Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

DigitalRevenantX7 King Arthur sends his trusty right hand man, the knight Sir Lancelot to a rival kingdom to win the hand in marriage of Guinevere. He succeeds, but falls in love with the maiden. She marries Arthur but secretly yearns for Lancelot. After a time, they become lovers & when Arthur finds out, their friendship – sabotaged by a rival knight – becomes very strained.Originally released in the United Kingdom as Lancelot & Guinevere, this 1963 adventure film was directed by its star, Cornel Wilde. Wilde also produces & cast his wife at the time, Jean Wallace, as Guinevere.While not the definitive version of the Camelot story, Sword of Lancelot is still reasonably watchable. The film has some passable acting &, like most of Wilde's directorial efforts, filled with action scenes. The fights & battles are the showpiece of the film & are quite violent, even by 1963 standards. There is some passable plotting but the pace tends to drag a little inbetween the battles. Wilde & Wallace might be a good pair on the screen but they are both a little too old for their roles. Having said that, Sword of Lancelot is still a pretty reasonable Dark Ages adventure film, although I still prefer something like Under the Red Robe over this.

rogerblake-281-718819 Cornel Wilde started his career as a matinée idol specializing in romantic and swashbuckling roles,later going on to direct his own films.Some are best forgotten but films like "The Naked Prey" and "Beach Red" are cult classics.Lancelot and Guinevere,his take on the Camelot legend,while not an unqualified success is by no means a bad film,what does however stretch ones credibility is the ages of some of the leading players. Cornel Wilde who played Lancelot, although still fit and muscular looking, was pushing fifty.Likewise his real life wife Jean Wallace who played Guinevere was in her forties.Although still an attractive woman no amount of soft focus photography could disguise the fact.For reasons best known to himself Wilde decided to portray Lancelot as a french man so he dusted off the accent he perfected in "Centennial Summer" and "The Greatest Show On Earth",one wonders if that was the inspiration for Peter Sellers role as Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther films.Yes its that bad.The love scenes were considered quite explicit for the time but they come across today as more tasteful than erotic.The whole film is down to earth with no magic or mysticism and certainly no Excalibur.Merlin spends his time inventing a wondrous new substance called soap.Indeed is it a product placement opportunity for Proctor and Gamble? After this there is precious little humour to be found.Wilde uses a good second eleven team of British actors such as Brian Aherne,George Baker,Archie Duncan,Adrienne Corri,Reginald Beckworth,Richard Thorpe,Graham Stark and John Barrie.They all do sterling work but not enough to interest "Oscar".Also the editing is a little abrupt at times perhaps due to budget restraints.Wilde really comes into his own in the battle scenes which are quite spectacular courtesy of the Yugoslavian Army who enter into the spirit with gusto.For those who like looking for goofs watch out for the two extras who thought they were off camera having a crafty smoke with arrows sticking out all over them.The eagle eyed may also notice the odd wristwatch.At the beginning and end of the film there are two particularly bloody hand to hand combat scenes which leave one in no doubt as to the effectiveness of medieval weaponry.For all that by far the best sequence in the film is when Wilde and his men rescue a Saxon village which has been captured by Vikings,it certainly doesn't pull its punches especially in the scene where the village women, who have been violated, watch with grim satisfaction as their attackers are slaughtered to a man.In this reviewers opinion a far superior scene than anything you will find in "The Vikings".Everybody knows the plot,the doomed love affair,the destruction of Camelot and Guinevere finishing up in a nunnery,all very sad.One wishes they could make a version where they all live happy ever after.Come on it is only a fairy tale.Finally I would like to doff my hat to the young lady who plays the french serving maid,her heroic cleavage would not be out of place in a Russ Meyer film,it made for a pleasant interlude among all the doom and gloom.It certainly made a big impression on me as a spotty teenager when I first saw the film.

classicsoncall I've never been a fan of the medieval knight genre, and this one manages to reinforce my feelings. I just couldn't tell what they were going for in the story, and abrupt scene changes often occurred on a dime with no time at all allotted for the transition. Like early in the picture with news of King Leodogran's challenge to Arthur for each of their champions to meet in duel to decide Arthur's status as King. No sooner said than done, Sir Lancelot (Cornel Wilde) is atop a horse and going hell bent for leather against Sir Dorjak.Others on this board have mentioned the ages of the principals, something I wondered about myself. It was a little hard to fathom Lady Guinevere (Jean Wallace) looking her true age representing a King's daughter about to be betrothed. Kind of makes you glad they had that magic soap around.The one thing the film had going for it was the realistic battle scenes, with body blows taking on a gruesome countenance. The scene where Lancelot separates a warrior's shoulder was particularly graphic. At the same time though, my earlier comment applies as well to the final epic battle. At one point we see Lancelot right in the thick of things swinging away with his sword, and a minute later he's perusing the battle field from a distant vantage point as different sets of warriors enter the fray; it almost looked like there were more than two fronts to the battle.And say, what accent was Cornel Wilde going for? His character was French, but he sounded more like Russian to me. That is, when he wasn't sounding like something else altogether. I don't know, the picture just didn't do it for me, and with all that went before to test the mettle of the besieged lovers, Guinevere becomes a nun? Her speech might have been noble but not very convincing. Alas poor Lancelot, as capable as he was on the battlefield, this was one blow he never saw coming.

uds3 WHAT's this? Not a solitary comment on one of the really good medieval flicks of this period?Actually it was one of the last, coming at the end of the cycle that had included KING ARTHUR AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, PRINCE VALIANT, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH, THE BLACK KNIGHT....all big moneyspinners in the 50's. It was also just 4 years shy of Richard Harris' beloved, but overblown musical CAMELOT.The film performed disappointingly at the box office as audiences tastes had changed and biblical spectacle was all the rage by the early 60's. By '63 even THAT had waned, THE LAST DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH having closed the chapter on epics the previous year.But hey, Cornel Wilde was a ragingly in-form Lancelot and pulled out all stops to impress his lady Guinevere. Course, her husband, King Arthur was majorly disgusted with both of them and things were messy there for a while. But you know, simply nothing overcame life's little set- backs in those days of yore, like crushing a few skulls in with a mace or broadsword and Lancelot was the champion after all. Some reviewers at the time took exception to Lancelot's french accent (Ah, my GuineVERE, u know 'ow I love you non?, ees not your coleurs 'anging from my lance-tip cherie?) Well ze franch accent or not, Cornel made as good a Lancelot as anyone ever has. This film rocked.Think A KNIGHT'S TALE handled seriously!