# Thoughts on the 1981 Film Excalibur and other King Arthur Films



## BAYLOR (Dec 4, 2019)

The first time I had saw *Excalibur  *was in 1981 at  movie theater which no longer exists. The opening  sequence started with the the clang, class  and battle of  Uther Pendragon vs  his  rivals to the music of Wagner.  I was  hooked from  the open  sequences right the very end , with Arthur being taken to to the Island of Avalon. In spite an anachronism of two, this  film more then does justice to the story of King Arthur.  Ive since seen the film times since and it's still an marvelous peace of film making  and has lost none of it magic. 

What are your thought on this film and other films that have tackled the story of King Arthur, Guinevere. Lancelot Merlin, Morgana  and the Knight of the Round Table ?


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 5, 2019)

Excalibur is THE definitive King Arthur film. I watched the first ten minutes of that atrocious Guy Ritchie film the other day, then turned it off in disgust. The Clive Owen film was also very poor


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 5, 2019)

I was disappointed in *Excalibur* the first time I saw it, which was when it first came out.  There were things about it that I quite admired, but other things that I found rather ludicrous.  However, it has grown on me with subsequent viewings over the years, with the result that I now think rather highly of it.  More to the point, I don't think that anyone has come up with anything better, or even as good, before or since.  So while I am still waiting for something I could truly regard as the definitive King Arthur film, *Excalibur *comes closer than anything else I have seen.  (I do, however, have a soft spot for* Camelot*, which I watched when_ it_ first came out and quite swept me away back in 1967.)


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 5, 2019)

I watched it at the university film club and was blown away by it. There are some ludicrous elements, but the sheer brio just carries you along, and the use of music is inspired. (I think it was the first time I'd heard any Wagner apart from Ride of the Valkyries.) I can still recite the charm of making, though I've no idea how one should spell it.


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 5, 2019)

I like the myth of Arthur and I think *Excalibur* has caught the spirit of this better than any other film [except for maybe *Monty Python and the Holy Grail* which is a wonderful film and about as historically accurate as the big *E*].
But as Arthur is much more myth than history I think it will be difficult to come up with a vision that many fine acceptable. Was he post-Roman, Anglo Saxon, Celtic, viking or a renegade Druid? Or really French, Frankish or Norman and the stories just got written down here?
As a kid I loved *A Spaceman in the court of King Arthur*. I don't know why now, it's an awful film in retrospect. Disney when it was at its cheapest.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 5, 2019)

I thought the use of Gotterdamerung for a soundtrack was both inspired and poignant. The tale is, in many ways, a tale of the twilight  of Arthur himself. It managed to capture both the romance of the legend and the muddy reality of medieval combat. I also think the end scene of Arthur's body on the boat in the sunset is just beautiful. I liked it when it was first released and my affection grows with each time I watch it.


----------



## -K2- (Dec 5, 2019)

HareBrain said:


> I watched it at the university film club and was blown away by it. There are some ludicrous elements, but the sheer brio just carries you along, and the use of music is inspired. (I think it was the first time I'd heard any Wagner apart from Ride of the Valkyries.) I can still recite the charm of making, though I've no idea how one should spell it.



Well, keep in mind every bit of the information in these links could be wrong, here is some speculation on the subject found on the web:



			Evertype: Merlin's Charm of Making
		










						Excalibur (film) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




That said, I bet some of the members here could get the *spelling and words right* compared to what can be found on the net (the repeated and reused info from one source site). @Jo Zebedee comes to mind.

Just personal opinion... yet like many things, in this case a historical language, this should really not be up for debate at this stage of the game. Sadly, however, the real experts rarely chime in on such frivolous things unless pressed... like it's some secret.

Bluntly, it should be set in stone... *snort* 

K2


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 5, 2019)

The best King Arthur film is clearly 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'

However I do have a soft spot for 'Excaliber', so it's a close second. I think it does do a wonderful job at portraying the fantasy of the original material: the mystical and the chivalrous. Bombastic, gaudy and OTT yes, but this is a 1000 year old legend, not a kitchen sink drama. Loved the soundtrack too, as others have pointed out!


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 5, 2019)

HareBrain said:


> I can still recite the charm of making, though I've no idea how one should spell it.



Yes, that's it! Speak the words!

I love _Excalibur_. It's one of my favourite films, both and despite its excesses. It looks fantastic, the soundtrack is superb, and the acting is - well, everyone seems right. Particular mention must be made of Nicol Williamson's vaguely West Country Merlin, which is one of the oddest and most manic bits of acting I've ever seen. Whether or not it's objectively good, it gets away from the pointy-hat stereotype. Nice to see Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson in small roles, too! I particularly respect the way that the film is bloody and rather oddly-shaped, which must have driven away a lot of viewers who wanted something more suited to Hollywood (and maybe even Disney).

Actually, while were here, I like _The Holy Grail_ and even Terry Gilliam's _Jabberwocky_. They're obviously ridiculous silly films, but something about them does feel right - maybe it's the sheer squalor that they depict, which feels appropriate for the (mystical) middle ages.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 5, 2019)

Toby Frost said:


> Actually, while were here, I like _The Holy Grail_ and even Terry Gilliam's _Jabberwocky_. They're obviously ridiculous silly films, but something about them does feel right



And there is something epic and heroic about both of them, at times, which works alongside the comedy and isn't eroded by it. Although they both poke fun at the genre, at some level they seem very fond of it too.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 5, 2019)

*Exclalibur* was and still is my favourite film of the Arthur legend. Is it perfect? No, but it does a better job and in better style than any film before or since. The two worst attempts _have_ to be *First Knight* and the 2004 film *King Arthur*. All copies of these two should be hunted down, burned, and the ashes spread in the desert.


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 5, 2019)

Watery tarts chucking swords at innocent passers by is no basis for a stable form of government.




Amen


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 5, 2019)

Vince W said:


> *Exclalibur* was and still is my favourite film of the Arthur legend. Is it perfect? No, but it does a better job and in better style than any film before or since. The two worst attempts _have_ to be *First Knight* and the 2004 film *King Arthur*. All copies of these two should be hunted down, burned, and the ashes spread in the desert.



The time frame of Arthur would been  about the 5th or 6th century A D and one biggest issues was with *Excalibur,*  is the armor that King Uther,  Duke of Cornwall, King  Arthur and the rest of the knights were wearing. All of it was  High Medieval armor.  Suits of  kind of sophistication and technology  don't began  appearing roughly about the 13th century. The people of that era would have likely  worn leather armor or maybe some remanent  of Roman Plate armor.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 5, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> The Time frame of Arthur would been  about the 5th or 6th century A D an, d one biggest issues was with Excalibur is the Armor that King Uther,  Duke of Cornwall, King  Arthur and the rest of the knights were wearing. All of it was  High Medieval Armor,  You don't being seeing that kind of armor until roughly  about the 13th century. The people of that era would have worn leather Armor or maybe some remanent  of Roman Plate armor.



C'mon there really isn't a historical Arthur! At least a king like the stories. The stories may have had _tiny _dregs of much older lore woven into it...but so much was added and invented _much _later. 

I believe that many of the tales that feed into the 12th Century Geoffrey of Monmouth's that is really the first draft of the modern Arthur, centred much more on Merlin as some sort of mad magic hermit. But took bits and pieces from all sorts of places. 

So this verion, the first tale of Arthur we'd recognise, was a fantasy right from the start. So who cares what a 1981 film decided was the Arthur's knights armour. If it was really set in the 6th Century then there shouldn't be knights and any chivalrous behaviour!


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 5, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> C'mon there really isn't a historical Arthur! At least a king like the stories. The stories may have had _tiny _dregs of much older lore woven into it...but so much was added and invented _much _later.
> 
> I believe that many of the tales that feed into the 12th Century Geoffrey of Monmouth's that is really the first draft of the modern Arthur, centred much more on Merlin as some sort of mad magic hermit. But took bits and pieces from all sorts of places.
> 
> So this verion, the first tale of Arthur we'd recognise, was a fantasy right from the start. So who cares what a 1981 film decided was the Arthur's knights armour. If it was really set in the 6th Century then there shouldn't be knights and any chivalrous behaviour!



Im well aware of that King Arthur never actually existed. Im just pointing  out that In story set in Britain In the 6th  century would'n't likely have Knights in High Medieval armor. I know King Arthur is the work of fantasy imagination.  There wen't any Knights in that era given the state of the world Chivalry didn't;t exist in form whatsoever.

I  do admit that there  is a silly  dreamer part of me that wishes  King Arthur , Merlin and Camelot were all real  .  Love the story and I love characters very much.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 5, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Im well aware of that King Arthur never actually existed. Im just pointing  out that In story set in Britain In the 6th  century would'n't likely have Knights in High Medieval armor. I know King Arthur is the work of fantasy imagination.  There wen't any Knights in that era given the state of the world Chivalry didn't;t exist in form whatsoever.
> 
> I  do admit that there  is a silly  dreamer part of me that wishes  King Arthur , Merlin and Camelot were all real  .  Love the story and I love characters very much.



Well, Excalibur the movie wasn't set in the 6th Century was it! It was set in the times of Arthurian legend


----------



## -K2- (Dec 6, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> Well, Excalibur the movie wasn't set in the 6th Century was it! It was set in the times of Arthurian legend



No, I just checked... 1981 

K2


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 6, 2019)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> I was disappointed in *Excalibur* the first time I saw it, which was when it first came out.  There were things about it that I quite admired, but other things that I found rather ludicrous.  However, it has grown on me with subsequent viewings over the years, with the result that I now think rather highly of it.  More to the point, I don't think that anyone has come up with anything better, or even as good, before or since.  So while I am still waiting for something I could truly regard as the definitive King Arthur film, *Excalibur *comes closer than anything else I have seen.  (I do, however, have a soft spot for* Camelot*, which I watched when_ it_ first came out and quite swept me away back in 1967.)



For me, *Excalibur  *never gets old. This film has so much heart and wonder. One scene particular really does it for me. The scene in Merlin's Cave in which Merlin shows to Morgana all the wonders, secrets and visions of Camelot and the power and mystery of the Dragon that give life to the very land. Nigel Terry and Helen Mirren were both amazing in the roles of Merlin and Morgana and they both almost stole the show. 

Ive seen *Camelot* a few times ans yes, I like that film as well.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 6, 2019)

The one thing about the Arthurian saga is how widespread it is across Britain. There are tales from as far afield as Cornwall, Wales, Glastonbury and even Scotland (Arthur's Seat and the Eildon Hills - where, it's claimed Arthur and his knights are asleep, waiting to be called once more). The legend should ( in my opinion) fill us with wonder and hope. Boorman's version captures that for me


----------



## -K2- (Dec 6, 2019)

And then, there is this... (coincidentally from 1981 like Excalibur):

Do yourself a favor, don't watch this 






K2


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 6, 2019)

No historical Arthur @Venusian Broon and @BAYLOR? Surely you can't be certain of that... As far as I am concerned, in the jigsaw puzzle that is latter 5th century British history there is a missing piece that's distinctly Arthur shaped. Has anyone else read Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms by Alistair Moffat? I found that very compelling


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 6, 2019)

-K2- said:


> Do yourself a favor, don't watch this



I'm not saying that it was a particularly good movie, but it was by no means as bad as I thought it would be. The premise of a bunch of bikers playing at knights and chivalry and taking names from the Arthurian stories, then coming to take it all more seriously than they had probably intended, I had no trouble believing that. I'd spent enough years in the SCA to understand how such a group could evolve.  The script didn't live up to what it could have been, but there were a handful of moments when it came close.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 6, 2019)

Narkalui said:


> Watery tarts chucking swords at innocent passers by is no basis for a stable form of government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure about your "amen". At this stage I'd be willing to give it a go.


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 6, 2019)

-K2- said:


> And then, there is this... (coincidentally from 1981 like Excalibur):
> 
> Do yourself a favor, don't watch this
> 
> ...


I loved this film when I saw it [many many years ago]. And it has Ed Harris!


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 6, 2019)

By the way, John Steinbeck's book _The Acts of King Arthur and his Noble Knights_ is really good.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 6, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> The one thing about the Arthurian saga is how widespread it is across Britain. There are tales from as far afield as Cornwall, Wales, Glastonbury and even Scotland (Arthur's Seat and the Eildon Hills - where, it's claimed Arthur and his knights are asleep, waiting to be called once more).



You mean it was truly made up so people just said it occurred in their own back yard, because... why not?   

Plus, the huge number of historical, semi-historical and legendary figures that are asleep in mysterious hills that will come to life to save their lands is going to make the Earth a crowded place when this moment of awakening occurs. It's going to give it a kinda olde worlde avengers feel methinks! Charlemane, Fredrick Barbarossa, Bran the Blessed, Francis Drake, Genghis Khan...



Foxbat said:


> The legend should ( in my opinion) fill us with wonder and hope. Boorman's version captures that for me



I'm not sure about hope, there's definitely a bittersweet taste to it all, that Tolkien also used for his history of middle Earth; the passing of an age.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 6, 2019)

There's clearly some vast showdown going to happen!


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 6, 2019)

Narkalui said:


> No historical Arthur @Venusian Broon and @BAYLOR? Surely you can't be certain of that... As far as I am concerned, in the jigsaw puzzle that is latter 5th century British history there is a missing piece that's distinctly Arthur shaped. Has anyone else read Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms by Alistair Moffat? I found that very compelling


Of course I'm not certain of it, it may be that the Arthurian legends have some sort of memory of the last stand and fall of a people against the onslaught of the Saxons & Angles. But I suspect if it is, it is only a tiny sliver. Yes, perhaps there was a 5th Century warlord, maybe nicknamed the bear (Roman soldiers would asscoiate with fearsome creatres on a regular basis, but then I suspect most warrior have done time immemorial), who carved out a kingdom - the last remnants of Romano-Britain, and checked the Westerly advance of the Saxons and other foreign tribes for a time, but then fell and England was then formed.  

But so much of the legend and the stories were clearly made up in the 12th-15th century. 

Off the top of my head there are older tales that centre around Merlin, from Welsh literature, but it seems clear that they dropped a great deal of his back story for the late medieval Arthurian stories. 

I haven't read that book but have read and looked into others, and they don't convince. Sort of _Holy Blood Holy Grail _levels of deductions. i.e. Great fun to read and whip up excitement but with massive steps of mis-logic and gaps of evidence to prove dubious assertions!  Who knows though, good evidence may appear out of a field one day. 

I will have a look at your suggestion...although my TBR pile remains a teetering pile that I really should slim down by ploughing through a few dozen right now.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 6, 2019)

The earlier Welsh stories of Arthur tell of a completely different figure to the one portrayed in GOM and Malory. He is a darker figure, a warlord and not a king, prone to a bit of pilaging and slaughter.

From The Goddodin which was composed in the late 6th early 7th century and paraphrasing here

"He fed black ravens on the ramparts, though he was no Arthur"

So even at that stage Arthur was a famous figure that loomed large in the minds of the British.

Excalibur is one of my favourite movies and captures the mood of Malory's Le Morte d'Athur upon which the movie is based. Some great performances such as Nicol Williamson as Merlin, Helen Mirren as Morgana etc. I also have the pleasure of growing up where the some of the movie was filmed.


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 6, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> You mean it was truly made up so people just said it occurred in their own back yard, because... why not?
> 
> Plus, the huge number of historical, semi-historical and legendary figures that are asleep in mysterious hills that will come to life to save their lands is going to make the Earth a crowded place when this moment of awakening occurs. It's going to give it a kinda olde worlde avengers feel methinks! Charlemane, Fredrick Barbarossa, Bran the Blessed, Francis Drake, Genghis Khan...
> 
> ...


I misread that as Brian the Blessed which is a whole different imagery.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 6, 2019)

Vladd67 said:


> I misread that as Brian the Blessed which is a whole different imagery.


I'm sure Brian Blessed will never die but go to sleep under a hill till the country needs him again


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 6, 2019)

I look forward to seeing him shouting Genghis Khan to death.

"KHAAAAAAAN!"


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 6, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> I'm not sure about hope, there's definitely a bittersweet taste to it all, that Tolkien also used for his history of middle Earth; the passing of an age.


That was the edited version. What I really wanted to say it could have a unifying effect on the people of Britain but felt that might be seen as straying into political grounds(especially right now) . This is when having a ban on such things here can make it really difficult to say what you mean.

Well, I've said it now...


----------



## svalbard (Dec 6, 2019)

Narkalui said:


> No historical Arthur @Venusian Broon and @BAYLOR? Surely you can't be certain of that... As far as I am concerned, in the jigsaw puzzle that is latter 5th century British history there is a missing piece that's distinctly Arthur shaped. Has anyone else read Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms by Alistair Moffat? I found that very compelling



I have read Moffat a good few years back. He is heavy on conjecture and etymology although I do not believe he is an expert on Brittonic. What he lacks is clear evidence that Arthur lived in Roxburgh on the Scottish Borders. Interesting book though but not for Arthurian reasons.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 6, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> That was the edited version. What I really wanted to say it could have a unifying effect on the people of Britain but felt that might be seen as straying into political grounds(especially right now) . This is when having a ban on such things here can make it really difficult to say what you mean.
> 
> Well, I've said it now...


Okay, I see what you mean. Personally as a Scot Arthur doesn't really speak to me that way, given that many English kings tried to emulate the legend, as a way of justifying imperial expansion.

Plus if we are going to skirt politics, I'm more in the Republican camp, rather than divine rule of kings and watery tarts handing out swords...but maybe I'm going a bit too far in that analysis 

(Not saying all Scottish/Pictish kings were angels, but well, I'm sure you know the history!)

EDIT: thinking about it, one of the reasons Boorman's Excalibur works so well, is that I think he strips out all the politics. I don't think Arthur is called King of the Britons, or any references to real places made. I think. I could be totally wrong! Happy to be corrected. (Yes, Duke of Cornwall is explicitly stated, but apart from that...  )


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 6, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> Okay, I see what you mean. Personally as a Scot Arthur doesn't really speak to me that way, given that many English kings tried to emulate the legend, as a way of justifying imperial expansion.
> 
> Plus if we are going to skirt politics, I'm more in the Republican camp, rather than divine rule of kings and watery tarts handing out swords...but maybe I'm going a bit too far in that analysis
> 
> ...


I was thinking more of how these  kinds of tales can be used to stiffen resolve in adversity rather than as a tool for imperialist expansion. Laurence Olivier made his version in Henry V during WW2 in a bid to bolster morale. Hitler often referred to Barbarossa (and obviously used it as his codename for the invasion of the Soviet Union). Granted, Hitler probably did use Barbarossa as an expansionist tool so maybe a bad example there. But the point I was trying to make (rather badly) was that because the Arthurian Legend spanned all of Britain, it could be used in a similar manner.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 6, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> I was thinking more of how these  kinds of tales can be used to stiffen resolve in adversity rather than as a tool for imperialist expansion. Laurence Olivier made his version in Henry V during WW2 in a bid to bolster morale. Hitler often referred to Barbarossa (and obviously used it as his codename for the invasion of the Soviet Union). Granted, Hitler probably did use Barbarossa as an expansionist tool so maybe a bad example there. But the point I was trying to make (rather badly) was that because the Arthurian Legend spanned all of Britain, it could be used in a similar manner.



It was used as political tool. The Norman Kings used GOM's History of the King's of Britain to legitimise their rule of first England and then their expansionist campaigns in Wales and Scotland. Arthur moved from a Romano-British hero to a Norman one. The Normans were returning to liberate England from the Saxons etc.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 6, 2019)

svalbard said:


> It was used as political tool. The Norman Kings used GOM's History of the King's of Britain to legitimise their rule of first England and then their expansionist campaigns in Wales and Scotland. Arthur moved from a Romano-British hero to a Norman one. The Normans were returning to liberate England from the Saxons etc.


Is there an 'Arthur' in Irish mythology/history? Or some sort of close analogy?


----------



## svalbard (Dec 6, 2019)

Maybe the legend of Fionn Mac Cumhaill has some similarities.

I have read a theory about one Irish High Kings Muirchertach Mac Erca being a proto-type King Arthur figure but whilst entertaining it was complete fantasy. All it had going for it was that both could be plausibly dated to between 490 and 535.

I think what needs to be remembered is that you have a volatile situation with population movements at the time. Irish clans were moving into South Wales and Argyll up in Scotland. Northern British migrated down into North Wales. Saxon tribes were pushing in from Europe. Legends and stories were created and shared. I don't believe we will ever know the full truth but I did enjoy the search.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 6, 2019)

svalbard said:


> The earlier Welsh stories of Arthur tell of a completely different figure to the one portrayed in GOM and Malory. He is a darker figure, a warlord and not a king, prone to a bit of pilaging and slaughter.
> 
> From The Goddodin which was composed in the late 6th early 7th century and paraphrasing here
> 
> ...



Oh God I just noicted  ! In  my comment I put Nigel Terry as Merlin. It was Nicol Williamson as Merlin.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 7, 2019)

Nigel Terry gave an exceptional performance as Arthur.  He did a convincing job of growing from callow teenage squire to kingship and maturity.  I actually admire his performance more than Williamson's as Merlin, which was a little over-the-top for me.  Of course if you've got Williamson you have got to expect over-the-top. I see what he was going for, his Merlin is not entirely sane, not entirely human, but he didn't entirely convince me.  I did enjoy his scenes with Mirren, though.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 7, 2019)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Nigel Terry gave an exceptional performance as Arthur.  He did a convincing job of growing from callow teenage squire to kingship and maturity.  I actually admire his performance more than Williamson's as Merlin, which was a little over-the-top for me.  Of course if you've got Williamson you have got to expect over-the-top. I see what he was going for, his Merlin is not entirely sane, not entirely human, but he didn't entirely convince me.  I did enjoy his scenes with Mirren, though.



Nigel Terry  was a very good actor . He was also lead in the Medieval Series *Covington Cross*. It wasn't on tv long but I liked that series.


One of my favorite  Camelot themed  stories  was  done in the 1986 Twilight Zone series . *The Last Defender of Camelot *, based on the the story of same name by Rodger Zelazny . Both are excellent. .


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 7, 2019)

I always thought that was an interesting choice Boorman made - to give Arthur a vaguely Irish accent (at least it sounded like one to me)

P.S. Nicol Williamson stole the show for me


----------



## svalbard (Dec 7, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Nigel Terry  was a very good actor . He was also lead in the Medieval Series *Covington Cross*. It wasn't on tv long but I liked that series.
> 
> 
> One of my favorite  Camelot themed  stories  was  done in the 1986 Twilight Zone series . *The Last Defender of Camelot *, based on the the story of same name by Rodger Zelazny . Both are excellent. .



I vaguely remember Covington Cross. It also starred Cheri Lungi.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 7, 2019)

I always thought that Arthur and Guinevere's accents were supposed to be from the West Country. 

I agree with Teresa that Nigel Terry (and Cheri Lungi) age really well, especially given the effects of the time. Williamson's Merlin reminds me of Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter - I've no idea if it's good acting, because it's playing something utterly weird, but it's certainly distinctive! (I always feel that Ian Holm would have been superb as Lecter but that's another story.)


----------



## svalbard (Dec 7, 2019)

"Whoa_like lightening!" Love that scene with Arthur and Merlin.


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 7, 2019)

Just watched _Catch us if you can_ staring the Dave Clark Five, directed by... John Boorman! Small world... It looks like it was his first Feature.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 8, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> I always thought that was an interesting choice Boorman made - to give Arthur a vaguely Irish accent (at least it sounded like one to me)
> 
> P.S. Nicol Williamson stole the show for me



Melin overshadowed everyone in the film with the exception of Morgana,  and that was  one the reasons the film worked as well as it did.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 8, 2019)

svalbard said:


> I vaguely remember Covington Cross. It also starred Cheri Lungi.



It was an enjoyable show but,  never found an audience.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> The one thing about the Arthurian saga is how widespread it is across Britain. There are tales from as far afield as Cornwall, Wales, Glastonbury and even Scotland (Arthur's Seat and the Eildon Hills - where, it's claimed Arthur and his knights are asleep, waiting to be called once more). The legend should ( in my opinion) fill us with wonder and hope. Boorman's version captures that for me



 The dreamer in me wishes this were so.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 22, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> I always thought that was an interesting choice Boorman made - to give Arthur a vaguely Irish accent (at least it sounded like one to me)


More of a Westcountry accent, I think.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 22, 2019)

hitmouse said:


> More of a Westcountry accent, I think.


Ah! Okay. I'm definitely no expert on accents


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 15, 2020)

There have been King Arthur films and tv series  since Excalibur. All of them are somehow lacking by comparison.


----------



## KGeo777 (Jan 28, 2020)

Knightriders was a great idea--but ruined by the approach. Instead of an upbeat and adventurous story--they opted for angst and failure.

Excalibur benefited so much from Wagner.
It was too Hollywood for me--when I think of the King Arthur story, I think of light hair--where were the blondes or light-haired folk? The baddies were blonde. Merlin was memorable.  I liked the scenery and the Waterhouse-style imagery of Arthur being ferried across the lake.

The knights in shining armor were certainly shiny but weren't as colorful as in some older films ---THE WARRIORS 1955 really had some colorful knights and picturesque scenery--reminded me of toys they used to sell of knight figurines with colorful plumes and capes.

SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT 1973 Of all the knights movies I have seen, this one felt the most old-fashioned as in 10th century old-fashioned. The story theme of maturity and seasons felt very pagan and harmonious. The knight combat scenes might have been inspiration for Excalibur--the armor designs are more stream-lined and art-deco rather than authentic. Haven't seen the 1980s remake by the same director (Sword of the Valiant). This was the last film of Nigel Green who portrays the "Green" Knight in the film!


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 28, 2020)

KGeo777 said:


> Knightriders was a great idea--but ruined by the approach. Instead of an upbeat and adventurous story--they opted for angst and failure.
> 
> Excalibur benefited so much from Wagner.
> It was too Hollywood for me--when I think of the King Arthur story, I think of light hair--where were the blondes or light-haired folk? The baddies were blonde. Merlin was memorable.  I liked the scenery and the Waterhouse-style imagery of Arthur being ferried across the lake.
> ...



*The Sword  of the Valiant *that I recall was made in 1984, I think and Sean Connery played the part of the Green Knight . Its not a great film by any definition. Connery over the top performance as the Green Knight manages elevate the film a bit. I like this film.


----------



## svalbard (Jan 28, 2020)

-K2- said:


> And then, there is this... (coincidentally from 1981 like Excalibur):
> 
> Do yourself a favor, don't watch this
> 
> ...



Is that Ed Harris as Arthur?

This looks so bad it could be good.


----------



## Steve Harrison (Jan 29, 2020)

I would love to see a TV series version of The Warlord Chronicles, Bernard Cornwell's fabulous and epic Arthurian trilogy. 

Which reminds me, I'm overdue to read the novels again...


----------



## Judderman (Jan 31, 2020)

I loved Excalibur when I first watched it at around 10 years old. Still a very enjoyable one.
But what really made it for me was the music Carmina Burana. Absolutely incredible buildup into intense drama, that really fits with the battle scenes.


----------



## KiraAnn (Feb 14, 2020)

I prefer my King Arthur along the lines of Geoffrey Monmouth and not Cretien de Troyes and especially the Johnny come lately Thomas Mallory. So, no, I did not care for Excalibur. 

I also always giggle at Nicol Williamson’s shiny metal skullcap.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 22, 2020)

Has anyone see th e trailer for the upcoming* Green Knight *film?  Its only teaser trailer but it looks pretty damned unsetting  . And the erie music accompany it.  This film looks very dark and nasty . It looks good.


----------



## svalbard (Feb 22, 2020)

Steve Harrison said:


> I would love to see a TV series version of The Warlord Chronicles, Bernard Cornwell's fabulous and epic Arthurian trilogy.
> 
> Which reminds me, I'm overdue to read the novels again...



I agree. After seeing the great job they did with his Saxon Chronicles I believe it should be a no brainer.


----------



## HareBrain (Feb 23, 2020)

BAYLOR said:


> Has anyone see th e trailer for the upcoming* Green Knight *film? Its only teaser trailer but it looks pretty damned unsetting . And the erie music accompany it. This film looks very dark and nasty . It looks good.



I have now.






It's unfair to judge from a trailer (even though that's exactly what the film-makers want you to do) but it smacks a little of trying too hard. It'd be difficult to beat the 1991 version starring Jason Durr, which used the natural landscape to incredible effect, and had an amazing script by David Rudkin.


----------



## Toby Frost (Feb 23, 2020)

I thought the new Green Knight looked very strange and quite interesting. The trailer reminded me of Terry Gilliam's Jabberwocky, which for all its flaws is a good-looking film. I'm interested.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 30, 2020)

Toby Frost said:


> I thought the new Green Knight looked very strange and quite interesting. The trailer reminded me of Terry Gilliam's Jabberwocky, which for all its flaws is a good-looking film. I'm interested.



This is definitely a film I want to see.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Apr 2, 2020)

HareBrain said:


> I have now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I might have to see this.

I don't think any film save Excalibur does the legends justice.


----------



## svalbard (Apr 2, 2020)

Anyone think the Green Knight at the end of the trailer looked a bit like a White Walker.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 2, 2020)

svalbard said:


> Anyone think the Green Knight at the end of the trailer looked a bit like a White Walker.



Indeed.


----------



## Toby Frost (Apr 3, 2020)

He looks French or perhaps even (just!) Welsh to me. And given how hard this film is clearly trying to be strange and mystical, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's like Yul Brenner being cast as a Texan, or Omar Sharif being a Russian, except those are meant to be literally in the real world, so they make less sense.

And now we're onto this, nobody has filmed this story for at least a decade. Hardly anyone's thought about it. And now, here is a film about it. A film exists where one didn't - perhaps a weird version, but one that one first glance feels vaguely faithful to the story. I fail to see how that is an assault on Western culture - certainly less than Guy Ritchie making a crap version with cockney gangsters.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 3, 2020)

Toby Frost said:


> Seriously, honestly, with absolutely no deference to "PC" or whatever people call it, I don't care. He looks French or perhaps even (just!) Welsh to me. And given how hard this film is clearly trying to be strange and mystical, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's like Yul Brenner being cast as a Texan, or Omar Sharif being a Russian, except those are meant to be literally in the real world, so they make less sense.
> 
> And now we're onto this, nobody has filmed this story for at least a decade. Hardly anyone's thought about it. And now, here is a film about it. A film exists where one didn't - perhaps a weird version, but one that one first glance feels vaguely faithful to the story. I fail to see how that is an assault on Western culture - certainly less than Guy Ritchie making a crap version with cockney gangsters.



Then there's the upcoming Michael l Bay King Arthur film  with Ben Afleck as Arthur .  I think Steve Tyler might doing the movie score for it.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 3, 2020)

King Arthur meets Transformers.  Well that's true to the source material, isn't it?

The Green Knight is looking a whole lot better by the minute.


----------



## Toby Frost (Apr 3, 2020)

I thought they'd released that? Didn't it have Anthony Hopkins as Arthur, or was that a different film?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 3, 2020)

There seem to be several King Arthur movies in the works or recently released.


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 3, 2020)

HareBrain said:


> It'd be difficult to beat the 1991 version starring Jason Durr, which used the natural landscape to incredible effect, and had an amazing script by David Rudkin.



Incidentally, has anyone else seen this one?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 3, 2020)

I have not seen that one, HB.  It sounds wonderful, but it is not available in this country, and it has never been shown here so far as I know.


----------



## svalbard (Apr 3, 2020)

HareBrain said:


> Incidentally, has anyone else seen this one?



No but I am interested. Need to find where I can get it.


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 3, 2020)

svalbard said:


> Need to find where I can get it.



It's available here.





__





						Gawain And The Green Knight [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: Malcolm Storry, Jason Durr, Marc Warren, Valerie Gogan, Marie Francis, John Michael Phillips, Malcolm Storry, Jason Durr: DVD & Blu-ray
					

Buy Gawain And The Green Knight [DVD] from Amazon's DVD & Blu-ray TV Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




(The rating seems to have been reduced by someone disappointed that it wasn't the Sean Connery version.)


----------



## Narkalui (Apr 3, 2020)

Is it streamable anywhere?


----------



## svalbard (Apr 3, 2020)

Toby Frost said:


> I thought they'd released that? Didn't it have Anthony Hopkins as Arthur, or was that a different film?



Wasn't that the last Transformers movie?


----------



## KGeo777 (Apr 3, 2020)

Toby Frost said:


> He looks French or perhaps even (just!) Welsh to me. And given how hard this film is clearly trying to be strange and mystical, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's like Yul Brenner being cast as a Texan, or Omar Sharif being a Russian, except those are meant to be literally in the real world, so they make less sense.



You are citing examples of Big Hollywood which has always been feverish about avoiding any kind of nationalist imprint, sometimes to ludicrous extremes (as with Brynner and Sharif). More often than not such gestures fail--i.e. Hollywood's bizarre A Christmas Carol of 1938 (a more obscure British production of 1935 is considered superior-as was the Sims version--both categorically UK versions). The Magnificent Seven is an extremly dumbed down version of the Seven Samurai (which was entirely Japanese--how much more nationalistic in artistic pulse can it get?).
Anyway I can see this production is entirely globalist so easy to dismiss. Such ventures are often confused artistically.

The 1973 version was an entirely UK production (and thus obscure since it doesn't have the Hollywood apparatus behind it).


----------



## Toby Frost (Apr 3, 2020)

There are certain words that raise a political red flag to me and "globalist" is one of them, but this isn't really the place to go into that. Purely from the trailer, it looks like it has a consistent feel and seems a lot closer to how I see Arthurian myth than most recent King Arthur films. I hope it is a spiritual successor to _Excalibur, _which is probably a lot to ask. That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 6, 2020)

And no discussion about Excalur would be comlpete without a motion of* Monty Python and The Holy Grai*l .


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 19, 2020)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> I was disappointed in *Excalibur* the first time I saw it, which was when it first came out.  There were things about it that I quite admired, but other things that I found rather ludicrous.  However, it has grown on me with subsequent viewings over the years, with the result that I now think rather highly of it.  More to the point, I don't think that anyone has come up with anything better, or even as good, before or since.  So while I am still waiting for something I could truly regard as the definitive King Arthur film, *Excalibur *comes closer than anything else I have seen.  (I do, however, have a soft spot for* Camelot*, which I watched when_ it_ first came out and quite swept me away back in 1967.)



The 67 version had Richard Harrison who was actual quite good in the role of Arthur.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 20, 2020)

So , it's Impossible for a European Swallow  to have carried coconut from the tropics  all the way to Britain because of weight and aerodynamic issues. Hm,  I muct say *Monty Python and Holy Grail* something to consider. Hm, must think about this some more.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 20, 2020)

*Camelot* was, in my opinion, the best when it first came out and for years afterward.  *Excalibur* just squeezes it out as my favorite.  But comparing a musical with something more serious is probably not even fair.  And I liked *The Sword in the Stone*, too, but again I think not a fair comparison, because apples and oranges.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 30, 2020)

The could be no " and thye lived Happily ever after " in this story .


----------

