VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

James Hitchcock "Prince Valiant" is, apparently, based upon a comic strip, although I must confess that I had never heard of it before seeing the film. The story is set in Arthurian Britain. The king's magic sword Excalibur has been stolen by a gang of Vikings from the kingdom of Thule, so Valiant, a young squire, is sent to recover it. On the way he falls in love with the beautiful Princess Ilene (a name which can be pronounced either as "Eileen" or "Elaine", depending upon which character is speaking) and discovers that he himself is in fact none other than the long-lost heir to the crown of Thule, which has been usurped by the current incumbent, the villainous Thagnar. The Arthurian legends have not always transferred well to the cinema screen. In recent years we have had the decidedly average romance "First Knight" and the decidedly below-average epic "King Arthur". "Prince Valiant", however, falls so far below average that it almost falls off the bottom of the scale. It is not a would-be epic along the lines of "King Arthur", but rather a sword-and-sorcery adventure along the lines of "Conan the Barbarian", "Red Sonja" or (to take a more modern example) "The Scorpion King".Stephen Moyer makes a particularly dull hero, acting as though he were recovering from a serious charisma bypass operation. Katherine Heigl makes a pretty but equally uncharismatic heroine as Eileen/Elaine; on the evidence of this film she may have had the looks to succeed as a Hollywood star, but not the talent, so I was rather surprised that she has gone on to star in successful television series and films like "Gray's Anatomy" and "Knocked Up".Edward Fox, who stars here as Arthur, is a talented actor who should have known better than to sign up for rubbish like this. The one exception to the generally low standard of acting is Joanna Lumley, still splendidly seductive in her fifties as Arthur's evil half-sister Morgan Le Fay, but this only made me wonder why Joanna, who is one of Britain's most popular television actresses, seems to make so many bad choices when she ventures into the cinema. There have been occasional exceptions, such as her cameo in the excellent "Shirley Valentine", but too many of her films have been awful ones- "Don't Just Lie There, Say Something" and "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" are other examples. Even worse than the standards of acting are the action scenes and special effects. The fight scenes were all clumsily handled and those alligators were ludicrously unconvincing. The storyline was often confusing and difficult to follow and the lighting was so gloomy as to make me think that the film-makers were interpreting the phrase "Dark Ages" absolutely literally. "Prince Valiant" is billed as a British/Irish/German co-production, which only goes to show that there is at least one field, the tenth-rate fantasy epic, in which the European film industry can hold its own against American competition. I can only assume that the film's European origins were the reason that it was overlooked for a well-deserved Razzie nomination. 2/10

r-c-s These nice, unpretentious movies should get better press when compared with junk AAA+ budget kolossals. Someone complains about the 'cartoon strips' inserted here & there in the movie...they didn't delight me, either...but I guess it was a way scriptwriters had to signal they were filming the adaptation of a COMIC STRIP...and in turn another poster here complains they haven't read the story at all...I find this movie just fine. I won't write about it in my memories, but it's DEFINITELY better than many AAA+ actors/AAA+ budget productions...at 1/12 the cost. Of course you don't have Kenneth Branagh, Lawrence Olivier or Katherine Hepburn here, but they aren't needed, either.It is the next rendition of ages old fairy tales made of sorcery, supernatural swords, pretty princesses in distress and apprentices on a quest, who discover they are the long lost sons on good kings murdered by evil tyrants.Photography is good; locations are good; acting is satisfactory, for this kind of movies...(not JULIUS CAESAR with John Gielgud ); the storyline is also good. It helps remembering that people who harshly criticize these modest movies in favor of high-fidelity to whatever 'spirit of the thing' wouldn't be the first to sit through a classic theatre play.To watch at least once.

aiviadiana well, this really is the worst of the fantasy genre. every cliché has been employed unapologetically. the acting is horrendous, especially on the part of princess ilene. randomly, half of the characters have English accents and half have American accents. there are giggling, insipid ex-queens who are now part of a harem, and a bizarre, gratuitous ass-shot of the main villain. i could barely pay attention to the flimsy story, what with all the distractions. this really epitomizes the long dark in the world of fantasy films that made lord of the rings such a relief. here's my question: WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO FINANCIALLY BACK THIS MOVIE? p.s. this has nothing to do with the actual story of prince valiant. i don't think the writers have ever read it.

MK-26 Terrific movie. Never heard of it until I saw it on cable. Almost as good as the Princess Bride. Should have had wider release. Wish I had seen it in the movies. Great for the kid in all of us. Katherine Heigl is an absolutely beautiful princess, and Stephen Moyer is superb as Valiant.