Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Bill Slocum When is a motion picture all picture and no motion? To have the answer, see this three-hour collection of close-ups and costumes, a musical ponderously directed by Josh Logan starring three actors who can't sing.In England's early medieval period, King Arthur (Richard Harris) and his new bride Guenevere (Vanessa Redgrave) bring together the flower of knighthood to establish a new golden era of "might for right." But Arthur's most powerful ally, Lancelot (Franco Nero) becomes the undoing of the realm when he and Guenevere begin a passionate, painful affair."How did I blunder into this agonizing absurdity?" is the question Arthur poses in his opening scene. It starts with a musical where the music is not so much performed as presented, shot with abrupt jump cuts and suffocating close-ups that zero right up the noses of the three stars.With three hours, and the Excalibur legend to play with, you would think there is a lot of story here. But there isn't. For ninety minutes, about the same screen time it took Rick and Ilsa to make their plans or Charles Foster Kane to leave his wife, you get a pair of mistaken-identity cute meets and a pointless joust which somehow prompts the previously distant Gen and Lance to fall in love. The next 90 minutes are for watching everything fall apart.Logan indulged his actors famously on set, even allowing Harris to flash Redgrave for cheap laughs and letting Redgrave mess with the Alan Jay Lerner lyrics. Despite its reputation, this isn't Lerner and partner Frederick Loewe's best score; yet the movie makes matters worse by overusing the strings and robbing the songs of any pull. The title song should be a thrusting, raucous number; it's Muzak here.In a promotional show made at the time of the film's release, Logan emphasizes the word "texture" a lot. There is a lot of this on display, what with its touted "45 sets and 3,500 costumes." The costumes look okay; the sets decked out like Christmas trees in "GoodFellas." But where's the story?The Arthur legend is a sprawling epic; to fit something digestible into even three hours you have to make choices. Here, Logan and the production team seemed to decide to zero in on the three main characters and ignore everyone else, except for cheap comic relief from Lionel Jeffries as Pellinore, a king who can't remember where his kingdom is; and David Hemmings as sly and slinky Mordred, the bad guy of the piece. Neither manage to do more than annoy.Of the principals, Harris and Redgrave talk-sing while Nero is dubbed. Nero has negative comic presence, rendering his opening number "C'est Moi" inert; Redgrave is cool and unlikable throughout. Only Harris has a pulse, but as his character is all over the map his energy becomes a weight as the story flips around. Nothing is really established about what makes his Camelot special; the only time I noticed the Round Table was when a horse galloped across it. If you want to celebrate the notion of a land dedicated to the principle people matter, why undercut it by ignoring everyone but the king and his two favorite subjects? It's reflective of the sort of star service Logan made his career; the result is even worse than usual for him.

jc-osms I found this big-budget movie transfer of the Lerner-Louwe musical about the court of King Arthur and the courtship of Lady Guinnivere to be a slightly uneasy mix of the dramatic and the musical. I found myself enjoying both aspects individually but in the final analysis, not together. In the end, the dramatic side of the equation seems to get bigger play, particularly the last half-hour where nary a song is heard, as the climax of the dastard / bastard Mordred's plot against Arthur unfolds using as its fulcrum the ill-fated romance of the Queen with Arthur's champion knight, Sir Lancelot.I'm a big fan of Richard Harris, the singer as well as the actor and felt he carried the film well. I like his emotive singing voice and he acts the King's mood-swings with assured-ness and charisma. He frequently comes across as the boy-king who never quite grew up as witness the irreverent way he almost never sits properly on his throne and his frequent callings out to his childhood mentor Merlin and his eventual commune with his younger self in a dream sequence at the height, or depth, of his marital difficulties. I don't quite see Vanessa Redgrave as being quite beauteous enough to attract the attention of the two great knights she bewitches plus I found her performance somewhat skittish and girlish. Franco Nero as third-wheel Lancelot didn't fit my imagined appearance of the great knight with his mop of curly hair and youthful, clean-shaven appearance but improves as the movie goes on as his beloved king's reluctant love-rival.The sub-plot of Arthur's establishment of the code of chivalry and the introduction of a legal system throughout his kingdom is used and abused by the scheming Mordred, played with conniving cunning by David Hemmings to trap his father between the proverbial rock and a hard place, the film ending inconclusively on that point although the doomed king has the satisfaction of learning, in the character of his youthful fan and protégé, young Tom, that his royal legacy will endure down the ages.Director Joshua Moore certainly allows the stories the time to develop, like many other big musicals of the time, it has a long, probably overlong running time. I did however find the awkward lip-synching to the music by the singers to be off-putting and perhaps through being unfamiliar with the score of this particular musical, wasn't really swept away by the music either. The settings (especially the recreation of the castle and the celebrated Round Table) and costumes are fine and there were some imaginative scenes (Arthur's dream sequence in particular) but as stated earlier, I found the songs tended to hold up and indeed rather let down the drama somewhat.Now considered one of the last of the old-time big-budget musicals, "Camelot" seems to be somewhat anachronistic, released as it was in the late 60's as film-goer tastes changed, "The Sound Of Music" having caught that movement's last wave but it is nevertheless worth watching at the very least for Harris's multi-layered portrayal of King Arthur, even if it won't have you humming many of the tunes after it finishes.

Catharina_Sweden I watched this movie first when I was a little girl, and especially the sequences in the magic winter forest in the beginning have been with me all these years. I always think about them when I walk in a wintry forest! I think this production has captured the magic of the Arthur legend better than any other, on screen, stage or in a novel. I love the wonderful photo, the lavish exteriors, interiors, clothes and props, the beautiful people who are all exactly right for their roles, and last but not least the captivating songs and the stirring music!The love triangle is for ever intriguing, because I suppose we all live it at some time of our lives - if not in reality so in imagination. There cannot be many people, who have never had feelings for anyone else than their spouse... and been faced with the horrible understanding of the consequences, if you give in (and if it is mutual of course). Many people, who "do the right thing", still live all the rest of their lives with a longing and a regret: "what might have been"...There are a couple of things I would like to change though. First of all, the movie is much too long. If you watch it all through in one sitting, you cannot concentrate or care anymore when the ending finally comes.Also, it focuses on too many subplots of the Arthurian legend. It would have been enough with only the love triangle, and the things that naturally come with it: such as Arthur's decision to form his round table. Having Mordred, Merlin, Pellinore and King Arthur as a child in it too, makes the movie too long and, in the end, tedious. Also, I think a few of the weaker songs should be cut, first of all "Take me to the fair" and "What do simple folks do".Another thing: it is a pity that all the best songs and scenes should be at the beginning of the movie. After Lancelot's and Guinevere's confession of love to each other, after the tournament, there is nothing much to look forward to.*****Now I have watched the movie again, and I have to add something: my impressions have changed a little this time. Yes it IS a long movie, but this time I did not think that any scenes were superfluous, or should be cut. On the contrary, I found everything worked together very well. I think you need to watch this movie several times before you can really take it in and understand the greatness of it! My tip is: take a break in the middle (when the intermission is), stretch your legs a little, let in some fresh air maybe go for a walk... and then go for the second half!

verna-a This was by far my favourite film of my teenage years - ah the romance! On seeing it again, regrettably on a small screen, I still find it engrossing and moving. When you have three acting leads with such wonderful faces as Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Harris, and Franco Nero, how can a film go far wrong? Add to that beautiful settings and costuming and a classic story, and the (mostly) memorable songs are a bonus. Sure the singing is not great, and some of the staging lacks the sophistication of modern films, but it's a truly atmospheric film which frequently reaches the "wow" level. I was rapt in the looks of Redgrave and Nero at the time, but on revisiting it I have to acknowledge the effectiveness of Richard Harris's Irish charm in holding the story together. There is a balance of idealism and fatalism in the story which is quite haunting. Truly unforgettable.