Excalibur (1981) User Reviews

John Boorman is a crazy person.

[davidmvining · 7/10 · 13 January 2020]

This is a film that needs to be watched differently from most films. It operates very differently from the more realistic bent that the vast majority of films lend themselves towards and leans very heavily into a much more formalistic approach. It's an effort to bring Romantic painting to life with an operatic feel, and if you can't get into that different style of reality, then the movie's going to just be funny. Buy into the hyper-reality, though, and you have an entertaining 140 minutes ahead of you.

Everything about this film is big. Costumes entail men walking everywhere in full plate armor. Sets are huge and completely impractical. Performances reach for the rafters. The world is filled with magic and the implication of a huge dragon. It's very much of its own style, and the fact that Zach Snyder considers Excalibur his favorite movie makes just so much sense.

It's the traditional Arthurian legend filtered through the crazy mind of John Boorman. It goes beyond the formalistic stylistic approach to the story, but the inclusion of every weird factor of the original myths plays into Boorman's wheelhouse. Merlin using the magic of the dragon to disguise Uther to trick Igraine is a prime example. But Boorman also includes some extra-mythical elements like having Morgana be Mordred's mother and Arthur his father, creating an incestuous relationship that was never there before. It's rather fertile feeding ground for Boorman's insanity, and I'm really glad he used it.

It blows through the Arthurian legend, mostly propelled by Nicol Williamson's awesomely weird performance as Merlin, watching Uther father Arthur, Arthur claim the sword in the stone and rise to become king, the peace that follows, and the dissolution of that peace precipitated by the affair between Guinevere and Lancelot. Alongside is the rise of Morgana, her tutelage under Merlin, and her raising of Mordred. All of this is big and entertaining (if weird and uncomfortable at certain moments), but it's the late introduction of the Grail Quest that kind of derails the latter half of the film for me.

The Grail isn't mentioned until about 90 minutes into the film, and it's just very suddenly dropped in as a very important thing that needs to be found right then. Arthur is sick, the country is sick, and they need something to revive the nation and its king. Suddenly, "Hey, Percival, go find the Holy Grail."

The Grail Quest feels really tacked on. There are some striking visuals like the actual vision of the Grail that Percival has and the image of Percival hanging from the tree because of where the Quest took him, but it's a sudden late introduction that actually doesn't come to fruition. Maybe if the Grail had been introduced earlier in the film it would have worked better, but as it is, it feels like the Grail is in the film because it's a common part of the Arthurian legend and not because there was a compelling reason to include it in this telling.

Overall, though, the film is really quite an experience. Divorced from reality and existing in its own fantasy realm, it creates its own rules of behavior and sticks to them. It's really pretty from beginning to end, well using the Irish countryside (around John Boorman's house) with mise-en-scene that really evokes Romantic paintings. The performances, especially Nicol Williamson's as Merlin, fit well with the material, and it's an entertaining look into another reality that follows different rules from our own.

A lavishly designed epic with an inciting mixture of myth, dream and magic...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 16 November 2002]

Along with Ken Russell, John Boorman can be seen as a key figure in the modern British cinema... His interest in myth, dream, landscape and memory may be compared with that of Resnais, Leone, and Roeg...

Boorman's 'Excalibur' is characterized by his use of jealousy and adultery, sex and sorcery... It is also characterized by fire and fog, shadow and moonlight, creating an air of mystery that is essential element in the Arthurian legend...

Boorman's 'Excalibur' is a mythical presentation leading the viewers to travel with the flow of the legend... It is a magical story with wonderful exotic sets, and interesting camera-work in the lush green scenery of Ireland... (The Cinematography won an Academy Award Nomination).

Boorman's "Excalibur" is both fantasy and philosophy... Love seems to be a destructive force, lyrically beautiful and bravely realistic...

The film brings to life the fateful story of a solitary hero, his ascension to the throne, the love triangle of Camelot, the quest for the Holy Grail, the decline and eventual fall of Arthur and Camelot... Along for the ride are his indispensable Knights of the Round Table, particularly Sir Lancelot...

The characters in Boorman's "Excalibur" are extremely well developed... Arthur is seen as a naive squire, who develops into an idealistic king... Arthur tries to use Might for the establishment of Right, and according to his own laws, he puts reason over love...

A prominent figure in the film is Merlin... He lives backwards, which makes him "a dream to some, a nightmare to others." He defines the cave of the dragon as a place where all things meet their opposite: "The future and the past, desire and regret, knowledge and oblivion". But when Morgana pronounces "love", one would expect Merlin to answer "hate", but he just says: "O yes."

Morgana knows that Uther and Merlin are responsible for the death of her father... She dedicates her life to revenge.. Her scenes with Merlin are full of fire and poison... When she steals the "charm of making" from Merlin, Morgana gets stronger... We feared her lines when she affirmed: "I can ease your loneliness."

Lancelot looks at himself as a sinful person who has betrayed a friend... He stays lonely in the forest, haunted by sorrow and pain... He dreams of a fight with himself... And when he wakes up naked, he sees his own sword stuck in his side... The film endures and inspires because it embodies mankind's deepest yearnings...

Among the many elements that make the movie work is the cast: Nigel Terry, the rightful King who, accidentally, removes the sword of power easily, not once, but twice; Helen Mirren, the enchantress Morgana, Merlin's nemesis and Arthur's treacherous half-sister, who seduces Merlin, and then encircles him in a stream of vengeance; Nicholas Clay, persuasively ardent and athletic as the First Knight; Cherie Lunghi, the damsel in distress who loves her husband with her mind and Lancelot with her heart; Nicol Williamson, the wily Merlin who would see that the young Arthur receive the necessary training and guidance to fulfill his unlikely destiny; Gabriel Byrne, the hot-blooded Uther Pendragon, who plunges 'Excalibur' deep into a stone rock in one last act of defiance; Katrine Boorman, the woman taken as by a fully armored King; Liam Neeson, the knight who dares to accuse the Queen; and Robert Addie, the 'unholy child' who comes to Camelot to demand the throne of his father...

One of the more fascinating aspects of the film (and there are many...) are the differences between Uther and Arthur... King Uther is unable to master his instincts... His world is confusion, disorder, and unlimited passion... The characteristic developments of Arthur occur as he faces the trials of his life... The knowledge of the affair yet his love for his beautiful wife and best friend wage war inside of his mind... When he sees Guinevere in the arms of Lancelot, he stuck 'Excalibur' between them loosing his connection to the extraordinary powers of Merlin and the Lady of the Lake...

John Boorman's films frequently concern contradictions and polarities, tensions between nature and civilization, dream and reality... Equally, his career as a whole swings violently between success and failure, intelligent ambition and pretentiousness...

Unique in good and bad way simultaneously

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 14 November 2017]

Movie that succeeds to be at the same time bad movie and the best adaptation of legend of King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table. For 1981. it's visually fascinating and deserves Best Cinematography Oscar it's nominated for. But however magical and hypnotizing it may be, it's also full of flaws. It's poorly written, story is undeveloped, things just happen without explanation and movie makes rough time jumps without transition. Characters are two-dimensional and occasional attempts to add them some depth are tragicomic. With few exceptions, acting is better left uncommented. When I was a child I was stunned with this movie, but from current perspective, changed by few decades of movie experience, this movie is so hollow that I simply can not turn the blind eye to all its flaws, but still so beautiful that I can not rate it low either.

7/10

The Best Theatrical Re-Telling of the Arthurian Legend--Largely Based on Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1485)

[classicalsteve · 10/10 · 30 May 2007]

Late in the film, King Arthur is about to fight his last battle against his estranged son Mordred. His kingdom of Camelot is falling. The knights of the Round Table are disbanding. Guinevere has entered a convent. In short, Arthur's world is collapsing. He rides to the nunnery to see Guinevere for the last time. And there, she produces the ancient timeless object hidden beneath some linen: the sword Excalibur, still gleaming, still magical, still potent to fight in the battle that Arthur cannot win. He sheathes Excalibur, and, in full knightly regalia rides with his remaining loyal knights through the English countryside, their pennants and banners flying in the wind. The fortissimo chorus of Carmina Burana accompanies their ride in perfect harmony, chanting the lyrics from the medieval poem "O Fortuna". This is the stuff of legend...

Artistic treatments of the Arthurian legends date back to illuminated codices from the Middle Ages. Thereafter the first, and one of the greatest, attempts to bring the stories into a novelistic form was written in the late 1400's by a knight, Sir Thomas Malory, entitled La Morte d'Arthur ("The Death of Arthur") which is probably the most famous work of English letters proceeding Chaucer but before Shakespeare. Even later renditions include T.H. White's "The Once and Future King". By the 20th century, theatrical adaptations began appearing as well, including "Knights of the Round Table" (1953), Disney's "The Sword in the Stone" (1963), and the musical "Camelot" by Lerner and Lowe which was possibly the most popular rendition of the story before "Excalibur". These last renditions, although they have their appeal, cannot measure up to the movie "Excalibur" which was largely based upon Malory's original tome.

Many here have detailed very well the merits of the film, and since most people know the story, I will keep this short. The reason why this is the best of the Arthurian-based films is its imagery and its dedication to the original Arthurian myths. The entire look of the film, which I have not seen in a movie since, reeks of Medieval Legend. The lush forests, the huge castles, and the glittering swords give a visual and dream-like reality. This is NOT how it was in the Middle Ages. This is how people in the Middle Ages would have liked it to have been, which is the entire point of the Arthurian myths. The filmmakers of Excalibur understood that myth is about dreams.

Several moments in the film are inspired directly from Malory and earlier Medieval codices. For example, several Medieval illuminated manuscripts feature the hand of the Lady of the Lake bestowing the sword Excalibur to Arthur. Strangely this episode, which becomes an important theme throughout Excalibur, is lacking from other theatrical versions and yet it is central to the original myth. Another is the strange rhetoric that Arthur and the land are one, and when Arthur becomes ill, the land of his kingdom becomes barren. This concept was a widely held belief in the Middle Ages: that the sovereign was essentially married to the kingdom.

Another aspect that makes this film outstanding is the portrayal of Merlin by Nicol Williamson. This was possibly the best Merlin ever to come to the large screen. Some of the most humorous moments of the film occur with Merlin. Instead of being the absent-minded wizard of "The Sword in the Stone", he is the last of the Druids, a race giving way to Medieval Christians. Worth the price of admission. It is sad that he obtained very little recognition for this portrayal.

The fact is, a viewer either experiences "aesthetic arrest" with Excalibur, or he or she doesn't. If the scenes when the knights go riding through countryside with their pennants flying behind them doesn't give you the shivers, this is not and will never be your kind of movie. If Malory had lived to see this film, he would have been awed and proud. Malory gave Arthur to the world, and Excalibur gave Arthur back to Malory.

The Best Version of the Legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table ever Made

[claudio_carvalho · 9/10 · 10 February 2019]

"Excalibur" is the best version of the Legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table ever made by the cinema industry. John Boorman´s version has inconsistencies with the legend but it is a perfect blend of fantasy, drama and adventure. Visually stunning, it is worthwhile watching this film in Blu-Ray. The magnificent soundtrack is supported by music of Wagner and Carl Orff. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Excalibur"

The quintessential King Arthur movie!

[Borboletta · 31 July 2001]

This movie is absolutely tremendous. Held my attention the entire time. I have seen the others, from the 1950s Knights of the Round Table, to First Knight, even the recent Mists of Avalon, and this is the best of the bunch. Brutal at times, then again, the story takes place during the Dark Ages. Anthropologists don't know too much about the historical Arthur, except from early English and Welsh texts based on oral legends of a Celtic chieftain named Arthur, who lived around 600 AD, and who fought a famous battle.

This story delivers great performances, sets and battle scenes. In the scene in the beginning where Uther becomes king, as witnessed by Merlin, we can see the look of disgust and pity on his face as knights get their arms chopped off! Merlin has worked for years to arrange peace in the kingdom and the moment is at hand, the dawn of a new Golden Age...although it will be Arthur, not Uther, who ushers this in, and it lasts all too briefly. Merlin is played by Nicol Williamson in an outstanding performance! He is comic, wise, and very, very, deadly if you cross his path. The best on-screen Merlin I have ever seen. Arthur is the true hero whose all too human capacity for love gets the best of him and threatens to leave the kingdom in the clutches of the vile Mordred. Morgana, as played by Helen Mirren, is a stunning combination of beauty and evil. The other cast members round out this great film: Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne. The sets are astounding, dark foreboding man-made castles contrasted against lush green forests reflecting a lost time when the forces of nature, not man, dominated the earth. See this film! Easily John Boorman's best picture to date.

Excellent battle scenes. Well worth seeing.

[Mike Astill · 7/10 · 13 September 2001]

John Boorman's semi-adaptation of La Morte D'Arthur may come as something of a surprise, albeit a pleasant one, as the usually glamorised and fanciful tale is furnished in grimly realistic fashion. The armour, weapons and castles all look very authentic, and indeed it is in the battle sequences that the film excels, especially due to the stirring music selected to accompany each pivotal scene.

Purists will doubtless find plenty to frown and ‘tut' about, but doing justice to the Arthurian legends in film is a monumental task and Boorman delivers a true classic. Acting is fine, although dialogue is shouted more than spoke, and delivered with all the subtlety of a flanged mace. Nicol Williamson stands out in particular as the creepy Merlin, but it's fun to see Helen Mirren, Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson paving their ways to future stardom.

Of course, if the film has any reputation at all it is with its vicious battle scenes, which are still gory even today. They are, it has to be said, very welcome, because without the depictions of desperate, hand-to-hand battle, you might start comparing it with First Knight – which would be something close to sacrilege.

My older DVD copy looks fine but sounds a bit tinny, so it's with some annoyance I see there's a special edition out now, which presumably has had the full restoration work done on it. If you haven't seen Excalibur but have an interest in the subject (and hated First Knight), you should certainly give it a try.

A beautiful translation of a legend into sound and light.

[Lloyd-23 · 10/10 · 11 October 1999]

More people telling me their favourite film, have named Excalibur, than have chosen any other film. People tend to feel strongly about this film. I can remember that when it came out, a film magazine reviewed it twice, feeling that it had to do so, since its two reviewers had such contrasting opinions. In short, people who don't adore it, tend to hate it.

Those who hate it have failed to understand something very important: that it is set in the land of dreams. Excalibur makes no attempt to be realistic. It is the film of a legend, and it tries to create a world of legend, and it succeeds. Once one has realised that this is not the real world, then the film is internally consistent and works splendidly. Merlin, towards the end of the film, even says the line "Your love brought me back to where you are: in the land of dreams." If anything, this makes the film even more tragic, because all of Arthur's sufferings have been not for his world, but for ours.

The Arthurian legend is probably the world's best legend. It has been told a thousand different ways, but is so strong, that no retelling can harm it. The story is familiar, but this telling of it is not. The screen starts blank, with the distant drums of Seigfried's Funeral March playing, and after a few captions, the curtain lifts to reveal a stunning opening sequence with horses breathing fire-lit breath into the night air, as Uther's men do battle with those of the Duke of Cornwall. The armour is dark, and greenish, and the movements slow, making this seem like a scene of battling dinosaurs. It is brutal and bloody. These are the dark ages. This is the time of chaos from which Arthur's kingdom must come. Into the scene, in a cloud of swirling fog, comes a figure who will be present throughout the film, ageless and mysterious, Nicol Williamson's Merlin, whose voice carries over the din.

I remember how suddenly I found myself immersed in this world when I first saw the film, and even now the hairs stand up on the back of my neck thinking about it. Allow yourself to become involved with the film, and you will be rewarded.

The costumes are magnificent. Special mention must go to the shining armour, and Morgana's (Helen Mirren) ever-increasingly impressive series of outfits. The music is stirring (it uses "O Fortuna" from Carima Burana before this had become a cliche). The acting is theatrical and good. Each of these characters is on a stage, to be examined. This is not a film of quiet intimate moments. It is a legend, and legends are public.

Excalibur distills the Arthurian legends into one film of watchable length very cleverly. At several points during it, a clever cut tells the viewer that several years have passed. Single characters represent many things. At one point Sir Percival represents all the questknights, at another Morgana is all that is evil. In telling the story quickly, the film uses simple direct speeches. In one scene, Arthur visits Guinevere, the woman he loved deeply, whom he hasn't seen for many years. He spends just a minute in her company and leaves, and yet the speech he delivers to her is so complete and so moving, that you do not feel robbed. He says his piece and leaves, needing to say no more.

It is true that the film has dated a little. Some of the hair-styles and special effects are not quite what they would be today, and the quality of the dubbing is not first-rate, but this is still stunning. Everything seems to have come together to help this film look and sound good. The skies over the castles are spectacular, the Irish landscape (it was shot there) looks the part. The visual imagination and daring to have Camelot as a castle literally made from silver, and to have Arthur's final battle fought in fog with a huge blood red sunset behind it, makes this a feast for the eye.

I am writing about one of my all-time favourite films. I cry every time I see the land burst into blossom as a reborn Arthur gallops through it, and I feel the heavy warmth of tragedy as he is carried off towards the sunset to the Isle of Avalon. I am spoiling nothing by telling you that Arthur dies in the end. Everyone knows that he dies in the end. The whole film is leading to that moment. When you reach the end of the film, ask yourself this: where did he go wrong? What was it he did to lose his wife, his son, his sister, his best friend, all his questknights, Merlin, his kingdom, his life - everything he held dear?

"The one god of the many comes to drive out the many gods. The spirits of wood and stone grow silent. It is a time for men and their ways." That's it.

EXCalibur EXCellent and of a high CALIBUR!

[Zoopansick · 7/10 · 14 July 2003]

Puns not withstanding this is a great fantasy movie. In general most fantasy films are done with low budgets and are usually boring and tedious sword and sandal adventures. Excalibur however, draws from it's source material extremely well to create both and engaging, visually impressive, and fairly accurate retelling of the timeless story.

Other Arthur adaptations fail at presenting the story itself and often focus on the love triangle, or the sword and the stone part. Here both parts of the story are included but there is so much more! The magical element is there but it exists within a believable medieval setting. I think one of the problems I had with First Knight was that it left out the fantasy all together and was bogged down with a boring love story. Here the love story is portrayed but so is Merlin and the mythical elements with Morgan and the sword, Excalibur itself.

I really liked the visuals in the film. The fights seem very real but the foggy atmosphere lets the audience know that the film is fantasy. Mordrid is especially diabolical and the audience just has to hate him. No one likes an arrogant punk kid with an annoying laugh. The story evolves nicely as we see both the rise and fall of Arthur.

It's really a great movie, especially if you are looking for a fantasy movie and have already seen Lord of the Rings multiple times. Check this one out, it may not have the special effects, but the story and fight scenes make up for it.

Zoopansick

Excalibur. The best of the King Arthur films.

[sinicolson · 10/10 · 16 February 2006]

Excalibur is a truly atmospheric film. It has the ability to take you back to the time it depicts, without using sentimentality or rose tinted spectacles. Having seen the film numerous times, I still get more out of it with every viewing. It certainly seemed to start many careers on the right path and many of the actors are very well known now. My only sadness is that Paul Geoffrey and Nigel Terry, two of the main character actors, seem not to have become such household names. They both stand out in the film and to my mind have made it what it is, brilliant. Great direction, production, photography and music. King Arthur himself would have been proud of it.

I think people are just a little too hard on Morgana...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 12 June 2016]

... after all she witnesses what amounts to the rape of her own mother, and then sees the product of that rape inherit a kingdom (Nigel Terry as Arthur Pendragon). Of course she wants revenge, and justice in the most ironic way for what happened to her mother. Let me explain.

Uther Pendragon has peace, has his throne, has a truce with the duke of Cornwall. At a dinner celebrating the truce, Cornwall shows off his beautiful wife, Igrayne. Uther ruins the truce in an unspeakable breach of etiquette by going for Igrayne right there in front of everybody. Hostilities rebegin. Uther begs Merlin to let him have Igrayne by the spell of making so that he looks like her husband, Cornwall. Apparently it was the custom for husbands and wives to have sex in front of their toddler children, and furthermore Uther does not even bother to take his armor off during the act! That's what I mean by rape - Igrayne is being duped into having sex with Uther Pendragon. Morgana, Cornwall and Igrayne's child, looks on, sees through the spell of making, and also envisions her father dying on the battlefield throughout her mother's rape. This is something she never forgets.

With Cornwall dead, Uther takes Igrayne for his own, and nine months later she gives birth to a child - Uther's from the rape. But, alas, Uther promised to give Merlin anything that came from his deception, so he must turn over the child, Arthur Pendragon, to Merlin. Uther decides a deal is not a deal, and pursues Merlin and the child, only to be killed by Cornwall's vengeful troops who are still hanging about. Merlin thrusts Excalibur into a stone and proclaims whoever shall draw the sword from the stone will be king. Why do the people keep listening to this guy? I guess the fact that he could turn anybody into a toad is part of it.

Time passes, Arthur grows up looking and acting like nobody special (Nigel Terry), and is assisting Kay, a knight in a tournament whose sword is stolen. Arthur just sees the sword in the stone, does not know its significance, and just pulls it out to give to Kay. Merlin announces that Arthur has accidentally pulled Excalibur from the stone and he is king.

Well it turns out that more than just the communist peasants in Monty Python's Holy Grail believe that pulling a sword from a stone is not the basis for an acceptable form of government, and Arthur has to work to solidify his kingdom. In the process, he marries Guenevere, daughter of one of his allies, and convinces Lancelot to join him. But Lancelot and Guenevere fall for one another, finally giving in to their feelings. When Arthur comes upon their post coital slumber he plunges Excalibur into the ground and wanders off broken.

Now all of this time Morgana (Helen Mirren) is still bitter about her mother's rape and the product of that rape, Arthur, getting a throne because of her mother being deceived. She tricks Merlin into revealing the spell of making, traps him in a crystal, and then decides turnabout is fair play. She makes herself appear as Guenevere, causing Arthur to think his queen has returned to him, and he sleeps with her, conceiving an incestuous child. This child grows to manhood and challenges Arthur for his throne, which is easier than it would normally be because Arthur would have to kill his own son/nephew, plus the land has become barren and the people are starving because nothing grows from the ground, blaming the king. So how does all of this turn out? Watch and find out. This film is very atmospheric. Nicol Williamson steals the show as Merlin with his odd glances and one liners and looking very "unmagician" like at times. If he hadn't played a complete tool in "I'm Dancing as Fast as I Can" a year later, I might still like seeing him in this role.

So what have we learned here today? Crime does not pay, the career options are not good for queens who commit adultery, and bitter half siblings can really mess up your life if you give them the chance. Recommended.

Operatic,mythic, retelling of Arthurian legend.

[coop-16 · 10/10 · 10 May 1999]

At different times in his illustrious career, John Boorman has announced that his intention to make film versions of both The Lord Of The Rings, and Wagners "Ring" cycle.Like Scorsese's plans to do film biographies of Gershwin and Robert Johnson, or Coppola's plans to make versions of Faust and Pinocchio, these grandiose projects have come to nothing. Fortunately, in Excalibur, we have something that comes close..VERY close. Boorman retells the Arthur legend in a way that evokes both the mythic power of Tolkien and the operatic splendor of Wagner.. ( Indeed, the sound track makes frequent use of Wagner.)Some have criticized Boorman for making the story of King Arthur too sexy and violent. Well, in their original , unexpurgated form, the Arthurian legends were just that. Boorman also looks at the Druidic and pagan roots of the arthur story, (" The Land is the King."), and examines the inner conflict between Paganism and Christianity that gave the myth its original power. A great film, and one of my personal favorites. I have not seen Robert Bresson's version of the Arthur myth, Lancelot Du Lac, but I suspect that it may be the only other one by a major film-maker that comes close to the eerie, mythic, glorious heart of Arthurian legend.

Well-condensed Malory, but missing some ingredients

[slokes · 7/10 · 3 October 2003]

It's hard to quibble overmuch with the impossibly lush and rousing tone poem of the eyes and ears that's John Boorman's "Excalibur." It's one of the best pure fantasies ever to hit the big screen, a capable retelling of the Arthur legend and, at times, a thrilling piece of cinema one is eager to share with friends.

The problem is the story is too big to contain the film, even one as grand and epic in its reach (or overreach) as this. To focus more attention on a particular aspect might have left people wondering about the rest, but would have provided some needed plot discipline and encouraged the viewer to empathize with the characters rather than simply enjoy them. Even reading John Steinbeck's "Acts Of King Arthur And His Noble Knights," itself a radically compressed account of "Morte d'Arthur" by Sir Thomas Malory, is to get a sense of the many verdant nooks and crannies left unexplored by necessity in this film. Like the fact Merlin's fate is sealed not by Morgana, but Nyneve, another sorceress of decidedly different character than her rival Morgana. Or how Arthur's subjugation of his realm involves years of hard fighting and diplomacy with friends and enemies alike.

I could have done without the business of the Grail. It's a vital piece of the total Arthurian legend, mind, but it slows down things and calls attention to the shaky balancing act Boorman is purposely performing between the legend's pagan roots and its Christian dressings. I think Christianity is a vital part of the Camelot story, but Boorman sidesteps it effectively enough here I would have been content to let that part slip by. As it is, the Grail thing comes out of left field and distracts us too much from the main story just as it reaches its denouement.

But so much else is good about this film. The brooding, fog-choked moors imbued with the green light of renewal and hope, the clunky battles of armor-bedecked maniacs, the gorgeous bodices on fair maidens that seem to ache for the ripping, and the sense of wonderment and possibility around every corner, especially when Merlin's about. Sheer magic.

For those who only know Arthur from Bugs Bunny or Monty Python, this is a great place to start learning more. The film's best performance, as so many note here, is Nicol Williamson's Merlin. He growls his best lines in such a way to bestow them with both humor and authority, and uses his eyes the same way another necromancer would a wand. He's above the people who operate around them, he's not human at all, yet in a strange way he is, as Boorman and Williamson capture him.

The other actors are quite fine, though keeping track of them all seems more a function of traffic management than true directing. It's early days in the careers of Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, and Gabriel Byrne, and they give solid if not spine-tingling performances. Maybe they were less eager performers when they realized they had second billing to the likes of Nigel Terry, Cherie Lunghi, Paul Geoffrey, and the late Nicholas Clay. All four are good, by the way, and Lunghi particularly shines with her beauty and charm, but it's not a surprise none really developed major recognition beyond their roles here, at least on this side of the Atlantic. They are serviceable, at times brilliant, but never compelling.

Finally, Boorman is one of the most puzzling directors around, perhaps by design. What can you say about a director who has two of the worst films ever made on his résumé, "Zardoz" and "Exorcist II", and yet remains a compelling filmmaker over four decades? His visual sense is so unique, powerful, and uncompromising that he is forgiven faults that would sink the careers of lesser artists, or even just less headstrong ones. He's an impossible eccentric, and I get the feeling from watching him here and elsewhere that his dream project would involve having his immediate family strut up and down the screen stark naked for 90 minutes, but "Excalibur" shows the method behind the madness, and justifies the excess.

Doleful, Dark, and Dreary, and Did I Say, "Dull"?

[rhklwk-1 · 1/10 · 24 April 2016]

In my long life, rarely have I loathed a movie like I loath this movie. I don't know where to begin, but perhaps all I really need to say is that the casting of Nigel Terry as Arthur ranks as one of the greatest casting blunders of all time. His weak face, his lack of conviction, his negligible screen presence -- it's just totally baffling. In this film, the sun never shines, and the players never smile. Ah yes, the players. They bark their lines as if they are performing in the round at the Globe Theater or, alternatively, upstaging Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in their latest screwball comedy. Seriously, has there ever been more incoherent dialogue? And, if you hadn't read the Classic Comic back in the 1950s, would you have ever had a clue what this movie is (ostensibly) about? The direction. So stiff, so uneven, so uninspired. It's just a complete mess, and, despite the acting achievements of the players in other endeavors, I decline to get caught up in the usual momentum, where bad movies are invariably praised because they are not just bad, but astoundingly bad. This is storytelling at its very worst,and doleful, dark, and dreary only suggest how awful this movie is.

Transcendental

[nomercy · 10/10 · 12 May 1999]

Having read "the knights of the round table" as a child, and "Le Morte D'Artur" in old English as an adult, I have always been profoundly touched by this story of rise, fall, love, hate, betrayal and hope. As a result, I have developed an intense dislike for most pathetic attempts to put this story on film.

Excalibur is the first, and so far, the only film, in my opinion, to come very close to the brass ring.

First some ranting.

The early film with Cornel Wilde was a swashbuckling story, no more.

The Disney cartoon "sword in the stone" was one of the first in a long series of extremely offensive attempts to take inspirational and tragic stories and turn them into something banal.(Anastasia, The hunch Back of Notre Dame to name a couple)

First knight was perfect for displaying Richard Geere's lack of talent, and wasting a perfectly good actor (Connery). This ranks up there with "Plan nine from outer space"

Excalibur has put faces to the characters I read about. It infused them with personalities, and gave them life beyond the pages.

I was transposed by Merlin's magic on the mountain top, awakening the dragon. I felt a strange elation when Arthur drew the sword, one of the most meaningful and defining moments in literary, and now movie, history. I trembled and rejoiced when Arthur handed Excalibur to Uriens and was knighted. And my eyes welled up with tears when the ship took his body away to Avalon

And the music... That glorious music, never intrusive, but always suggestive and underlining the drama subtly.

After seeing this movie, anyone hearing Carl Orff Carmina Burana's Deres Luna will forever associate it with courage, rebirth sacrifice and redemption.

Anyone seeing this movie will be moved to believing that one day Arthur may indeed return to redeem us all. It tells us that hope never dies.

35 years later, still the most visceral

[A_Different_Drummer · 9/10 · 3 April 2014]

The story? The cast? What makes this film the most dramatic and memorable of all the Arthurian re-tellings, even though it is three and a half decades old, and was done at a time when CGI was in its infancy? Mainly (with one exception, explained below) its Boorman, clearly one of the greatest and most passionate directors of his era, his films pop off the screen into the cortex of the viewer. Each scene is framed with passion. The early part of the story where magic is used to fool the wife of the elder Pendragon into believing that her husband has returned "early" is possibly one of the spookiest and yet most engaging scenes of its kind. It haunts you for years after. And the second factor to consider is Nicol Williamson, himself one of the most charismatic and intense actors of his era. His Merlin is equally iconic, unforgettable, driven, and the portrait of a man trapped within his own destiny. Even his accent (an odd mix I cannot clearly define) makes each sentence he utters that much more profound. An astonishing film, equal parts myth, action, fantasy, romance and also a strange creepy horror which no film since has captured or emulated.

A Great Film

[baronalbany38 · 17 November 2003]

I am an Arthurian buff and a film fan (aspiring to be a novelist and a screenwriter). EXCALIBUR is a great, great film that holds up very well after more than 20 years. It is an expert distillation of the essential Arthurian legend (this from someone who has read and re-read Malory's original work, Le Morte D'Arthur, on which the movie was based, as well as Tennyson, White, Steinbeck, and many of the other modern fictional treatments, as well as a lot of the secondary literature on the history and meaning of the Arthur myth). The film is wonderful on many, many levels, from Boorman's masterful direction and writing (along with Pallenberg, his screenwriter), to the cinematography, the armor and costumes, the sets and production design, and the acting (with a great cast too numerous to mention). The film has violence, sex, myth, drama, intrigue, heroics, pathos, and aspirations to art, all in the best senses of those terms. The film probably works best if you already have some sort of sense of the Arthur legends, but I would recommend it to anyone. Also, listen to Boorman's director's commentary on the DVD. Perhaps the best and most lucid DVD commentary that I have heard on video; interesting and sharp comments throughout the entire film, and well worth replaying if you aspire to filmmaking in any way, or just want to hear a smart filmmaker talk about his work. I have tried to write Arthurian stories and an Arthurian script, but all have so far paled in comparison to Boorman and Pallenberg's work. Long live Boorman and long live EXCALIBUR!

Best Camelot/Arthur Movie I've Seen

[Hecate-3 · 7/10 · 27 July 1999]

This retelling of King Arthur's and Camelot's legend is an adult movie that will not appeal to those looking for a dainty, sugar-coated period piece that is a slavish recreation of Le Morte d'Arthur, but the film is worth watching if you can take the graphic violence and sensuality. The music tends to be heavy and ponderous except for the delightful number played for Igrayne's dance, and the acting is dramatic, but these things are inevitable given the story. On the whole, the cast retains interest and sympathy. A notable flaw is the number of battle scenes that look staged - though the gore looks real enough, but the gruesome battle between Arthur and Mordred at the end makes up for any earlier shortcomings by sheer emotional impact.

The film's storyline strays from Le Morte d'Arthur, but Sir Thomas Malory also wrote his own original work that was based on old myths and legends, so Boorman and Pallenberg deserve recognition for making new contributions. None of the actors had the appearance I expected for their characters (except for Sir Kay), but that made it possible for them to redefine their roles. Nicol Williamson's atypical Merlin who blends wisdom and humor in equal measure is the real star of the show.

But the film's triumph is how it balances realism and fantasy, how it manages to capture a hint of the harshness and brutality of a primitive age while retaining the romance and idealism now associated with the ancient myths of King Arthur. Excalibur has the magic of the old legends and a freshness all its own. It is a stirring tale of war, lust, revenge, duty, honor, and the power of hope.

Recommended.

The gold standard for Arthurian films

[Impman2 · 10/10 · 16 March 2019]

Earthy, gritty , passionate and strangely nostalgic. One land, one king.

A great film

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 3 June 2021]

Shot entirely on location in Ireland, employing mostly Irish actors and crew, Excalibur was an important film for the Irish filmmaking industry and helped start the careers of Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne and Ciarán Hinds.

It was also known as the Boorman Family Project, as several members of director Jonathan Boorman's family appear, with his daughter Katrine Boorman playing Igrayne - Arthur's mother - as well as his daughter Telsche as the Lady of the Lake and his son Charley acting in the role of Mordred as a boy. It was shot a mile from his home, so he was able to be at home for the entire making of the movie.

Boorman has been wanting to make the movie since 1969, yet the three-hour script was seen as too costly by United Artists and instead, he was offered The Lord of the Rings, which he did not make yet did develop. He ended up using some of the work that went into that adaption here, as well as potentially being inspired by Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

He'd worked with Rospo Pallenberg on that canceled film (as well as Exorcist II: The Heretic and The Emerald Forest; Pallenberg would also direct Cutting Class), so he worked with him here to bring Malory's Morte d'Arthur to theaters. Boorman said that his film was about "the coming of Christian man and the disappearance of the old religions which are represented by Merlin. The forces of superstition and magic are swallowed up into the unconscious."

I love Roger Ebert's review of this movie, in which he said that the film was both a wondrous vision and a mess, "a record of the comings and goings of arbitrary, inconsistent, shadowy figures who are not heroes but simply giants run amok. Still, it's wonderful to look at."

It's beyond gorgeous, actually, a movie that combines shocking gore with artistic flourishes, like the three ladies in white who attend Arthur to Avalon at the close. Boorman was also smart enough to cast Nicol Williamson as Merlin and Helen Mirren as Morgana Le Fay, two actors who had had a conflict when they acted in Macbeth together. He felt that tension would be seen on screen and it certainly is. That said, Mirren claimed that the two become friends while making Excalibur.

It rained every single day of the shoot, which adds to the foggy look of the film. It had many issues, as the first fight scene had to be filmed three times. It was filmed at night and the exposure meter was broken, leading to two different scenes of underexposed film.

Boorman's career is pretty great. Sure, there are the big movies like Deliverance, but I love that he shoots for the fences and makes off the wall stuff like Zardoz and Exorcist II: The Heretic. Here's to less playing it safe for directors, even if the misses end up being spectacular losses. I don't think that that can happen any longer in entertainment.

the classic story told without any hint of parody or cynicism: a bloody, brutal tale for all times

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 19 May 2010]

It's hard to watch the story of Excalibur at certain points without recollecting Monty Pytyhon and the Holy Grail. This is not John Boorman's fault any more than it was Robert Bresson's when he made Lancelot of the Lake (both of which take the Arthurian legend and tell it with a straight face and upstanding production value). I chuckle at seeing Camelot (and it IS a model indeed), and when Arthur has to face off against Lancelot. But Boorman is so good a director as to still take me out of satire and into the real bloody guts and thrills and drama (or really fantastical melodrama) of this story.

Excalibur does start a little shaky on some silly ground, or just a little like "huh, really?" This comes early when Merlin sets to task the impressionable and fiery Uther Pendragon to have his 'love' with the maiden, and has him cross the 'dragon's breath' (which is just fog) on his horse to ride over to her and so Merlin can do 'his thing' to which he'll have to recover in nine moons. Immediately I started to think "yes, this is well-directed, but I can't shake off the connection that the same man made the inexplicable Zardoz." And here and there Boorman goes into such strange and macabre territory that is a little bonkers; sometimes this works well, such as when Morgana puts into effect her plan to have her son with her brother, King Arthur, and it's done in such a way that is chilling and dark and evil, and just right.

But once Boorman gets into the Arthur legend, of pulling the sword from the stone and becoming knighted by another who looked under him, and then met Lancelot and Guinnevere and had his ups and downs with Merlin and so on, it becomes more and more satisfying. The actors are well-suited for such material: Nigel Terry as Arthur and Nicholas Clay as Lancelot have very direct, two-dimensional characters and they play them as if they were the superheroes of their time, conflicted, troubled, and just a little uneasy in the Dark Ages, but willing to do what it takes when the time comes. And other actors, like Helen Mirren, just eat up the scenery in a delicious kind of way (she doesn't quite start like that, but in the last act as she's the villainess she really is something).

Best of all though is Merlin. Whenever Nicol Williamson comes on the screen the film comes alive in a manner that is hard to describe. He just knows how to add the right inflections in the speech, get the right walk and the distinctive stare at Arthur or Morgana, and while his character starts off questionably (taking Arthur from his mother so soon after birth, you say), he makes his character believable and awesome every step of the way. Hell, he even looks the bad-ass when surrounded in a block of ice! All of this benefits Boorman as he takes his story to some epic heights. Very little of it, in fact, is dated because when visual effects or models are implemented they aren't the kind that stick out. Today an Excalibur would be filled with CGI, perhaps even for the metallic clang of the swords. Here, everything is costumes and real forests, castles and armor, body parts flying and blood spilling generously in those battle scenes (or just in any given scene there's some violence).

Like Bresson with his 1974 film, Boorman is an iconoclast with his images. He wants things to stick in the viewer's mind long after they end (for me one of those in this case is the scene where Perceval is hanging from the tree and is near death but dreams of something crazy as he's being accidentally cut down). But where Bresson meant for his Arthur to be seen in a more subdued manner with his typical withdrawn non-professional actors, Excalbur is meant as popular entertainment for the masses. This is something that could conceivably be a family film, albeit the generous bloodletting and the occasional gratuitous female nudity. Excalibur takes its source seriously enough to make it work, and without it slipping at least too far into its own parody. Some lines, to be sure, may be delivered very over-the-top, and a particular moment with Morgana near the end is kind of laughable in a sick way. But in general, this is astonishing work of a professional variety. It gets the adrenaline moving when it needs to, and settles an audience in for those "talky" scenes just right.

Excalibur

[phubbs · 7/10 · 29 April 2017]

Set in the wilds of Ireland and with a pretty full cast of Irish actors, which set in motion the careers of both Liam Neeson and Gabriel Byrne, whilst also utilising some classic/cult British names for spice.

Like Robin Hood there are many stories of the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the round table but this film is probably the most accurate in terms of an adaptation from original period text. This film is based around the tales from 'Le Morte d'Arthur' and seems to follow each 'segment' quite closely (haven't read it so I'm not sure).

The overall essence of this film is like a fairy tale of sorts, a kind of slightly cheesy shiny armoured fantasy with glittery sets, soft colours, strong religious/iconic imagery and a Clannad vibe running through it. The film reminded me of the classic British TV series 'Robin of Sherwood' (which also starred the dastardly Robert Addie) and the classic British fantasy film 'Krull'. I think the latter took inspiration from the visual aspect of 'Excalibur', possibly.

The design and look of this film is really very good, its clearly rather dated but it still has a high polish to it and looks quite epic. The locations really give an authentic feel, an solid impression of old medieval England complete with excellent costumes. Of course this being the 80's the armour does look a bit fake, a bit plastic, flimsy and too shiny in places. There is also a kind of music video feel to the proceedings in places. Some sets look a bit too sparkly, some characters have some dubious haircuts and to be utterly honest the acting and dialog is pretty hilarious in places, but you can't deny the effort and scope of this historical fantasy.

This being in the days before CGI when historical epics were all the rage, the battle sequences are small with some blood and minimal gore. You can easily tell they didn't have a big crew to make such grand battles so clever editing is used with lots of darkness and fog. Luckily old England was a foggy place...or so I've been led to believe. The other slightly amusing thing was the soundtrack, there is original work here but the use of classical pieces slapped on top of key sequences didn't really work (for me at least). The combination of certain scenes and certain pieces of music felt very rickety and really did seem crowbarred in badly. You can see what the director was going for but it comes off more like a parody of sorts, something not too dissimilar from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.

The plot is straight forward and it doesn't become dull despite the heavy romance involved. The film is layered and rich, vivid imagery and beautiful design giving the whole production much flare and class. It all works pretty flawlessly because you know these were the days when everything was hand crafted.

The film is a cult classic with a bitchin' powerful poster that demands your attention (it draws you in). On a final note, the acting in general may be acceptable but Nicol Williamson's Merlin is also another good reason to see this film. A truly unique quirky take on the character spouting some glorious lines, 'oh that's grand'.

7/10

The Arthurian Epic Gloriously Brought To Life

[FloatingOpera7 · 10/10 · 11 April 2006]

Excalibur, Starring Nigel Terry, Nicol Williamson, Helen Mirren, Cheri Lunghi, Nicholas Clay, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Robert Addie, Katrine Boorman, Paul Geoffrey, Clive Swift Director John Boorman, 1981 Director John Boorman and screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg worked on adapting the centuries old Thomas Malory epic "Le Morte D'Arthur" into a stunning, intensely dramatic movie masterpiece the likes of which had never been seen before. This is, for me, the most definitive version of the Arthurian saga. There is so much to admire about this film and so much to analyze but for lack of time on IMDb I can only offer portions of my praise. Boorman masterfully captures the grandiosity as well as the humanity of the fantasy legend about a young innocent who draws a sword from a stone and inherits the right of kingship, establishes the beautiful city of Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table, who protect the innocent and rid the world of evil, and search endlessly for that most elusive religious artifact - the Holy Grail. First of all, we must look beyond the fantasy elements and the special effects which everyone enjoys - the magic sword Excalibur, itself a symbol of strength and kingship (in the film the Lady of the Lake who gives the sword to Arthur and who receives it again in the finale is played by one of Boorman's daughter Telsche Boorman), the elaborate details of the medieval, Celtic-Christian England from the clothing, to the fortresses, to the armor and weapons, and we must see into the heart of the long epic. First off, Nigel Terry and Nicol Williamson as Arthur and Merlin carry the movie. Their relationship as mentor and protégé has never been most wonderfully portrayed, their friendship as two men who try desperately to fulfill the ideals of brotherhood and who fail has never been more poignantly captured. The most moving part for me is still the climatic finale, in which, after the death of Arthur, and the world seems to have ended, Excalibur is brought back to the Lake and Three mysterious queens take Arthur away on a barge, all this while the dramatic music to Wagner's Siegfried's Funeral March blares triumphantly. Boorman used the music of Wagner's operas most effectively in the relevant spots in the film- the sensual Prelude to Tristan and Isolde plays as Lancelot and Guenevere have their tryst in the forest, the spiritual, ethereal strains of the Good Friday/Holy Grail music from Parsifal plays as Parsifal himself encounters the Holy Grail and Siegfried's Funeral March from Gotterdammerung opens and closes the film as both the Sword Theme and the tragic motif of Arthur's heroic death. The relationship between King Arthur, Queen Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) and Lancelot (Nick Clay) is also well-developed. For once, we realize how the Queen loved her husband as a king, but because he was so consumed by his duties, she could not love him as a husband. Instead, she finds romantic-sexual gratification in an affair with Lancelot. The Quest for the Holy Grail could have been further elaborated but this is a minor quibble. The film builds up to a fiery finale. The character of the wicked sorceress Morgana (Helen Mirren) is also a strong point, and one everyone misses. She was only a small child (played by Barbara Byrne) when she witnessed the rape of her mother Igrayne (played by Boormans' daughter Katrine) by Uther. This single moment of deception and witchcraft triggered her mistrust of all men and ruins her innocence. She becomes a corrupt, greedy, power-hungry witch who even manages to trap Merlin in an icy cave. Her vengeance against Arthur brings about the final destruction as her evil son Mordred and Arthur fight to their own deaths. Well-known British actors live up to their own possible Arthurian/Brittanic heritage. Patrick Stewart (Captain of the Enterprise on Star Trek) is doing a superb performance as is Liam Neeson even though their roles are minor as knights of the Table. Clive Swift, Sir Kay, is better known as a comic actor in the British series "Keeping Up Appearances" he plays Hyancinth's husband Richard. The look of the film is a tapestry of moods. Green is magic, silver-metallic is mankind's power, the forest is a place where Lancelo and Guenvere revel in their primitive essence. It's a world of dark and light, spring and winter, happiness and despair, illusion, but other than its good versus evil themes there are many layers. Humanity is flawed, the end of the world is coming, but the world may still be renewed again. There is no greater truth than this.

Good but flawed

[markkelly64 · 7/10 · 15 April 2022]

Essentially it's probably the best cinematic telling of the Arthurian legend , it's beautifully shot and the cast is good up to a point but it's spoiled by having a hero with a heavy Bristolian accent which makes him sound daft as a youngster and without authority as the king , the same reason David Prowse was dubbed by James Earl Jones in Star Wars .

Secondly the sound track whilst written with the same story in mind albeit many years previously, sounds jarring and for all intents and purposes suggests they ran out of money and decided to licence Wagner as a cost cutting measure to the film's detriment.

Lastly , the sound was badly recorded so dialogue had to be dubbed later and it's a really poor job reminiscent of the cheapest spaghetti westerns of the seventies .

If you can get past this it's a great film .

Pointless and confused retelling of Arthurian myth

[pottedstu · 1/10 · 4 January 2005]

Boorman has always been a director more interested in intellectual themes and the play of symbols than in plot, characterisation, action, drama, or the other perks of commercial cinema. Sometimes, as in Point Blank, this produces a film which is austere yet impressive and resonant; at other times, like Zardoz, the result is unintentionally hilarious and leaves the viewer clueless as to the director's intentions.

Excalibur falls in the middle. It's not powerful epic film-making, and it's not camp nonsense. It's just dull. Most of the action takes place in near-total darkness, so it is almost impossible to follow the plot even if you can work out which of the million variations of the Arthur myth he's trying to tell. Occasionally Helen Mirren's naked body looms out of the night, which may have been nifty when the film was made but now there are websites for that kind of thing.

The cast (mainly not-quite-famous stage actors) don't seem to understand how to put their characters across on film. The cinematography is occasionally pretty, but generally dysfunctional since it fails to serve the needs of plot and character. Even the story itself is poor, demonstrating that the legend of Arthur is less a coherent narrative and more a string of sometimes contradictory events conflating numerous historical figures and folk tales.

The film has no discernible intellectual, social or political message, and though it promises the chance to see a record of some good stage actors, the expected performances never materialise through the darkness and mud. The story of Arthur has been presented so many times it's almost impossible to do anything original other than be worse than whatever has come before (as the recent King Arthur demonstrated). Watch Disney's The Sword and the Stone instead.