Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

People are voting emotionally.

Excellent but underrated film

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

This isn't the kind of film that would have had a big theatrical showing, although I did see it several times on HBO. Nor is it the kind of film that will be easy to find in a video store. Which is too bad. This is a little charmer. Not a large budget, so the film relies on character. And in this case the characters are a lot of fun. We have seen the hero pulled from the past into the present before, but Marc Singer plays Lancelot with such seriousness that we really believe him. This is Lancelot the way we want to see him, concerned with righting wrongs and vanquishing evil. Without all that angst about Guenevere.The villain, played by John Saxon, is another great characterization. This just demonstrates again why Mr. Saxon is one of the best "B" movie actors around. I was always a fan of his and it is nice to see him still having fun with a part.If you can find this film for rent it is well worth the time.

This is truly one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life.For some terrible reason, my friend's parents hired this atrocity from the video store. There is not one thing right with this movie. It is absolutely laughable in every way. Although I must admit, it did contain entertainment value. This included lines such as "I just saw a really hot guy on a horse", and the fact that "Lancelot" had some really weird American accent going on when he was supposedly...well...Lancelot. Who's from medieval England. ... Yeah, exactly.See this movie if you're having a 'Worst movie of all time' night. Laugh at the 'special' effects! I could have made a better film than this on my mobile phone in my backyard with myself cast as Lancelot. I rated it a 1, but if this was the 'bad films awards' i would have given it 10. That is all.

Encountered this one insomniac night on HBO, really just looking for something to fall asleep to.It wasn't good for that, as it kept on engaging my attention. Partly it was the cast; Katherine, the female lead, was played by the actress who played Ivanova on "Babylon 5," and I've always liked her; Sir Lancelot was played by the actor who was Dar in the "Beastmaster" movies -- he was always fun, and is so here as well. But more, it's the quirky plot and the movie's concept, which is that maybe gallantry and just plain being the good guys ought to be given another chance; sort of the Susan Faludi who's saying that men need a break meets, well, Sir Lancelot.The movie would seem a likely candidate for being the kind of live-action cartoon that, say, "Xena" amounts to, but always edges away from that. Lancelot is played with a strangely compelling dignity that draws one's attention (and makes one think that possibly there's still a future for the actor), and the young Arthur is appropriately clueless in the "Once and Future King" mode. The interaction of the medieval characters with the Twentieth Century is not particularly well investigated, but some decent moments come from it.Overall, a fun way to spend a couple of hours, albeit that it's understandable that the Academy overlooked this movie. Give it a try.

I am a fan of any legends in literature so I found this movie charming. It isn't that the acting is great or the directing, filming, etc. but it was oddly romantic (chick flick category). Marc Singer,(still handsome and masculine) whom I had not seen since Beastmaster, was still great with a sword. He played the wholesome Lancelot with a lot of focus, it was different. There is nothing indecent or offensive in this piece so anyone can watch it, which is rare. I'm sure it was targeting youth but I don't know why, I just liked it. Where are all the Lancelots anyway?