Excalibur

Audience Reviews

View More (1000+)

Rolando R I saw this at theatre when it came out in 1981 or 82. I really enjoyed this, a whole different and unique way of telling the story. Magical, Mythical and More. And Liam Neeson is in this in a small role. Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 09/09/25 Full Review mark j A great retelling of the Arthur legend. Succeeds in creating an immersive world where the rule of a divine king and magical swords and wizards seems natural. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 05/17/25 Full Review Wayne K As well known and often told as the legend of Arthur, his Knights of the Round Table and the legendary sword Excalibur is, it’s hard to think of a movie that can be called the definitive cinematic depiction of this legendary tale. John Boorman’s Excalibur from 1981 certainly has the look and feel of a sword and sorcery epic. The cinematography is incredible, with beautiful locations, vivid colours, incredible contrast between light and dark and landscapes and scenes often encased in swirling mist. It’s no secret that Boorman at one stage was planning to direct a Lord Of The Rings trilogy, several decades before Peter Jackson would do so, and you can see evidence of that on screen. The film does it’s best to fell big. It spans decades, has a massive cast of characters and focuses on landscape changing events. It was hard to know what I thought about it when it was over. I felt truly sucked in by its story, but was frequently baffled by its creative choices. The character of Merlin, the wise and noble tutor of Arthur from adolescence to adulthood, is depicted as a somewhat snarky and sarcastic occasional friend who pops in and out of the story, dispensing cryptic advice before disappearing again, and speaking so quietly that, without subtitles, I’d have no idea what he was even saying. The performances are mixed, with many of them feeling they’re straight out of a soap opera from the 90s. There’s little point discussing how accurate it is, since it’s legend we’re talking about, not verifiable history, but enough of the elements are familiar that even those with only a passing knowledge of the story will recognise it. It has the spectacle of a big budget blockbuster, with occasional moments of goofiness and lots of nice character moments that are sure to stick with you when its all over. A mixed bag, but one that leans more to the positive side. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 01/21/25 Full Review Joshua m Possibly the worst film ever made. It's worth watching in some sense, just to revel in its utter awfulness. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 01/10/25 Full Review Rob P I saw this as a 14 year old and was mesmerized. However, on what planet was this a PG rating? I'll need to watch it again. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 01/06/25 Full Review Glafira Regina O While the film garnered positive feedback from both audiences and critics, and its props are housed in the London Museum of Cinema, I found it rather empty. Short dialogues, no soundtrack, very mediocre acting. And, of course, historical accuracy is nowhere to be found. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 01/04/25 Full Review Read all reviews

Excalibur

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now