is not total camp. Gardner's performance is touching, especially the final scene with Lancelot before the two are to go on trial for adultery. IMO she is a much better actress than she has been given credit, or than apparently she felt that she was -- which is a shame. If you enjoy movies about this period of English history and legend (no matter when it actually took place) I would say it won't hurt to add it to your DVD library.
Rating: 
Summary: MGM'S CAMELOT EPIC HITS THE MARK
Review: Richard Thorpe's take on the Arthurian legend is a fun and sometimes even poignant retelling of this undying myth. Though this is a fine all-around movie, the production values are what jump out at you: from the heraldry and splendid arms and armor of the knights to the castles, courts, countrysides and ladies they war with one another for, the whole picture is a virtual feast to the eye. The various battle scenes, divided into several large-scale melees and invididual duels, are excellently choreographed and suspenseful. Compared to the lavish costumes, sets, and battles, the acting itself does come in second, despite a tremendous cast. Still, Robert Taylor and Mel Ferrer essay their roles of Lancelot and King Arthur with zest and apparent respect for the icons they represent, and Anne Crawford is a wonderfully beautiful but deadly (though non-magical) Morgan le Fay. Ava Gardner makes a believably tormented--and particularly lovely-- Guinevere, but doesn't get enough screen time. Merlin, too, is underdeveloped, and his exact role (teacher? wizard? doting foster-father?) goes unexplained.The basic plot of "Knights of the Round table" is built around the familiar Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle, but Thorpe invests his picture with an identity and vibrant life all its own. Colorful, lively, and thrilling, "Knights of the Round Table" is a flawed but still-wonderful delight.
Rating:
Summary: KING ARTHUR - HOLLYWOOD STYLE
Review: Rule one of King Arthur stories: there is no "definitive" version. Every writer or filmaker adjusts the story to serve their audience and/or the point they are trying to make. That being said, this version was created to serve the Hollywood epic audience to tell a tragic story of love and war in the middle ages, and it does that job. The story here follows Arthur gaining the throne and his friendship with Lancelot, both of which are threatened by Lancelot's love for the Queen, Guenevere, and the ambitions of Morgan, Arthur's half-sister, and her champion, Mordred. The film is filled with the kind of spectacle you would expect form a miod-'50's Cinemascope epic. There are battles, jousts, swordfights in woods, fields, castle steps, court pageantry, heraldry, court dancing, challenges, court intrigue, and a passionate kiss or two. Merlin is there, but there is no "magic" to speak of. He is there mostly as an advisor to Arthur. The acting is rather stilted. Robert Taylor has about two expressions, mouth open and mouth closed. Niall MacGinnis is at his stoic worst. Mel Ferrer keeps a straight face and does express some of the sadness of the king's position. The women (Ava Gardner as Guenevere, Anne Crawford as Morgan) get to emote, Crawford especially playing off Stanley Baker as a sinister plotter. The use of heraldry is very effective. The designs are mostly of period style, and allow the viewer to tell who is who. The armor shows some very good work, marred only occasionally by non-period details. The swordfights, though falliing into the typical Hollywood style of holding the shield behind, taking big wind-up swings, and stabbing the armpit, is done with verve and energy. One battle scene is a direct swipe of Olivier's Henry V, only more exciting. The cosumes are almost completely the product of the designers imagination, only somewhat inspired by period styles. This was MGM's first Cinemascope movie, and it shows. I have seen it both in pan-and-scan and in a Widescreen DVD. In p&s, the cinematography looks downright boring and uninspired. In widescreen, you realize that each shot was carefully composed to make maximum use of the whole screen. The action on screen is still a little stiff, but the picture is beautiful and, in some instances, powerful. Unfortunately, I don't know of any widescreen editition in the USA. The differences in the plot of this movie and "Le Morte D'Arthur," which is credited as the source material, could fill a book, and the period style of the costume, armor, and production design fits more the period in which it was written (1400's) than in which it is set (post-Roman Brittain). The script is corny, but if you can get into it, that's part of the fun. This movie is worth seeing at least once, being generous towards the Hollywood sensibilities under which it was made.
Rating: 
Summary: Not the best interpretation of Arthurian mythology
Review: This film is a grossly erroneous portrayal of King Arthur that fails to adhere to even the most basic elements of Arthurian mythology. The performances were lacklaster and uninspiring. For a more accurate and definitive account of King Arthur's court, I would highly recommend John Boorman's 1981 masterpiece "Excalibur" which is also available for sale here on amazon.com.
Rating:
Summary: The once and future great hollywood version of the legend!
Review: Though getting on in years, this great movie from the middle of the twentieth century will always remain the great Hollywood version of the Arthurian legend-on-celluloid. No matter what comes after, no movie will ever be the same. It has earned its place in the swashbuckling greats of all time, and it has yet to be upstaged. Excalibur, First Knight, they fail to reach the level of this movie. Though not great in acting, it HAS great actors, and a familiar story (but not predictable). The fighting is in the grand hollywood style; outdated, but still spectacular, with the large mass-scenes as in Spartacus or Gone with the Wind. A must for those interested in Arthurian movies as well as the lovers of those grand Hollywood productions!
Rating:
Summary: Splendidly miscast, beautifully photographed, and watchable
Review: Well, folks, it was 1954. Not many of you were there, but speaking as someone who was 10 years old when he first saw this film, it was the "thing that dreams were made of." You have to look at films from the early fifties without reference to what you get today. Good special effects meant that he studio fans actually blew all of the costumes in the same directions. The studio system was about to die. Movies paid the bills with star's faces. A 10 year old went to see the story, and this is a great story. You can watch this movie. It isn't history, or fantasy. It is just a lot of fun from a time when you could set through it a second time for free if you called you mom and asked her not to come get you for two more hours. Put this in your collection and you can watch it once a year and enjoy it. And if you really want historical accuracy, this film is it. It is just exactly what films were all about in 1954 before TV came along and shrunk everything into one syllable.
Rating:
Summary: feast for the eyes, but little else
Review: With the cast this movie had, I would have expected a bit more life. First bit of trouble is Robert Taylor. Why the man rose to the star he did is amazing because he had all the range from A-B. His performance is very monotone, but oddly enough everyone seems to try for that flat, non emotional level. Maybe they think Brits talk like that??? The costumes are gorgeous, as is the radiant Ava. But there is no fire in the leads and all seem to barely know their lines continually uttered with one tone indifference, let alone FEELING the part. The passion is missing in the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle, because of lack luster performances by all three, most especially Taylor. He is a dead dull which really sinks the movie. The only one really showing any spark of true swashbuckle was the late Sir Stanley Baker (Zulu) as Mordred (all connections to being Arthur's son sanitised from the script!!!). If you just want a pleasingly dated look at a richly coloured costumer in MGM wide screen, this is nice watch. Great for Stanley Baker Fans or Ava Gardner addicts. However, if you are true fan of the round table or good acting take a miss, for by the end you will be yawning......
Rating:
Summary: feast for the eyes, but little else
Review: With the cast this movie had, I would have expected a bit more life. First bit of trouble is Robert Taylor. Why the man rose to the star he did is amazing because he had all the range from A-B. His performance is very monotone, but oddly enough everyone seems to try for that flat, non emotional level. Maybe they think Brits talk like that??? The costumes are gorgeous, as is the radiant Ava. But there is no fire in the leads and all seem to barely know their lines continually uttered with one tone indifference, let alone FEELING the part. The passion is missing in the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle, because of lack luster performances by all three, most especially Taylor. He is a dead dull which really sinks the movie. The only one really showing any spark of true swashbuckle was the late Sir Stanley Baker (Zulu) as Mordred (all connections to being Arthur's son sanitised from the script!!!). If you just want a pleasingly dated look at a richly coloured costumer in MGM wide screen, this is nice watch. Great for Stanley Baker Fans or Ava Gardner addicts. However, if you are true fan of the round table or good acting take a miss, for by the end you will be yawning......
|
