9/10
The old legend once again made more credible than ever
24 July 2018
This is probably the best film on the subject, that usually gets boggled up in romanticised legends and Hollywood schmalz and nonsense. The script is very apt and convincing, and the action is thoroughly efficient, never admitting a dull moment and never getting lost in pathetic sentimentality. Jean Wallace as the Queen is alwaýs a difficult character to interpret, but here for once she is not overdone in her wanton weakness or outrageous shamefulness. Cornel Wilde started as an Olympian master at fencing, and this film must have been something of the ultimate realization of his dreams. He makes a very convincing Frenchman, and there are two great battle scenes which alone make the film outstanding. The one thing to object against is the king. Brian Ahearne makes the best of it in a reliable performance as usual, but why has the king to be so old? In another version Sean Connery was equally old, but there is nothing in any legend to imply that King Arthur must have been an old man when he married Guinevere. Both Joshua Logan's 'Camelot' (two years later) and the excellent TV screening of 'The Mists of Avalon' both make the king as young and fresh as Guinevere, and both Arthurs are more convincing. For some reason Morgan le Fay is absent here, Merlin is rather second hand, and Sir Mordred is not given much of a character. Of course, the centerpiece is Lancelot and Guinevere, they need no one else, and their story is quite good enough to give Mordred and Morgan as little space as possible. The highest credit though goes to the script, which actually Cornel Wilde himself was part of besides directing the whole thing himself.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed