Too much of everything

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Overrated

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

Very weak, populist, adaptation of the famous tale. Plot is full of holes and doesn't follow King Arthur legend very closely. Not at all gritty, concentrating more on contrived, unconvincing sword- fight sequences and flowery, empty language than on any substance. So devoid of any substance, if it was made in the 2000s it would have been directed by Michael Bay!Acting is incredibly unconvincing. Think John Wayne trying to do Shakespeare. Shallow, hammy, machismo actors reciting lines they hardly understand.Even the presence of the stunningly beautiful Ava Gardner can't save this.If want to see a good adaptation of the King Arthur legend, see Excalibur (1981) instead.

This is another one of those lavish 1950s historical epics that achieves visual beauty and grand action but cannot muster up a bit of audience involvement. The tragedies of the Lancelot and Guinevere affair and Arthur's kingdom are lost in this bland re imagining.The characters are thinly drawn and none of the actors emote even once. They all just read through the script flatly, not a shred of feeling to be found, Robert Taylor and Mel Ferrer being the worst offenders. The supporting actors steal the show.Once again, the music, costumes, and sets are nice, but good production values cannot save a mediocre movie.

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.

The scope of this production is classic Hollywood. Large numbers of real life stunt-men and stunt horses crowd the screen for a medieval epic retelling the Arthurian legend. Cinemascope is used to capture large vistas and cleanly handcrafted sets that fill the screen in Technicolor. When Arthur's and Modred's armies clash, it's real human beings riding horses, bearing lances, swinging prop swords and shooting prop arrows from real bows. Very impressive.The dated aspect comes from the thesping of both leads and supporting cast. It's pretty stilted and serious, but really ought not have been this way, for acting in other films of the time (gangster and war films) wasn't so stiff. One gets the sense that the director wanted a "legendary" feel for the picture, and so had the actors convey emotion in a very framed manner to express the regal quality of the story and time.It may have also have been due to Robert Taylor's acting ability, which was fairly inflexible. His stone demeanor gives him solid ground to stand on in his performances, but also holds back a greater character range that, in my opinion, was never fully realized in the epics he was placed in.The action is hit and miss. The large action sequences are a pleasure to look at. The smaller one-on-one fights seem staged and visually blah from a cinematic standpoint, but this was the style of the time. When Lancelot charges with Arthur and his knights there's a real sense of drama, ditto with the other large action sequences.Historically we're given the "classic" image of 14th century knights in full plate armor, set upon chargers donned in cloth barding. Again, visually it's a pleasure to see, but falls wide of the contemporary theory that Arthur was a Roman General, Artorious, who would have dressed in chain mail, and not the advanced form of armor shown in this film as well as in Boorman's "Excalibur".It's an interesting window at another time, when film was moderately less refined and perhaps undeservedly awed in spite of itself, and as such given such a pedestal sheen that only reinforces the detachment of the work from the audience. But even so, it works. It's dated, mildly kampy, but offers a view into the classic image of the Arthurian tales that pervaded much of contemporary 20th Century impressions of Arthurian times for years after.It'd been thirty some odd years since I'd last seen this film, and I'm glad I was able to see it again. But if you're a younger viewer, or are just more into contemporary sword-epic offerings, then this film may disappoint some. Take it for what it is.An impressive production, but dated and, because of this, it's not really for everyone. Give it a shot and see if you like it.