Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Micitype Pretty Good

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

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.

moonspinner55 Sir Thomas Malory's traditional tales of King Arthur and Lancelot are made even more commercially palatable with this costumed version from the British arm of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The narrative has become so basic (and dull), presumably for mass consumption, that all we have left to respond to is the ornate production. Robert Taylor's Lancelot devotes himself to being Guinevere's champion (not that her husband--Mel Ferrer's vacuous King Arthur--would notice!), but Taylor seems to have wandered in from another picture; his diction is thudding and his hangdog face never brightens, not even in the presence of a ravishing Ava Gardner as Guinevere (who doesn't so much flirt with Lancelot as she does beam and glow with silent affection). The overlong film is a sumptuous spread, and there's plenty of action, but the episodes fail to come together as a whole and the sound recording (Oscar nominated!) is barely adequate. Consequently, the legendary characters rarely come to life. ** from ****

James Hitchcock In his novel "The Lyre of Orpheus" the Canadian writer Robertson Davies made the point that although the Arthurian legend had played an immensely influential role in the history of English literature, there had never been a particularly distinguished dramatic treatment of the story, either in the theatre or in the cinema. (Davies discounts Purcell's opera on the grounds that its plot differs radically from what we have come to think of as the Arthurian story). And yet the story seems to offer great dramatic possibilities, both in its adventure elements and in the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle. "Knights of the Round Table" was the second in an unofficial trilogy of films on a mediaeval theme made by producer Pandro S. Berman and director Richard Thorpe, all of which starred Robert Taylor. (The others in the trilogy, both based on the novels of Sir Walter Scott, were Ivanhoe and The Adventures of Quentin Durward). It is based upon Thomas Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur", although it makes some changes. The Quest for the Holy Grail plays a less important role in the film than in the book,   Elaine is Lancelot's wife rather than his lover, and their son Galahad, who plays a key role in the book, only appears as a baby. Apart from Lancelot and the villain Mordred (here referred to as "Modred"), the most prominent of the knights is Sir Percival, in this version Elaine's brother. The film is ostensibly set in the Britain of the 5th or 6th century, after the end of the Roman occupation, but as is usual in films on this theme (the recent "King Arthur" being an exception) the costumes, armour and buildings are all based upon those of the High Middle Ages, that is to say of Malory's day rather than of Arthur's. Arthur's kingdom is always referred to as "England", even though the historic Arthur (assuming that he was a real person) would never have used this term. The Celts would always have referred to "Britain", the name "England" ("Land of the Angles") being used only by their Anglo-Saxon enemies. The story begins with Britain in turmoil, divided among various warring overlords. Arthur, the illegitimate son of the former ruler Uther Pendragon, is able to unite the kingdom and, with the help of Lancelot and the wizard Merlin, to defeat his main challengers, his half-sister Morgan Le Fay and her son Modred. (Anne Crawford who plays Morgan was only eight years older than Stanley Baker, who plays her son. Presumably the explanation is that Morgan's enchantments have been able to preserve her youthful looks, and things could have been worse. The original choice for Modred was George Sanders, fourteen years older than Crawford). After his victory Arthur pardons Morgan and Modred, against Lancelot's advice, but they continue to plot against him, and see the growing attraction between Lancelot and Arthur's wife Guinevere as their chance to make trouble. One of the problems with Arthurian films and plays is that the love- triangle is so central to the plot that it requires three high-quality performances if it is to succeed. Taylor here makes an attractively dashing Lancelot, although the film misses one of the key themes of Malory's work. In Malory Lancelot, an otherwise ideal knight, is morally compromised by his adulterous affair with Guinevere, but in this version their love is not physically consummated, possibly in order to keep the censors happy, and the result is that he seems a much less morally ambiguous figure. The film tries to contrast the "flawed" Lancelot with the idealised Percival, but Lancelot's flaws seemed to me very minor ones. Arthur is another complex character, difficult to realise on screen, because he is on the one hand a powerful, heroic monarch and on the other someone compromised by his status as a cuckold. In mediaeval literature cuckolds were generally seen as weak, pitiable or ridiculous, like Alison's husband in Chaucer's "Miller's Tale". Probably the best screen Arthur I have seen was Sean Connery in "First Knight", but that film subtly altered the traditional tale by making Arthur much older than Guinevere or Lancelot. Here Arthur comes across as a forgettable nonentity when he should be at the film's centre, and this is due partly to the wooden acting of Mel Ferrer and partly to the sanitising of the Lancelot/Guinevere relationship which also removes much of the interest from Arthur's character. As for Ava Gardner, she certainly makes a lovely Guinevere, but she was capable of much better acting than this. (As, for example, in "The Barefoot Contessa" the following year). Baker is not bad as Modred, but I think that Sanders, who had been so effective as Brian de Bois-Guilbert in "Ivanhoe", would have been better. The film is visually attractive, with much emphasis on pageantry and spectacle, but I did not enjoy it as much as "Ivanhoe". (I have never seen "Quentin Durward"). It is certainly better than the dull and turgid "King Arthur", but the problems with characterisation made me aware just why it can be so difficult to make an effective Arthurian drama and to understand what Robertson Davies may have meant by his dictum. 6/10

reader4 ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.There is nothing in this movie worth watching except the costumes, including those of the horses. But even these get boring after about fifteen minutes. By 40 minutes into the movie, I was fast-forwarding.Since I loved Ivanhoe (1952), and gave 9 out of 10 ratings to both Quentin Durward (1955) and The Bribe (1949) (which I also reviewed), I figured I would like this movie in spite of what people here said about it. Was I ever wrong! The main reason I wanted to watch it was that several people said it was based on Malory. Maybe they have never read "Le Morte D'Arthur." Most of the characters in the movie are in the book somewhere, Sir Tor and his Picts being a notable exception, but their resemblance ends with the names. Arthur, Guinevere and Percival are actually fairly close, as is Lancelot in portions, although he is jarringly different in others. Morgan Le Fay is almost unrecognizable as the blond lover of Modred, who himself appears to be the same age as Arthur (as does Lancelot, for that matter). Vivien is not Merlin's beguiler but a cheap mistress that Lancelot shacks up with for no explained reason. As for the plot, there are more differences than similarities.To give the movie its due, it does pick up a bit towards the end. But it's not worth sitting through the first part to get there. Those who think Merlin died near the beginning (he dies 3/4 of the way through) subconsciously agree with me -- the only redeeming value in the film is during the last 20 minutes. The swordfight where Lancelot is trying to escape from his room with Guinevere is actually good, as is the scene immediately previous between Gardner and Taylor. But it dies again pretty quickly after that. Arthur just dies, he is not taken to Avalon by Morgan. And then there is the trained horse part.I had a couple of expectations based on reviews here that were not borne out. First, Ava Gardner has quite a large part. Her acting is decent. But I didn't much care for her, perhaps the first movie I've ever seen her in where that was the case. Medieval clothing doesn't suit her particularly well. It certainly doesn't allow much room for sizzling. And the scene where she's wearing a tall hennin (dunce cap tipped with a scarf) is just laughable. At the end she sheds her royal clothing for a nun's habit! Second, Robert Taylor does some very good acting in this film. He is basically the only one who does. As I said, Gardner is decent, as is Aylmer in his tiny part. Mel Ferrer stinks, and is horribly miscast as well. Baker reminds me of something out of a sword-and-sandal epic. Taylor pretty much carries the show, such as it is. He can be rather wooden (his downfall in "The Bribe"), but I did not find him so here. He makes a couple of impassioned speeches that are quite well done.In spite of these couple of faint bright spots, I can think of no earthly reason to watch this movie.

newyorker_film_buff For those who may have thought that the Middle English styling of the script must have been originally penned by Shakespeare, please note that the script was in fact written by 20th-century screen playwrights Talbot Jennings, Jan Lustig and Noel Langley, who based their words on the famed book by Sir Thomas Malory. Shakespeare had nothing to do with it. Sorry, Bard of Avon fans.Having said that, the script as written seems appropriate enough for the story and screen pageantry, but at times the film takes itself so seriously that it practically begs for parody. It's handsomely mounted, though, and serves as a pleasant time-passer for those who have an affection for the Camelot legend.