ThiefHott Too much of everything

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

MartinHafer A historical note: Although tons of pictures of Vikings with horned helmets have been produced over the years, this is actually a myth. They never, to our knowledge, wore such helmets. And, if you think about it, this makes sense, as the horns would make such a helmet unwieldy and difficult to wear. Plus, you might get stuck going through doorways! This traditional view of Vikings is more the Wagnerian view of the people. In fact, the wonderful movie "The Vikings" is so wonderful, in part, because it gets this point correct. Also, while this might disappoint you, most historians don't believe King Arthur ever lived or if he did, the stories about him are all false. The stories you read about him were often written as much as 1000-1300 years after he was to have lived and vary tremendously--and they are essentially myths. Sorry to spoil this for you, but I was a history teacher--and I love debunking myths.The film begins with Valiant (Robert Wagner) being sent by his daddy the king (Donald Crisp) to the court of King Arthur to become a knight. Crisp's friend, hidden under all that makeup and hair, is Victor McLaglen, by the way. It seems that Crisp has had his kingdom stolen from him and why he would then choose to send his son away is a bit of a mystery. What also is a mystery is why a Viking would go to the UK and serve Arthur. Oh well, it's no worse than a film I saw years ago where a Saracen (who were from the Middle East) was also in Arthur's court! At least Scandinavia is kind of near Britain! On his way there, he stumbles upon a Viking making a dirty deal with a Brit--and accidentally stumbles into the midst of the traitors. He manages to escape(!) but is now a man pursued by many who wish to bash in his skull! In addition to avoid getting killed, much of the film concerns Valiant's new career as a squire. While he hates to have such a lowly job, such is the way to career advancement in the knighthood game. Oh, and by the way, knights were NOT the noble dudes you see in the film. Mostly, they were used to beat up the peasants for their lords and fight various wars. They were an incredibly violent and non-chivalrous group and I'd love to see a film portray them like they really were--often, a bunch of raping, murdering scalawags. Now THAT would make for an interesting film! So, as you can tell, I hate this film for its many, many inaccuracies. However, I can enjoy such a film on purely an entertainment level. So is it entertaining and worth seeing? Well at least on a aesthetic level, it's a nice film. It has the wonderful touches that you'd expect from an A-picture from Twentieth-Century Fox. Great music, lovely period costumes, wonderful locations and nifty castles--it sure looked wonderful (though the castles used were all built much too late for the time period in the film--gosh, that history teacher in me is rearing up its ugly head again).As for the writing, dialog and acting, it's not a film that impresses. Much of the dialog seems strangely anachronistic and dull. Some is even rather dumb (such as when Janet Leigh confronts Valiant at the 50 minute mark). The characters all seem a bit flat and dull. The actors, though often accomplished, are not at their best here. Sterling Hayden, a wonderful actor, just seems out of place as does James Mason. The biggest problem, however, is Robert Wagner. In this period in the 1950s he was very much an up and coming actor--having starred in quite a few plum roles. However, Hollywood often didn't seem to know how to use this handsome man--putting him in films that simply didn't seem to fit him. Here, he plays a Viking and in "Broken Lance" (also 1954), they cast him as a macho cattle rancher!! I mean no disrespect, but he was not the action hero sort of guy. He would have been better in romances or such films as "A Kiss Before Dying"--where he very effectively played a guy who romanced and then murdered women. You can't blame Wagner for these roles--he was young and the studios paid well...and they were starring roles. Too bad he just wasn't right for them--and his accent and manner seemed to have NOTHING to do with Vikings. I would have much preferred to see some rugged ruffian in the role instead (such as Ernest Borgnine or Victor Mature).As far as action goes, for an adventure film it is strangely static and filled with dialog. I would have loved a good castle siege or sacking here and there throughout the film...and I kept waiting and waiting and it only came too late--after I was pretty bored with the film. Sure, there were a few nice attempted murders here and there (cool) but not enough to make the film seem "actiony"--instead, it was much too much like a stuffy costume drama much of the time.Now if I wanted to watch a rousing and completely historically inaccurate film, there are a lot of dandy ones out there. "Ivanhoe" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" are fantastic costume dramas and are first-class entertainment. And, if you are some sort of weirdo and want to actually see something with more realism and accuracy (but with tons of really, really cool action), try "The Vikings"--a rousing and wonderful bit of entertainment that actually touches on some of the themes seen in "Prince Valiant". It isn't that this film is terrible (it isn't), but there just are a lot better and more entertaining films out there to see first. Heck, now that I think of it, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" would definitely be my choice as the best Arthurian film out there!

MovieKen Robert Wagner is Prince Valiant, who is on a quest to restore his father to his rightful throne. He travels to Camelot in an attempt to become one of the Knights of the Round Table, serving under King Arthur. While doing this, he discovers a Black Knight who has his own evil quest.I usually love films like this, so I thought I'd check it out. I'm sorry to say that though it took place in one of my favorite time periods, I wasn't very impressed with the film overall.The script was pretty much what you'd expect from films of this kind, and the scenery and costumes seemed pretty authentic. The plot was fine, though it was a bit disjointed in places, and at times, it was a bit boring. But once everyone stopped talking and the action started, it became pretty enjoyable. The attack on the castle and the last sword fight were by far the best parts, and both of those take place in the last 30 minutes of the film. The rest of it was rather forgettable.I don't need constant action to be entertained. In fact, one of my favorite films of all time is the Henry Fonda version of 12 Angry Men, which is all talk and no action. But the difference is that 12 Angry Men had an intelligent script, detailed characters and excellent acting.Prince Valiant had none of these things. In fact, I never thought I'd say this about any film starring James Mason, but the acting here is just terrible. Mason's performance is OK, though anyone could have played his part just as well, because it wasn't a very demanding role. There are no other memorable performances, and in all honesty, most of them were just awful. Robert Wagner has never impressed me with his acting skill, but in this picture, he's completely wooden. Just listen to the way he recites his lines. It's as if he put no attempt whatsoever into becoming the character. Actually, the same goes for just about everyone, except Mason. The actor playing Gawain was especially bad.I guess what plagues this film the most is the director. Judging by how the film turned out, it seems he mostly cared about the action sequences and nothing else. As I said before, the action in this movie is by far the best thing about the entire film. If this film's director were working today, he'd be just like George Lucas, who creates films with all style and no substance.The bottom line: 1 point for costumes/scenery, 3 points for action, 1 point for entertainment value, 0 points for acting, 0 points for directing. Total 5/10.

Poseidon-3 Wagner took a lot of heat over the years for his pageboy wig in this film (something that was completely beyond his control and also true to the comic strip, even though other aspects of the film weren't!) and he does look ridiculous at times. However, men's period wigs in the cinema from the earliest days on up to about the mid-seventies were rather icky. Think Errol Flynn in "The Sea Hawk", Gene Kelly in "The Three Musketeers" or even Max Von Sydow in "The Greatest Story Ever Told." A lot of guys had to endure cruddy hair and hope for the best. Remember, too, that smooth hair was the rule until the late sixties. Bob can breathe easy that his proposed film with Joan Collins "Lord Vanity", in which he'd have worn a white powdered wig, never saw fruition! Here he plays the title character, a young lad of Viking descent who's living in exile with his parents in Britain. When old Viking enemy Carnera threatens to strike again, Wagner heads off to see King Arthur (Aherne) to become a knight and reclaim his father's kingdom for him. He's waylaid on the way by the dreaded and almost mystical Black Knight and by Sir Gawain (Hayden) who he winds up working for as a squire at Camelot. On a mission gone wrong, Wagner ends up in the home of lovely sisters Leigh and Paget and assorted romantic complications and misunderstandings follow between him and the young ladies and Hayden. Adding to his troubles is are the machinations of Mason, who wishes for a higher position in Britain and who also covets Leigh's hand. It all comes to a head in a heated battle at Wagner's family castle and later at Camelot, where Wagner and Mason square off in a lively sword fight. Wagner displays (ever so briefly) a very fit physique near the start of this film and he appears to be doing a fair number of his own stunts. His enthusiasm in the role goes a long way in making up for his terrible posture and his agonizingly flat accent (emphasized even more so by the wondrous tones of Mason's and other excellent British character actors' voices.) Even Wagner's voice is more suited to the proceedings than Hayden's, though. The film was in dire need of a dialect coach with Wagner spouting out "yuh" instead of "you" and Hayden saying "nuthin'" instead of "nothing" among many other ear-stabbers. Mason is his usual reliable self, providing a nicely menacing touch to his role. Hayden is a big, strapping lug; likable, but not particularly authentic. Leigh doesn't have a great deal to do besides look pretty, which she does, in an almost white, long wig. She's fussed over and fought over a great deal even though Paget is at least as attractive, if not more so! Aherne would get a more fulfilling shot at playing Arthur in the later film "Lancelot and Guinevere". None of the performers, with the possible exception of Wagner, is ever seen in much of a close-up, making it hard to see everyone well on a normal size TV in widescreen. This would not have been the case, obviously, during the film's Cinemascope release, however. The film features a large array of characters, some of them famous, and a lot of them barely registering at all (Lancelot and Guinevere, for example, are used as virtual extras.) There's a lot of pretty scenery, lovely backgrounds and medieval pageantry. The film is enhanced tremendously by an effervescent and rousing score by Waxman. It's got a sort of pat, comic book-style story, yet occasionally reaches an more mature level of violence (still quite tame by today's standards.) In other words, some characters state the obvious in order to make the film clearer to children. It's not a bad time-killer and is worth viewing in order to hear the music and see the lovely Ballard cinematography. And there is no truth to the rumor that Natalie Wood served at Wagner's stand-in during the filming despite his wearing what could have been one of her old wigs!

bkoganbing The biggest problem that Prince Valiant has is that it takes itself too seriously. It is still entertaining on many levels, but I wish it had been done in a lighter vein. A good example to follow would have been Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy had the studio been able to see into the future.The Arthurian legends place Camelot to be a generation or three after the fall of the Roman Empire. At that point Christianity was unheard of in Scandinavia where the Vikings were from. In fact Christianity was in heavy competition with the Druid religions of the ancient Britons. So the whole film has no basis in fact.I do have to say that the film made oodles of money for 20th Century Fox and gave Robert Wagner a career role that he would be identified with for the period of his bobby sox popularity. Wagner certainly had a good a group of supporting players as you could get to help this film. James Mason is a fabulous villain and his duel with Wagner is a classic. Brian Aherne would get to do King Arthur again in Cornel Wilde's Lancelot and Guinevere and he fits my conception of what the mature Arthur was like.One thing though. I have to believe that with Arthur's Excalibur and Valiant's singing sword sooner or later these guys would have tangled. Two magic swords in one kingdom, unheard of.