Excalibur

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.

I first saw this film back when it came out and I was an usher at a local theatre (I was in high school). I have seen many films based on King Arthur, and for some reason this one always causes a stronger reaction in me. I think it is because it is so dark as well as intense. Merlin is borderline looney yet powerful; Arthur starts off as a good-hearted child and then before your eyes self-destructs under his self-imposed weight of leadership; Modred is mocking and disgusting. The fight scenes and the costumes/armor are disturbing; this is no desensitized movie! I own the VHS and sometimes I like to watch up to the point where Guin's deceit with Lancelot takes place, and then stop. After that point, until the very end, the movie is about the fall of a legend, and I like my legends on their pedestals.

"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"

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.

This is by far the best Arthurian film offering - sure, sure it gets a bit loopy with the Quest for the Grail, but I'm pretty sure such a Quest would involve some loopiness. The acting is v. good given the material, the atmosphere is strong and the use of Wagner is, at times, inspired. Oh, and there's no Richard Gere looking purty...