Lack of good storyline.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I'm an unabashed lover of anything about King Arthur. Even the bad movies (like the recent King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) provide something new to the myth. I'm also a lover of musicals and if the spirit and energy are there, I can excuse most badly acted movie musicals.Camelot left me feeling...meh. Richard Harris was so lifeless as Arthur he looked asleep. Vanessa Redgrave had her moments, as when she sang "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" but she seemed disinterested most of the time as well. Franco Nero gives a rousing performance as Lancelot du Lac. He was the only cast member who seemed to really be trying to earn his pay, although a good director would have reigned him in a bit as he was close to going over the top. The plot meandered and it felt like a highlight film of King Arthur rather than a streamlined story. The musical numbers were badly directed and performed. I also could not get over Arthur calling Guenevere "Ginny". I've never heard or read anywhere that he called her that. It came across a anachronistic and a bit too hippie for my taste (it was 1967 after all). I hope the original Broadway version was better.I still enjoyed the film, but as I'd heard so much about it over the years, I guess I was expecting more.

I liked the look of this film. I liked Richard Harris as Arthur because he has the look of a medieval king. Vanessa Redgrave is a more formidable Guinevere, and Franco Nero is quite stunning to look at. But they are right. They are not singers. They are not very good weak singers (does that make sense). Now I never really bought into Julie Andrews as Guinevere in the music from the Original Cast, and I don't see her as a strong woman my mind's eye. But I do agree, it's time to take a big budget crack at this again. Imagine the pageantry that would be possible now and some of the wonderful musical talents to draw from. Back to the story. This is a touching story of a man who liked the battles but not the rule. He is forced into a marriage and then falls in love. However, the magical Lancelot steals her heart and things go sour. Arthur is left alone on the battlefield, and Camelot is only a memory. Great story...poor execution.

Just my first impressions after a brief look. Never had the cast album or soundtrack or seen this until now.I think there are two major flaws; compromised casting as many others have pointed out here. I agree with many of those comments. Oh, Lancelot seem to be some Latin lover; they should have really gone for it and gotten Ricardo Montalbán.Primarily the camera work is too much. Almost all if it is some "modern" filmmaking of the [60s] time that would not allow it to be done the way they did in the 'classics of the "old days.' Panning and zooming or tracking all combined and quick-cuts like TV for some throw-away bits do not make for great film-making. There are so many too-tight shots not leaving any 'air' around the actors too often; facial close-ups cutting off some hair and chins. It diminished the actors. Angled shots all the time, sideways or up or down. Spare my eyes, please. Too-clever focus. A sense of place got lost much of the time, and this is supposed to be a storied, magical world we become privy to. Instead, what I saw looked cheapened. Can some student of film confirm, and is there an example of some newer musical that backed away from these techniques?

The flaws of this film stem largely from the play, in the form of an uneven tone and mediocre songs ("If Ever I Would Leave You" was the only one that survived). The visual appearance of the opening sequence, meant to evoke the mystical quality of Camelot, merely looks like a stage setting. While Richard Harris fares well as Arthur, whose character remains honorable and consistent from beginning to end, the other two leads are hampered by both characterization and performance. Guinevere, played by Vanessa Redgrave, is introduced to us as a spoiled and silly woman ("The Simple Joys of Maidenhood"). She adds to that a distinct lack of regal behavior (her romps in "It's May") and finally brings down the Round Table and the dream. It is hard not to wish that she had lost her way to Camelot in the first place. Lancelot, played by Franco Nero, is introduced to us in a comic song ("C'est Moi") that presents him as a self-centered and fatuous buffoon. His transition into the tragic, tortured hero that he becomes is unconvincing. Part of the problem with these two characters is in the writing, but not all. Redgrave projects a "hippy" Guinevere that now seems horribly stuck in time. Nero was simply miscast. The film is overlong, at more than 3 hours, and many are unlikely to stick with it.