Comments on: Excalibur (no 49)

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:28:43 +0000

It’s been a while since I saw this, so this is a good reminder of my needing to re-watch it before I make my own 80s list. And, fortunately, I have a copy nearby that I can watch whenever I get the opportunity!

By: dennis

dennis — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:26:11 +0000

I agree fully with Allan on this one, my favorite of all of Boorman’s films. When you look at this film and compare it with all of the films in this directors canon, this is the one Boorman’s heart is all over. Like Allan, I feel the film is a slightly flawed master-work, but the flaws are all over rode by the visual slendor and the attention to period details. The performances are all uniformly terrific, and, yes, the use of music is the icing on the cake. We often talk here about directors making films that forego narrative in favor of creating audio/visual experiences. Here, however, is a perfect example of having both. So far Allan has picked two that will also make my list.

By: R. D. Finch

R. D. Finch — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:19:16 +0000

This was the first film by Boorman I ever saw (on the big screen) and found it a visual delight. The comparison that kept continually coming to mind was with those supernatural Japanese films of the 50s and 60s like “Ugetsu” and “Kwaidan.” It just seemed to be steeped in that otherworldly feeling. I agree that it’s not a perfect movie, but that atmosphere is so persistent and so overwhelming that just letting it wash over you seems to minimize the movie’s flaws. The film was another first for me: my first view of the young Helen Mirren (followed a short while later by “The Long Good Friday”), and what a stunning impression she made. I agree with Sam about “Hope and Glory” and with Allan’s ranking of “Point Blank” as one of Boorman’s best films.

By: Bob Clark

Bob Clark — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:26:12 +0000

Here’s the funny thing: wasn’t “Excalibur” what Boorman did when he wasn’t able to secure the rights to “Lord of the Rings”? So, the ideal movie would be produced by the “LOTR” team, based (in Allan’s head) on the vision of a King Arthur film which was made by a guy who had actually wanted to do “LOTR” himself? It would be like the makers of that cheesy “Flash Gordon” movie being allowed to do a remake of “Star Wars”. Now, that’s a disturbing thought…

“Flash! AHH-AHHHH!”

By: MovieMan0283

MovieMan0283 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:59:42 +0000

“In an ideal worls, somebody should bribe Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh to ‘do it all again’ and do the Arthurian saga as it deserves, in three films.”

Since we’re discussing the prequels on another board, let me quote Darth Vader:

“Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!”

But we’ve been there before

As for Excalibur: another 80s classic I haven’t seen. It’s just replaced Akira at the top of Netflix. I’m sure several more movies will have topped it before the queue is activated in a couple weeks…

You’re doing a public service, here, Allan…

By: Bob Clark

Bob Clark — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:10:44 +0000

Um… Remember when I said that Arthur has never really been done right on the big screen? Yeah. This is one of those times. I really don’t know what to say, here.

I don’t mind Boorman in his bugnuts loco mode, but I prefer “Zardoz” for that. Would a longer cut do his vision more justice? Perhaps. Should I check this out again and give it another chance? That’s a good question…

Allan, you cagey fox. Better than “Empire”? Better than “Brazil”? Better than “Wings of Desire”, when the child was a child? You’re a sly one, Fish. I’ll give you that.

By: Allan Fish

Allan Fish — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:39:32 +0000

It’s a flawed film, Excalibur, hence not quite getting the maximum ***** rating, but it’s still some kind of stunning. One could only wish the discarded footage would come to light as the insistence on it coming in under 2½ hours would not impede it today, where epics are released at much longer lengths. In an ideal worls, somebody should bribe Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh to ‘do it all again’ and do the Arthurian saga as it deserves, in three films. First dealing with the saga of Uther and Merlin and leading up to the sword in the stone. The second dealing with Arthur’s reign up to the beginning of the affair with Lancelot and Guinevere, the third detailing the souring, the departure of Merlin, the rise of Mordred, etc, and the final battle.

It needs doing.

By: David Noack

David Noack — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:22:30 +0000

I remember this one well, and while I do agree with you Sam on ‘Hope and Glory’ this was (visually) the richest of Boorman’s films.. Most interesting review.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:20:16 +0000

OK, this one I like quite a bit, and I am on the same wavelength with those who praise the visual design and the music. I’m not so sure it’s my favorite Boorman, but I would put it near the top. It is different from just about every else.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:47:13 +0000

The visual tapestry in this film is awesome, and I also feel the use of music was often overpowering. My favorite Boorman film is “Deliverance” but this one some of the others are also quite good. Excellent cast too. Commendable review, I think I have an old tape of this.