- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Excalibur (1981)...Nostalgia vs. objectivity
Posted on 1/18/17 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 1/18/17 at 1:48 pm
Excalibur is a re-telling of 'La Morte d'Arthur' directed by John Boorman (UK) Starring:
Nigel Terry, Nicol Williamson, Helen Mirren, Nicolas Clay.
Also: Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson.
While I was 9 when the film was released, I didn't see it until age 12 or so only because it was one of the only three beta-max movies my best friend owned. (the other two being Weird Science and Emmanuel IV
) So the tape was in a constant state of replay it seems, and we loved it - especially the armor and weapons/ fight scenes, as they were much more bulky and menacing than any medieval battle gear we'd seen up to then- Add to this, we were HUGE Conan The Barbarian fans and D&D plalyers in Jr. High, losing many issues of Heavy Metal magazine to confiscating teachers.
I watched it last night for the first time in MANY years, worried that I would pick it to death and ruin my old love of it...but I was impressed to see how well it has held up over time, in spite of some poor stunt sequences here and there and the glaring but surprisingly few really POOR pre-CG special FX.
My point is, while recognizing it's faults I still consider it one of the best Sword and Sorcery movies ever, if not the best King Arthur movie...how much of this praise is based on personal bias/ nostalgia vs. what it earns on it's own merits, I have no clue. I can say that for it's time it was bold, brutal, dark, and dirty...and beautifully shot at the same time. (the green lights not-withstanding)
It's really hard for me to be objective here, so help me out.
PS: I see it has an 82% RT rating. Not bad...makes me feel much better.
Nigel Terry, Nicol Williamson, Helen Mirren, Nicolas Clay.
Also: Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson.
While I was 9 when the film was released, I didn't see it until age 12 or so only because it was one of the only three beta-max movies my best friend owned. (the other two being Weird Science and Emmanuel IV
) So the tape was in a constant state of replay it seems, and we loved it - especially the armor and weapons/ fight scenes, as they were much more bulky and menacing than any medieval battle gear we'd seen up to then- Add to this, we were HUGE Conan The Barbarian fans and D&D plalyers in Jr. High, losing many issues of Heavy Metal magazine to confiscating teachers. I watched it last night for the first time in MANY years, worried that I would pick it to death and ruin my old love of it...but I was impressed to see how well it has held up over time, in spite of some poor stunt sequences here and there and the glaring but surprisingly few really POOR pre-CG special FX.
My point is, while recognizing it's faults I still consider it one of the best Sword and Sorcery movies ever, if not the best King Arthur movie...how much of this praise is based on personal bias/ nostalgia vs. what it earns on it's own merits, I have no clue. I can say that for it's time it was bold, brutal, dark, and dirty...and beautifully shot at the same time. (the green lights not-withstanding)
It's really hard for me to be objective here, so help me out.
PS: I see it has an 82% RT rating. Not bad...makes me feel much better.
13
Posted on 1/18/17 at 1:51 pm to 19
I took a medieval lit class in which we studied the Grail cycle stories, and Excalibur was the movie the prof chose for class. It was a relatively good representation of the mythology. I've watched it in recent years and still like it. Phenomenal cast.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 1:53 pm to 19
I thought it was pretty good.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:04 pm to 19
We watched it in 9th grade, loved it then and love it now. Even the bad dubbing adds to the eerie quality of it.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:08 pm to 19
I remember liking a Knight movie from my childhood and always thought it was this one, but I think from a quick Google search its Hearts and Armour. Anyone seen that?
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:08 pm to 19
I've watched it at least twenty times. It's worth a watch just for the supporting cast who went on to be major stars. I just recently realized that Ciarán Hinds was in it.
It holds up 100% for me.
The scene with Arthur kneeling while he's in battle with Sir Uryans and giving him Excalibur so that Uryans can knight Arthur... still give me chills.
That and, "Any man who would be a knight and follow a king, follow me."
It holds up 100% for me.
The scene with Arthur kneeling while he's in battle with Sir Uryans and giving him Excalibur so that Uryans can knight Arthur... still give me chills.
That and, "Any man who would be a knight and follow a king, follow me."
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:08 pm to 19
You're not too much older than I am. This was definitely a staple of my childhood. I revisited it not too long ago, and although it seems somewhat disjointed at times, I agree that it's held up pretty well.
You should revisit Emmanuel IV.
You should revisit Emmanuel IV.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:10 pm to 19
Excalibur is a movie that I really enjoy because it is unapologetic fantasy, and there were few movies like that at the time.
These days fantasy is in style. Back then, it was a real risk. You had to assume that the audience was going to "get it." Excalibur is a bold movie for that reason.
Objectively, this is a three out of four stars movie. It is solid. It holds up well over time. In my opinion, this is the best King Arthur movie because it focuses on the chivalric ideal of Arthur and the magic of Merlin as opposed to the "gritty, realistic" attempts of later Arthur movies.
Where the movie suffers: the story is disjointed and time rushes by. Its timeline is huge for a movie of its length. You don't really get a sense that scene A influences scene B very much in this movie, and it makes you wonder about the motivations of some characters, and how they feel what they feel for each other. The script doesn't do a great job of building relationships between characters.
Where the movie soars: The embrace of ideals. The gutsy way in which Merlin is weirdly portrayed. Helen Mirren is a fantastic villain. Even the dude who plays Mordred is a real bastard. You HATE that guy. There is sincerity in the acting and the directing. There are touching moments in this movie, like the scene where King Arthur retrieves Excalibur from Guinevere at the Abbey, or when Percival tells Uriens how he almost had the Grail.
If you think this movie is great, you're not alone. It deserves to be remembered and watched. I sincerely wish another King Arthur movie gets made in this vein. I want magic spells, and Grail quests, and watery tarts distributing swords. You can tell that the people who made this movie really loved doing it.
These days fantasy is in style. Back then, it was a real risk. You had to assume that the audience was going to "get it." Excalibur is a bold movie for that reason.
Objectively, this is a three out of four stars movie. It is solid. It holds up well over time. In my opinion, this is the best King Arthur movie because it focuses on the chivalric ideal of Arthur and the magic of Merlin as opposed to the "gritty, realistic" attempts of later Arthur movies.
Where the movie suffers: the story is disjointed and time rushes by. Its timeline is huge for a movie of its length. You don't really get a sense that scene A influences scene B very much in this movie, and it makes you wonder about the motivations of some characters, and how they feel what they feel for each other. The script doesn't do a great job of building relationships between characters.
Where the movie soars: The embrace of ideals. The gutsy way in which Merlin is weirdly portrayed. Helen Mirren is a fantastic villain. Even the dude who plays Mordred is a real bastard. You HATE that guy. There is sincerity in the acting and the directing. There are touching moments in this movie, like the scene where King Arthur retrieves Excalibur from Guinevere at the Abbey, or when Percival tells Uriens how he almost had the Grail.
If you think this movie is great, you're not alone. It deserves to be remembered and watched. I sincerely wish another King Arthur movie gets made in this vein. I want magic spells, and Grail quests, and watery tarts distributing swords. You can tell that the people who made this movie really loved doing it.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:14 pm to 19
I remember liking it as a kid. Caught it a while back and thought it has held up well.
One thing that struck me on rewatch is how long Liam Neeson has been doing movies.
*oopsy. Neeson
One thing that struck me on rewatch is how long Liam Neeson has been doing movies.
*oopsy. Neeson
This post was edited on 1/18/17 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:31 pm to 19
Great movie from my childhood. Rubbed a few out to Helen Mirren and her fantastic rack.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:44 pm to 19
One of my all time favorite movies.
green is metaphor for magic, which is why the film was washing in green lighting
quote:
the green lights not-withstanding
green is metaphor for magic, which is why the film was washing in green lighting
Posted on 1/18/17 at 5:14 pm to 19
mI've seen this movie many many times, and I still love it. It was a cult classic between my friends and I. I never got to see it in the theater because I was too young, but I watched it a million times on cable and tape.
Dragonslayer was also a great one, as was The Sword and the Sorcerer. I don't hear that one talked about very often. The launching "triple sword" was kind of stupid even then, but I still loved it.
Dragonslayer was also a great one, as was The Sword and the Sorcerer. I don't hear that one talked about very often. The launching "triple sword" was kind of stupid even then, but I still loved it.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 5:14 pm to 19
The third or fourth film released by Orion pictures, it is sometimes called the "Boorman Family Project" as director John Boorman (known mainly at that point for Deliverance) employed all of his children as cast and crew for the film, Excalibur is still remembered for a significant number of highly regarded actors getting fairly early screen time - mainly stage actors making the transition.
Helen Mirren - still in her 30s (
) - was practically the elder stateswoman, film wise, having been around since the late 60s. Nicol Williamson (Merlin) had been all over British film and television for almost 20 years, but had only recently been seen in Hollywood films and American television - sometimes called "The British Brando" - Williamson and Mirren famously hated each other. Boorman thought this would be great as they wouldn't have to pretend to intensely dislike each other ( ).
Others in the stellar cast - Byrne, Neeson, Stewart - all household names in the U.S. - were virtual unknowns to the American audience at the time.
Helen Mirren - still in her 30s (
) - was practically the elder stateswoman, film wise, having been around since the late 60s. Nicol Williamson (Merlin) had been all over British film and television for almost 20 years, but had only recently been seen in Hollywood films and American television - sometimes called "The British Brando" - Williamson and Mirren famously hated each other. Boorman thought this would be great as they wouldn't have to pretend to intensely dislike each other ( ). Others in the stellar cast - Byrne, Neeson, Stewart - all household names in the U.S. - were virtual unknowns to the American audience at the time.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 1:31 pm to 19
quote:
While I was 9 when the film was released, I didn't see it until age 12 or so only because it was one of the only three beta-max movies my best friend owned.
I was like 3 when it came and and like you didn't see it till I was a few years older.
I think its held up remarkably well and I really enjoy watching it now in widescreen after only ever having seen it in 4x3 in my youth.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News