Excalibur

Orion Pictures | Release Date: April 10, 1981

7.7	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 22 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

SpangleMay 28, 2017

Now considered to potentially be the best adaptation of the legend of King Arthur, director John Boorman's Excalibur is one of many films to have risen out of the ashes of negative reviews upon release. However, whether it was fully deservingNow considered to potentially be the best adaptation of the legend of King Arthur, director John Boorman's Excalibur is one of many films to have risen out of the ashes of negative reviews upon release. However, whether it was fully deserving of this critical turnabout is an entirely different matter. As a fantasy adventure film, Excalibur is undeniably a faithful adaptation of the legend and one with excellent operatic sensibilities and great battles. Unfortunately, it is maligned by one deadly disease that strikes at the very heart of the film and can often turn its imaginative fantasy and serious battles into pure, unintentional comedy. This film left me in stitches more often than it ever should have and part of that is due to the dialogue, but the vast majority of it is due to its horrific acting.

This horrific acting is pretty much the worst part of this film and what leads to its undoing as a film. In the lead role, we have the horrific Nigel Terry who turns in a confused and oddly tongue-in-cheek performance as King Arthur. Alongside him, Nicol Williamson's Merlin is a clear inspiration for Morgan Freeman's Tiberius in The Lego Movie. He delivers his lines with a odd blend of comedy and serious mysticism with the end result being him appearing to ham it up far too much. The rest of the cast is largely awful for reasons beyond their own control and can be described as Boorman's misstep. Having everybody yell their lines, along with their unconvincing delivery, makes the film and its characters appear wholly unaware of the fact that this is really a Monty Python movie. The actors deliver their lines with no confidence or sense of belief that this is really happening. The worst sinner here is Boorman's daughter Katrine who plays Igrayne, Arthur's mother. As her son is stolen from her by Merlin, her pained screams of "Get him!" are absolutely hysterical with her shrill shrieks being the work of comedy genius. Unfortunately, they were lines intended to be painful, real, and tragic to hear. With horribly unconvincing delivery that makes it seem like the whole cast was just sitting through a table read and going over their lines for the first time when Boorman figured he would just have them read it with the some conviction in the real shoot, Excalibur winds up being unintentional comedy of the highest order.

Blended with its fantastical plot, the film's horrible acting is really unfortunate. Instead of a mystical and magical adventure, the film winds up feeling like a funny drug-fueled romp through the minds of a stoner. It is a weird blend of Monty Python and Time Bandits, except played entirely straight to the point that you have no idea whether the film realizes it is so funny. As Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) and Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) have sex in the forest with Arthur nearing their location and Morgana (Helen Mirren) and Merlin watching on, the scene is entirely comical due to the horrible acting. Mirren and Williamson ham it up as the wizards while the rest of the cast all act horrified, shocked, and ashamed in a way that makes it appear as though this is the first time these actors have ever felt these emotions. The film would be markedly better if its acting were wooden. Instead, it worsens the matter with everybody appearing to be robots or aliens attempting to mimic human behavior.

This acting concern is often found in the dialogue, to be fair, as the actors struggle to feel their way through the dialogue that just comes off as far too cheesy to match the film's serious struggle between good and evil. This is even more unfortunate with how well developed the film's themes really are. With Arthur being a Jesus-like figure in this adaptation of the legend, he is tempted and put through the ringer all to prove that he is the true chosen one. Along the way, he offers forgiveness to his wife, his best friend, and seeks to unite his kingdom under a religious center. Honoring his father and family, Arthur is a man that is united by his disciples, fearlessness, and willingness to bring peace and prosperity throughout the land. Including the theme of lust throughout the film that tempts men of every walk of life and serves to be their very undoing, the film may be one of the most soundly written and developed adaptations of Jesus in a non-Jesus film ever put to film. Boorman keeps the film focused upon this theme and always develops it, adding various layers to it that makes it a compelling tale of a man seeking redemption after falling from grace and having to fight his way back through defending his soul from those that want its perfection.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews