|
Showing all 34 reviews...
|
|
 |
I saw excalibur when I was in high school, and I feel in love with the story... my favorite character was merlyn, of course. I would really recommend it to anyone who wants and has time to watch a movie that will pull you in. I just have one question and I know that it sounds funny but can anyone tell me the name of the song that is played when king arthur is looking for the chalice? It is a very popular piece by a composer I can not recall, if you could please write back to my address below, thanks!
9/10
11.4.2004 -
chavara@ - age: 18-25
For Arthurian fans, this is a very good representation of the information. Some details are left out but when it covers an entire life you can't add everything. The music was a great addition to the material presented. After reading Malory and T. H. White's material about Arthur, the movie was a great way to put a visualization to the works.
7/10
24.11.2003 -
evil_steggy_sister_2003@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
The movie Excalibur was mildly intriguing, yet very unsatisfying. The flick, directed by a one John Boorman, was aiming to portray the chronicle of the famed sword of King Arthur. We have all heard the many stories of King Arthur, and virtually all are included, from the discovery of Excalibur to the downfall of Arthur's kingdom. Written by John Boorman and Rospo Pallenberg, Excalibur appeared ill scripted, and arduous to follow. The script seemed to be poorly organized, causing numerous and frequent scene changes. This, in turn, irritated the audience to a point of lunacy. Boorman appeared to be leaning towards the adult audience when he added a great deal of action, drama, and romance into his movie. This successively made the two hour and twenty minute film a rated R picture. This may have detoured the younger audience from seeing the film. Excalibur required a very large cast. Most, if not the entire cast, were not well known at the time of the devising of the production. A few have managed to make a name for themselves. Most of the characters were easy to understand, but a few still lacked the enunciation of professionals. The cast included; Nigel Terry, Helen Mirren, Nicholas Clay, Cherie Lunghi, Paul Geoffrey, Nicol Williamson, Robert Addie, and a Gabriel Byrne. The actors and actresses in this film seem to have done their job, but with a poor script, one can not manage a decent performance. The acting deserves a seven out of ten. The sound was yet another thing to be desired in this film. The quality was mediocre and just down right pathetic. For the three main battle scenes, Boorman chose to play the same song to try to stimulate the audience. This seemed to have backfired by causing a loss of attentiveness due to the boring nature of the song. The sound lacked the effects of digital technology, and in the overall outcome, hurt the film tremendously. Compared to other top rated movies, this is unsatisfactory. The finally rating of this movie is a six out of ten, which puts it well below the mark of even the worst Rocky movie. Honestly, this movie should never have been released to DVD. This is a very poor example of what could have been a very magnificent and electrifying story of the great Excalibur. - jabce85 - E'ville.
6/10
18.9.2003 -
jabce85@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
John Boorman has fashioned something incredible in my opinion. Nigel Terry is the greatest Arthur I have seen, and Nicol Williamson does a superb job bringing out the Merlin mythos (whose performance is so brilliant that I believe he ranks with Sir Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ian McKellen as Gandalf) Sure, I don't deny that the script condenses things (ie Percival also being the embodiment of Galahad or Excalibur itself taking both its own story and that of the sword in the stone into play..), but that my friends is what happens when you translate literature into film. It's a whole different medium. Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings also has been frowned upon for his condensation of material and/or additions and subtractions of varying degree, but both the trilogy written by J. R. R. Tolkien and this tale by Thomas Malory have their spirits intact... a hard concept to explain I'm sure. But to be blunt, this movie is beautiful, and should not be looked down upon as some half-done tale of Arthur, Camelot, and Uther's horse... it is a powerful and visionary companion to the tales we have learned to love. I respect and approve of the right to hate the movie - I myself am not that naive to bash those who stand against it. It is though, in my mind, a great movie; a classic that will go down unto the ages of cinema.
10/10
26.8.2003 -
burningflame@ - age: 13-17
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I saw this movie because Helen Mirren plays in it, she's my favourite actress. Her role in it is, of course, wonderful. I also like Merlin when he speeks out his magic spell. About the plot, it's not that good, but the music and the special effects are great. There are too many fights though, it would have been nicer if the drama aspect had been more important. But anyway, it's a grwat movie and you should really see it!!
8/10
18.8.2003 -
melanie_c_rules@ - age: 13-17
Excellent.
10/10
4.5.2003 -
souris112@ - age: 13-17
I've seen this movie several times, at first I found it zapping a sunday morning, I was absolutely delighted but never had a chance to see it again. However I saw Hallmark's Merlin few months ago, and shotrly after I deliberately got to see Excalibur. It is by far the best Arthurian adpatation, although the special effects, acting, sound and script may not be the best (battles just lack emotion even when the score builds up the mood) I specially like the grail part.
8/10
3.5.2003 -
komer@ - age: 13-17
As a movie itself, I would say this is a worthwhile venture. As a representation of the Arthurian legend, I find it severely lacking. The battle scenes left me feeling cheated and the acting also had much to be desired. After having just read Malory and Cretien, I felt that they could have done a much better job representing the legend itself.
6/10
30.4.2003 -
lovenlollipops@ - age: 18-25
Arthurian legend is very important and I am surprised to see that we people get older they seem to be less interested in it! I would have though the contrary. Anyway go for it, this is worthfull. Of course, the special effects are not perfect as this is not the aim of the movie!
8/10
10.4.2003 -
aly@ - age: 26-35
Until Lord of the Rings this was as good as I've seen chivalric movie making. Great score, great drama. A truly brilliant piece that brings the Arthurian Story to life.
9/10
8.3.2003 -
dominicproctor@ - age: 36-49
|
