Excalibur

[Lifetime]

I've heard a few members on the board talk about this film as a classic and all that, so I rented it from my video store and all I can say is eeeck [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]
Maybe I'm just spoilt by films like Gladiator and LOTR but that show was..pretty idiotic.
Can someone name me a few redeeming features? For all I know, Arthur looks horrible, the jousting scene was like a merry-go-round and the fight scenes were clumsy and stupid..
Maybe if theres any good to the show, someone could let me know, because I could only tolerate an hour of it before I decided to spare myself and go to bed.

[Tancred]

Did you get the full version, or the TV edit where they edit out Percival's grail quest to almost nothing? The later half of the film kind of saves it a little, I feel. The only other redeeming feature is that it is on the other end of the scale opposite, for example, Disney's The Sword in the Stone. A very dirty, totally dark-age feel to it.
PLUS they got all the background bits in it too, with Uther Pendragon being, as always, a bit of a pillock. Oh, and Nicol Williamson as Merlin, who really does steal the whole show.

[Lifetime]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tancred:
Did you get the full version, or the TV edit where they edit out Percival's grail quest to almost nothing? The later half of the film kind of saves it a little, I feel. The only other redeeming feature is that it is on the other end of the scale opposite, for example, Disney's The Sword in the Stone. A very dirty, totally dark-age feel to it.
PLUS they got all the background bits in it too, with Uther Pendragon being, as always, a bit of a pillock. Oh, and Nicol Williamson as Merlin, who really does steal the whole show.<hr></blockquote>

True but that doesnt make up for really shitty movie-making.. I dont know why but spending $6 renting a movie that stank that badly left me a sour taste in the mouth..

[Sneeki Two]

That movie was released in like 79 I think. At the time there just wasnt much to compare it to. If you think that looked bad, you should see all of the other B level Fantasy movies that were made in that decade. It was just the best of what was out there. It remained my fav until Conan the Barbarian was released. Now it also seems to be rather cheapish.

For instance when I look a Star Wars now it seems B movie-ish. But I also remember going to the movies to see it when it was first released. It was the best thing since sliced bread. It was the same with Excalibur. There just werent any movies that dealt with Fantasy sword and sorcery the way it did, so it kinda had a cult following. The story is almost nothing like the real Arthur stories, but I still enjoyed it.

When it comes down to it, I guess you just had to be there to appreciate it. Comparing it to something like Willow and many other later releases, I still think it is the better movie.

[Solomon]

Lifetime, I think that:

The awkward ("clumsy and stupid") fights captured the essence of wearing plate armor.

Merlin was great.

Mordred was a freak.

And, if they made the movie now, you'd be drowning in a sea of computer-generated "actors" fleshing out the big set pieces (not to mention the Lady of the Lake). It might be more of a spectacle, but it would also be a whole lot more phony.

All in all, it holds up pretty well after 20 years.

[Darkman]

Well to be honest, I never really like Excalibur that much myself. However, if you're interested in checking out some classic Camelotesque movies, you might want to rent Ivanhoe, which actually has some decent acting and the directing is much better than in Excalibur. Even if you don't like the movie you'll get to see Sam Neil when he was a youngin [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, this film wasn't so bad. I saw it years ago, and thought it was pretty good at the time. I still have it on video, but haven't watched it for ages. But then again, perhaps this says something about my taste in movies [img]tongue.gif[/img]