← Back to Reviews
in
Excalibur -
This epic about Arthur Pendragon's rise from squire to king is bound to satisfy fans of his legend and lovers of the sword and sorcery genre alike. For a 40-year-old movie, I was struck by how good and not dated it looks, at least in comparison to a lot of movies in this genre from this decade. It helps that its visual effects would come across as unique in any era, my favorite being how it uses light from the knights' shining armor to the otherworldly green glow of the titular sword. You don't have to be an expert in the King Arthur legend to know how expansive it is, and I like how Boorman and company account for this by structuring the movie as a series of episodes. As a result, none of its time jumps seem out of place or make the movie seem incoherent. Also, whether directly or indirectly, this approach keeps the movie briskly paced and more reliant on dialogue than narration. Another quality that makes it so much fun is that it's a who's who of other legends: those of the British acting world. The joy of seeing familiar faces like Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, et al, all of whom are just as watchable then as they are now, never gets old, but that's not to take away from the performers in more prominent roles who I do not know as well. Familiar or not, the standout is Nicol Williamson as Merlin, who could not be a better guide and friend to Nigel Terry's Arthur, or to the audience for that matter thanks to his consistent - and consistently surprising -appearances. Credit also goes to Nicholas Clay as Lancelot, who is utterly convincing at how his love for Arthur's bride conflicts with his need to be his king's most just and loyal knight. Moreover, thanks to him and how it puts its R rating to good use, the movie earns its romance label as much as it earns its sword and sorcery labels.
Again, this movie covers a lot of material in its two-and-a-half-hour runtime and thankfully without coming across as overstuffed, but there are characters and subplots I wish were more fleshed out, namely Morgana le Fay, Perceval, and the quest for the Holy Grail. In other words, those expecting a deep exploration of the entire Arthurian legend rather than the survey this movie provides may be disappointed. Despite wishing it had been a little bit longer for this reason, I am more than satisfied with this movie's treatment of it. Besides, it succeeds at telling King Arthur’s story, if anyone’s, and since I’d be happy to watch, but do not feel compelled to see any other movies that tell this story that have been or are yet to be made, it must be doing something right.
This epic about Arthur Pendragon's rise from squire to king is bound to satisfy fans of his legend and lovers of the sword and sorcery genre alike. For a 40-year-old movie, I was struck by how good and not dated it looks, at least in comparison to a lot of movies in this genre from this decade. It helps that its visual effects would come across as unique in any era, my favorite being how it uses light from the knights' shining armor to the otherworldly green glow of the titular sword. You don't have to be an expert in the King Arthur legend to know how expansive it is, and I like how Boorman and company account for this by structuring the movie as a series of episodes. As a result, none of its time jumps seem out of place or make the movie seem incoherent. Also, whether directly or indirectly, this approach keeps the movie briskly paced and more reliant on dialogue than narration. Another quality that makes it so much fun is that it's a who's who of other legends: those of the British acting world. The joy of seeing familiar faces like Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, et al, all of whom are just as watchable then as they are now, never gets old, but that's not to take away from the performers in more prominent roles who I do not know as well. Familiar or not, the standout is Nicol Williamson as Merlin, who could not be a better guide and friend to Nigel Terry's Arthur, or to the audience for that matter thanks to his consistent - and consistently surprising -appearances. Credit also goes to Nicholas Clay as Lancelot, who is utterly convincing at how his love for Arthur's bride conflicts with his need to be his king's most just and loyal knight. Moreover, thanks to him and how it puts its R rating to good use, the movie earns its romance label as much as it earns its sword and sorcery labels.
Again, this movie covers a lot of material in its two-and-a-half-hour runtime and thankfully without coming across as overstuffed, but there are characters and subplots I wish were more fleshed out, namely Morgana le Fay, Perceval, and the quest for the Holy Grail. In other words, those expecting a deep exploration of the entire Arthurian legend rather than the survey this movie provides may be disappointed. Despite wishing it had been a little bit longer for this reason, I am more than satisfied with this movie's treatment of it. Besides, it succeeds at telling King Arthur’s story, if anyone’s, and since I’d be happy to watch, but do not feel compelled to see any other movies that tell this story that have been or are yet to be made, it must be doing something right.