Sherack Nhar Posted January 19, 2002 Share Posted January 19, 2002 Okay, welcome to my movie review of Excalibur. For you unenlightened ones, Excalibur is John Boorman's masterpiece. It's an awesome movie featuring the entire tale of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, taking its source directly from Thomas Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" (Death of Arthur). It can be considered an old movie (1981), but this is the most faithful adaptation of the Arthurian Legends to the big screen as of yet. Story As said earlier, John Boorman has produced a movie that is the closest thing to the real work of Malory. However, he still had to modify the story in some parts, in order to make it fit as a two-hour movie. For example, Boorman actually fusionned Morgan LeFay and Morgawse (two of Arthur's sisters) into an unique character, Morgana. The end is pretty messed up too - Mordred, Arthur's son, was supposed to take over Camelot (Arthur's castle) while the king was away waging war against Lancelot of the Lake. In the movie, there was no war against Lancelot, just an exile, and Mordred was raised outside of Camelot, and never took over it. Another example of Boorman's modification is that Gawain, who was a major character in Thomas Malory's book, was only seen in one part of the movie, where he accused the queen of loving Lancelot (which, by the way, refused to do so in Malory's version). Excalibur's story is very complete - it spans from Arthur's initial conception all the way to his very death. The flow of the story is very good - just when you think the action is getting slow, something new is happening. What I especially like is how it tells the story from a religious viewpoint - it's the time where the multiple gods have been taken over by the One God. We see Christianity's emergence, which is a nice historical background to the fantasy tale that are the Arthurian Legends. The characters are very well defined - they each have their own qualities and faults. Even the main character, Arthur, is not perfect - he's especially quick to anger and cocky, as shown in his fight with Lancelot, as well as his reaction when he learns of his best friend's betrayal. Sherack's score on story: 85% Acting and Dialogue First of all, this review would not be complete without mentionning Nicol Williamson's stunning performance as the wizard Merlin. His dialogue, which is mostly consisted of brilliant riddles, is rendered perfectly. His performance was truly magnificent - there are no words to describe it as it should. Nigel Terry, who is playing Arthur's part, is also very good. His main strength lies in the fact that he can act as a 20-years old man as well as his 60-years old counterpart. His voice and intonation is strong and sure - exactly what you'd expect from a king. His character has some very good lines, especially near the end. He can render emotions very well, but his sword handling skills have room for improvement:) Nicholas Clay (Lancelot of the Lake), Liam Neeson (Gawain) and Paul Geoffrey (Perceval) are all great. Their performances are very much alike, depicting strong knights with a sense of honor. Nicholas Clay has a tendency to overdramatize a bit, but his part was indeed very hard to play - Lancelot is torn between his love for Guinevere and his loyalty to his friend and king, Arthur. My only real complaint here would be that I'd like to see more of Liam Neeson - it was his debuts as an actor, and albeit small, his part was very well played. On the other hand, Helen Mirren (Morgana) and Cherie Lunghi (Guinevere)'s performances were bland and uninteresting. Guinevere was very cliché, although that was to be expected since it is the very nature of the character. Helen Mirren's case is different. It looked like she wanted to play her part bad. She was unable to pronounce the Charm of Making properly (it's in old Irish: the correct way is Anahl Natrah, Urvast Bethod, Doriel Nienveh*; Mirren pronounced it "Baythood"). This was unacceptable, as Morgana actually learns the spell from Merlin, who pronounced it correctly. As a side note, I'd like to add that Excalibur is the first and only movie I saw that the french version was as good, if not better, than the english version. There was a great work put into the translation of this movie, and it deserves commendement. Sherack's score on acting and dialogue: 95% Video and Audio Being from the early eighties, Excalibur's visuals aren't likely to blow you away. The Sword's luminescence is a cheap reflection of a green light projected onto it. Also, the costume team must have not made its homework: in the movie, the knights are running around in their armor 24 hours a day. They wear it during the meals, when walking around the castle, everywhere! But this is a minor quibble. The environments are vast and lush, they're very beautiful. The fog near the end kinda ruins it, though it was a very important plot point. The audio is a mixed bag of goods and bads. The quality isn't very good; again, it's an old movie, so you can't expect much from it. The soundtrack, however, blew me away. It's a nice mix of original pieces and O' Fortuna, from Carmina Burana. The themes are very nice to listen to, and they're always when you want to hear them. O' Fortuna, being one of the most powerful classical composition ever, sounds just like it should - although the movie has a tendency to cut it right during the middle when the action of the scene begins, leaving me wanting more! Sherack's score on video and audio: 90% All in all, you just HAVE to see this movie. It's extremely entertaining. Although it does contain some scenes of violence, it's not really as explicit (except a few chopped off limbs) as Saving Private Ryan and the likes. I'd like to mention that the DVD version features a very nice extra: John Boorman's audio commentary. It is absolutely a must see, it is very interesting. Excalibur might be perceived as a movie for the Arthurian Legends fans, but this is simply untrue. In fact, it can serve as an excellent introduction to the wonderful world that is Arthur's kingdom. Rent this movie now! Sherack's score on Excalibur: 95% *: Anahl Natrah, Urvast Bethod, Doriel Nienveh is only the pronounciation. The spelling is entirely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvan Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Nice review sherack! I just wish I could remember which Excalibur movie your reviewing There has been quite a few of them. What movie are you gonna review next? *sigh...remembers the good old days when rhett would review movies* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 I haven't gone to any new ones lately but rest assured, when spring hits there will be movie reviews a plenty! Nice review, Sherack. I didn't even know there was such a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar Okay, welcome to my movie review of Excalibur. For you unenlightened ones, Excalibur is John Boorman's masterpiece. Ok....nice review. But I'm going to take issue with the above statement!!! Have you never seen 'Deliverence', or more importantly, John Boormans REAL masterpiece 'Point Blank'? I know I may sound kranky, but 'Point Blank' is one of those films that leaves me breathless regardless of how many times I've seen it! Nice to see John Boorman getting some much deserved respect, not many people know who he is considering the list of classic films he has made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar Video and Audio Being from the early eighties, Excalibur's visuals aren't likely to blow you away. Ok another major issue, the cinematography in this film is breathtaking, it even won an award. It quite simply is visually stunning. Admittedly, the effects arent anything special, but anyone can hold suspense of their disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted January 22, 2002 Author Share Posted January 22, 2002 Nice points you brought there, duder. I qualified Excalibur as his masterpiece because that's how John Boorman himself was referring it to in his audio commentary. He believes it is by far his best movie ever. I've never seen Point Blank, but I'll have to rent it sometimes! Your issue on the cinematography is understandable. Yes, it did won an award for the visuals, but that was back then. I was using today's standards when reviewing the movie - Excalibur's visuals don't even compare to those of Phantom Menace or Lord of the Rings. Thanks for the praise guys! And Kvan, there's only ONE film named Excalibur Also, can anyone tell me how to take screenshots using my Pioneer 16x DVD-ROM? I've tried using print screen during playback, but it will only show a black screen. I wanted to include images in my review! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvan Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 No!There is more than one, I actually looked when i went to the video store Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar Nice points you brought there, duder. I qualified Excalibur as his masterpiece because that's how John Boorman himself was referring it to in his audio commentary. He believes it is by far his best movie ever. Ahh I didnt know that, I was going by the critics and my own personal belief!!! Useful bit of info though. I've never seen Point Blank, but I'll have to rent it sometimes! Do that, you will not be disappointed! Your issue on the cinematography is understandable. Yes, it did won an award for the visuals, but that was back then. I was using today's standards when reviewing the movie - Excalibur's visuals don't even compare to those of Phantom Menace or Lord of the Rings. I would argue that Cinematography is timeless, and certaintly some of the best cinematography I have ever seen comes from the 1940's/50's. Films like 'A Touch of Evil', or 'Casablanca', to name only a few, are visually sublime, and certaintly superior to the likes of LotR or Phantom Menace! If you are refering to special effects, then i completely agree, but that is only a small influence on cinematography!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.