Excalibur

Name: Excalibur
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Fantasy, Romance
Released: April 10, 1981
Duration: 140 min
Rating: 56
Cast: Helen Mirren, Nigel Terry

1981

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 10 Critics

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 5 Ratings

See All

8.0

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.0	Your Score
8.0	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 5 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Excalibur

Autoplay On Off

Movie Details & Credits

Orion Pictures | Release Date: April 10, 1981

Starring: Helen Mirren, Nigel Terry

Summary: The legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table receives its most impressive screen treatment in Excalibur. All the elements of Sir Thomas Malory's classic Le Morte Darthur are here: Arthur (Nigel Terry) removing the sword Excalibur from the stone; the Round Table's noble birth and tragic decline; the heroic attempts toThe legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table receives its most impressive screen treatment in Excalibur. All the elements of Sir Thomas Malory's classic Le Morte Darthur are here: Arthur (Nigel Terry) removing the sword Excalibur from the stone; the Round Table's noble birth and tragic decline; the heroic attempts to recover the Holy Grail; and the shifting balance of power between wily wizard Merlin (Nicol Williamson) and evil sorceress Morgana (Helen Mirren). [Warner Bros.]… Expand

Director: John Boorman

Genre(s): Adventure, Drama, Fantasy, Romance

Rating: R

Runtime: 140 min

See All Details and Credits

Awards & Rankings

Watch Now

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Variety - Staff (Not Credited)

Excalibur is exquisite, a near-perfect blend of action, romance, fantasy and philosophy, finely acted and beautifully filmed by director John Boorman and cinematographer Alex Thomson. Read full review

Time - Richard Schickel

Love Excalibur or hate it, but give Boorman credit for the loopy grandeur of his imagery and imaginings, for the sweet smell of excess, for his heroic gamble that a movie can dare to trip over its pretensions— and still fly. Read full review

Chicago Sun-Times - Roger Ebert

What a wondrous vision Excalibur is! And what a mess. Read full review

Newsweek - Jack Kroll

Boorman is both a romantic and a realist, an idealist and a skeptic, and Excalibur is an impressive but uneasy attempt to marry these opposites. [13 April 1981, p.82]

The Globe and Mail (Toronto) - Jay Scott

It must be said that the closing sequence, in which Arthur meets the misbegotten Mordred on an orange battlefield illuminated by a shield-sized red sun, is an epic, Oedipal masterpiece of authentic mythic power, a sequence so strong it shakes the torpor from one's shoulders and induces regret that the rest of the saga has been so juvenile, so lifeless and so lacking poetry or Shakespearean sweep. [11 April 1981]

Time Out London - Geoff Andrew

For all its audacity, a misguided folly. Read full review

The New York Times - Vincent Canby

Mr. Boorman takes these myths very seriously, but he has used them with a pretentiousness that obscures his vision. Read full review

SEE ALL 10 REVIEWS

Write a Review

Negative:

User Reviews

Popcorn55

May 6, 2018

One of the greatest films of all time. John Boorman has brought extraordinary, magical and tender beauty to this tale, and brought it alive as never before or since. This is a theatrical work of great genius, crafted with passion and profound insight, on a tiny budget. Though the budgetOne of the greatest films of all time. John Boorman has brought extraordinary, magical and tender beauty to this tale, and brought it alive as never before or since. This is a theatrical work of great genius, crafted with passion and profound insight, on a tiny budget. Though the budget clearly constrained some of the sets and effects, so that some of the lesser, connecting scenes present essentially like stage theater, we don't care, because interspersed with those scenes, are spellbinding, gorgeous episodes -- the most visually enthralling, mesmerizing sword-and-sorcery scenes in the history of cinema.

It's that alternation of minimal dreaminess, which evokes an aura of fantasy and theatrical storytelling, with these dramatic eruptions of photo-realistic, vividly immersive beauty, magic, and drama, that build the power of this film like a steadily chanted spell.

IF ONLY Boorman could have been the one to direct Lord of the Rings! IF ONLY! He has the precise eye, heart and vision, style, and craft for it -- and no one else even comes close. The irony is, he WAS on deck to do just that, back in the 70s, but something went wrong, it never happened. "Excalibur" gives us just a glimpse at the utter glory that could have been LOTR, if they had given him the green light and a big budget. Instead we got the tacky bluetone CGI and Peter whatisname directing a shameful shadow of Tolkien's vision.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

WillMarshall

Jul 8, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have some VERY mixed feelings on Boorman's "Excalibur". On the one hand, the movie is full of poor decisions, chiefest among them some extremely weird pacing, which makes the film feel like it's been cut down from a thousand-page book. On the other hand, the special effects are excellent, as are many of the performances, and the plot, despite (or perhaps because of) the poor pacing, is oddly compelling, almost dream-like, which in a roundabout way feels sort of perfect in a film about the King Arthur legend. Apart from Nigel Terry's teenage King Arthur, the film is uniformly well-acted (within the confines of what is admittedly some rather terrible dialogue), although perhaps a bit over-the-top in places, and the film's props, effects and cinematography aren't usually particularly realistic - note the super-shiny armour of the Knights of the Round Table, the green lighting on Excalibur, and so on - but they serve to enhance the film's dreamlike qualities. Again, the dreamlike almost-but-not-quite rushed pacing of the film deprives the film of a lot of the personal connection we feel to the characters, leaving us observing rather than really becoming invested in what is taking place, but somehow, almost in spite of itself, the film's ending is profoundly emotionally effective, with King Arthur's gritty, brutal final battle with the gold-plated Mordred and his death, together with the almost triumphant scene of Perceval hurling Excalibur back into the lake, in a way beautiful. So overall, I think one's opinion on "Excalibur" is determined purely by personal preference. You could argue, successfully, whether it is good or bad either way, your opinion determined by whether you find the editing fittingly dreamlike or tedious and exhaustive, and really by whether you find some sort of emotional core to the film as I did.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Voodoo123

Jan 23, 2018

Moving fantasy imagery combines with an interesting cast (incl a young patrick stewart, helen mirren and liam neeson) and moving soundscape to create something of a strange cinematic creature... The acting is just laugh out loud awful in places, pacing that feels off coupled with many badlyMoving fantasy imagery combines with an interesting cast (incl a young patrick stewart, helen mirren and liam neeson) and moving soundscape to create something of a strange cinematic creature... The acting is just laugh out loud awful in places, pacing that feels off coupled with many badly choreographed fight sequences, and yet, there is something of a heart to the film that just works for me. Excalibur has a very dream like quality to it which I greatly enjoyed and connected with. Kinda reminds me of 1992's bram stokers dracula in that so-bad-its-good kind of way. Very entertaining overall.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Spangle

May 28, 2017

Now considered to potentially be the best adaptation of the legend of King Arthur, director John Boorman's Excalibur is one of many films to have risen out of the ashes of negative reviews upon release. However, whether it was fully deserving of this critical turnabout is an entirelyNow considered to potentially be the best adaptation of the legend of King Arthur, director John Boorman's Excalibur is one of many films to have risen out of the ashes of negative reviews upon release. However, whether it was fully deserving of this critical turnabout is an entirely different matter. As a fantasy adventure film, Excalibur is undeniably a faithful adaptation of the legend and one with excellent operatic sensibilities and great battles. Unfortunately, it is maligned by one deadly disease that strikes at the very heart of the film and can often turn its imaginative fantasy and serious battles into pure, unintentional comedy. This film left me in stitches more often than it ever should have and part of that is due to the dialogue, but the vast majority of it is due to its horrific acting.

This horrific acting is pretty much the worst part of this film and what leads to its undoing as a film. In the lead role, we have the horrific Nigel Terry who turns in a confused and oddly tongue-in-cheek performance as King Arthur. Alongside him, Nicol Williamson's Merlin is a clear inspiration for Morgan Freeman's Tiberius in The Lego Movie. He delivers his lines with a odd blend of comedy and serious mysticism with the end result being him appearing to ham it up far too much. The rest of the cast is largely awful for reasons beyond their own control and can be described as Boorman's misstep. Having everybody yell their lines, along with their unconvincing delivery, makes the film and its characters appear wholly unaware of the fact that this is really a Monty Python movie. The actors deliver their lines with no confidence or sense of belief that this is really happening. The worst sinner here is Boorman's daughter Katrine who plays Igrayne, Arthur's mother. As her son is stolen from her by Merlin, her pained screams of "Get him!" are absolutely hysterical with her shrill shrieks being the work of comedy genius. Unfortunately, they were lines intended to be painful, real, and tragic to hear. With horribly unconvincing delivery that makes it seem like the whole cast was just sitting through a table read and going over their lines for the first time when Boorman figured he would just have them read it with the some conviction in the real shoot, Excalibur winds up being unintentional comedy of the highest order.

Blended with its fantastical plot, the film's horrible acting is really unfortunate. Instead of a mystical and magical adventure, the film winds up feeling like a funny drug-fueled romp through the minds of a stoner. It is a weird blend of Monty Python and Time Bandits, except played entirely straight to the point that you have no idea whether the film realizes it is so funny. As Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) and Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) have sex in the forest with Arthur nearing their location and Morgana (Helen Mirren) and Merlin watching on, the scene is entirely comical due to the horrible acting. Mirren and Williamson ham it up as the wizards while the rest of the cast all act horrified, shocked, and ashamed in a way that makes it appear as though this is the first time these actors have ever felt these emotions. The film would be markedly better if its acting were wooden. Instead, it worsens the matter with everybody appearing to be robots or aliens attempting to mimic human behavior.

This acting concern is often found in the dialogue, to be fair, as the actors struggle to feel their way through the dialogue that just comes off as far too cheesy to match the film's serious struggle between good and evil. This is even more unfortunate with how well developed the film's themes really are. With Arthur being a Jesus-like figure in this adaptation of the legend, he is tempted and put through the ringer all to prove that he is the true chosen one. Along the way, he offers forgiveness to his wife, his best friend, and seeks to unite his kingdom under a religious center. Honoring his father and family, Arthur is a man that is united by his disciples, fearlessness, and willingness to bring peace and prosperity throughout the land. Including the theme of lust throughout the film that tempts men of every walk of life and serves to be their very undoing, the film may be one of the most soundly written and developed adaptations of Jesus in a non-Jesus film ever put to film. Boorman keeps the film focused upon this theme and always develops it, adding various layers to it that makes it a compelling tale of a man seeking redemption after falling from grace and having to fight his way back through defending his soul from those that want its perfection.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

SEE ALL 4 REVIEWS