Excalbur

[The Guard]

Just saw this take on King Arthur's story for the first time.

What...the...hell?

This may be the most uneven movie I've ever seen. And yet...strangely compelling. The pacing is absurd, but it has these little moments of brilliance and just fantastic dialogue...sandwiched in with utter crap. It's a really, really weird movie experience. Cool to see young Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, etc.

 

[The Sage]

Haven't seen this one in years. I remember liking it. First time I ever experienced the full story of King Arthur beyond Sword in the Stone. They crammed a lot into it.

 

[Nivek]

Hey now, this movie was the bomb back in the 80's. It just hasn't aged well.

 

[That-Guy]

Yeah, this movie is pretty damned weird. They tried to cram the entire story into it but it's simply not something that you can tell in one movie. I think that's the reason why so many King Arthur movies fail. Look at the track record:

Excalibur - It attempts to cram the entire story but sacrifices characterization and a plot that makes sense. Plus the guy who played Arthur looked like Dave Grohl.

King Arthur - Ugh... Like all Jerry Bruckheimer productions, this movie was a mess. Unlike all other Jerry Bruckheimer productions, this movie apparently had a budget of $62.50.

Mists of Avalon - Actually I liked this one (even though it was TV movie) up until the King Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot threesome. At that point, I got pissed.

Merlin - Sam Neil couldn't even grow a beard to play the most famous wizard ever created. Plus, Merlin is much better as a supporting character and an influence on Arthur. I'm not interested in his lovelife.

The Sword in the Stone - Like all Disney cartoon adaptations, it was made for kids but at least was fun and didn't try to tell the whole story.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail - .... PERFECTION! It doesn't get any better than this!

 

[Nivek]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail - .... PERFECTION! It doesn't get any better than this!

It's just a Rabbit.

Excalibur was pretty ambitious for it's time, and has a great director (John Boorman, who did Deliverance), but comes across a bit too stagy and edited with a Meat Clever at times. Love the production design, and Merlin was great.

 

[That-Guy]

Hmm, didn't know it was by the director of Deliverance. He is a great filmmaker... he probably just wasn't suited for Excalibur.

"SQUEEEEEEL LIKE A PIG, BOY!!!"

 

[The Sage]

Yeah, this movie is pretty damned weird. They tried to cram the entire story into it but it's simply not something that you can tell in one movie. I think that's the reason why so many King Arthur movies fail. Look at the track record:

Excalibur - It attempts to cram the entire story but sacrifices characterization and a plot that makes sense. Plus the guy who played Arthur looked like Dave Grohl.

King Arthur - Ugh... Like all Jerry Bruckheimer productions, this movie was a mess. Unlike all other Jerry Bruckheimer productions, this movie apparently had a budget of $62.50.

Mists of Avalon - Actually I liked this one (even though it was TV movie) up until the King Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot threesome. At that point, I got pissed.

Merlin - Sam Neil couldn't even grow a beard to play the most famous wizard ever created. Plus, Merlin is much better as a supporting character and an influence on Arthur. I'm not interested in his lovelife.

The Sword in the Stone - Like all Disney cartoon adaptations, it was made for kids but at least was fun and didn't try to tell the whole story.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail - .... PERFECTION! It doesn't get any better than this!

Don't forget First Knight...

 

[Frodo]

IMO King Arthur films tend to be a bit uneven for some reason. Actually I think Sword of the Stone cartoon and Merlin the Sam Neil miniseries were probably the best!Lol. The whole Arthur , Gwen,Lancelot triangle seems to be the weakest point in these films , which you would think would be the most interesting. I saw Excalbur years ago , and I remember it being kinda boring .. The King Arthur with Keira Knightley was dreadful , Camelot with Richard Harris is forgettable ,and First Knight was so-so . I dunno , are there any good versions of the King Arthur story? They seem to have better luck with Robin Hood films.Lol..

 

[The Guard]

Why hasn't some studio picked up the Arthurian legend and made it into a kickass franchise?

 

[GhostPoet]

What about Black Knight?


oh sorry....hehe

 

[sandmjuggalos]

Are you people nuts? Excalibur is awesome. You are talking about the one with Nicol Williamson right? I've probably seen it like 50 or more times. Classic.

"A'nal nathrak, uthvas bethud, do che-ol di-enve..."

 

[That-Guy]

LOL, I can't believe I forgot about Camelot... I actually played Mordred in a stage version of that a few years back. Man did that show suck. Our Arthur was old enough to be Guenevere's grandfather and the guy we had playing Lancelot couldn't sing for sh**. He actually stabbed me through the hand when we were rehearsing our swordfight. God, I hated being in that show.

Anyway, yeah, that version was terrible and First Knight is hilariously bad... Sean Connery was laughable as Arthur and Richard Gere was a joke. He might have been more miscast as Lancelot than Kevin Costner was as Robin Hood, and that's saying something. Julia Ormond was a good Guenevere though and Ben Cross was pretty good as the Mordred-but-not-actually-Mordred character.

 

[Motown Marvel]

ha, i remember loving excalibur when i was younger. it was a pretty wonky movie. i dug that. i should go check it out again.

 

[huskerwebhead]

I've always loved this movie. It certainly isn't perfect but it's the best King Arthur pic as far as I am concerned. The guy who played Merlin was great, and the music great.

 

[Eddie Dean]

You guys are all missing the best King Arthur movie...

Spoiler

 

[huskerwebhead]

You guys are all missing the best King Arthur movie...

Spoiler

Why don't we have a barfing icon...we need one of those.

 

[Nivek]

Are you people nuts? Excalibur is awesome. You are talking about the one with Nicol Williamson right? I've probably seen it like 50 or more times. Classic.

"A'nal nathrak, uthvas bethud, do che-ol di-enve..."

Hey now, don't utter the charm of making like that! Hey, why is the board filled with fog?

 

[That-Guy]

I hope that Thomas Ian Nicholas never acts in anything again. I still can't fathom how the hell I managed to enjoy the first two American Pie movies, considering they featured the combined "talent" of TIN, Chris Klien and Tara Reid.

 

[The Sage]

Why hasn't some studio picked up the Arthurian legend and made it into a kickass franchise?

Been asking that question myself. I originally was thinking an Excalibur remake, but as many have said, too much is crammed in.

A series that covers Arthur's birth, ascension, Excalibur, trials, Knights of the Round Table, Gwenevere & Lancelot, Holy Grail, Mordred, and Arthur's death would be awesome. Technology's caught up and I'm sure there are plenty of actors. Maybe do a Harry Potter and get all British actors.

 

[Rac]

Excalibur had pretty troubled production. They were first gonna do LotR but realised it was just too much. Some sets were already built and they decided to do an King Arthur movie and use the unused LotR set pieces on that. Or something like that.

But the movie is good. Kinda. It's weird, but it ain't ****. It's just odd.

 

[bunk]

I love Excalibur. I grew up watching that movie not realizing how weird it was until I got older. It has so much unintentional humor too. Pendragon played by Gabriel Byrne banging the chick with his armor on LOL! Oh my... I'm gonna have to watch this now.

 

[Nivek]

I hope that Thomas Ian Nicholas never acts in anything again. I still can't fathom how the hell I managed to enjoy the first two American Pie movies, considering they featured the combined "talent" of TIN, Chris Klien and Tara Reid.

??

Wrong Thread?

 

[That-Guy]

??

Wrong Thread?

I was referring to "A Kid in King Arthur' Court" which was mentioned earlier in the thread. Sorry, I guess that was a little unclear.

Anyway... can anyone imagine what Boorman's LOTR might have looked like if he had gotten the rights? I'm glad that he didn't... I'm a big fan of Peter Jackson's films and in 1981, technology simply wasn't advanced enough to do Tolkien justice... but it would have been interesting to see, nonetheless.