User reviews

This is not a remake of The Black Knight but uses extensive footage from the 1954 Alan Ladd film, as well as the suit of armour he wore.

I assume this was brought out of storage for Ronald Lewis to wear - which begs the question did he only get the part because he was the same size as Alan Ladd? The film also used footage from other Columbia 1950's swashbucklers, possibly " Rogues Of Sherwood Forest "? Whateve it's failings, " Saxons " was chosen as co-feature to " Jason And The Argonauts " in the summer of 1963 and this ' colossus of adventure ' double bill ( as it was described at the time ) made a fortune, and was re-issued several times during subsequent school holidays.

The following summer, Charles H. Schneer, who was the producer of both " Jason " & " Saxons " put together another fantastic double bill - " First Men In The Moon " ( another Harryhausen movie ) and " East Of Sudan " which was mostly made up of stock footage from the 1939 Korda epic " The Four Feathers ", footage that had already been re-cycled once before in the 1955 Cinemascope remake of " The Four Feathers " entitled " Storm Over The Nile " !

The siege of the Saxons is your run of the mill Arthur legend, with a damsel in distress, and crusty old Merlin waffling on about Excalibur. Unfortunately there are several things wrong with the film which spoil what could have been a good stab (pun intended) at this genre. The acting by the bit-part henchmen is for the most part risible and amateurish and the editing of the battle scenes is sloppy, with a lot of death scenes re-used for padding. However the two leads in Ronald Lewis and Janette Scott put in a good performance of the rugged scoundrel and the Queen wrongfully usurped from the throne, and there are some entertaining comedic scenes between the two.

In general it's enjoyable afternoon fare and if you like your swash-buckling swordplay, jousting and pointy helmets you won't be disappointed.

I agree with most of the positive reviews above. But nobody mentioned the superb cinematography. It's so crisp, so clear, so focused … Which is a pity as the blurred footage inserted from other films therefore sticks out like a sore thumb. The film reminds me of "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid," in so far as the actors are obviously garbed in costumes that will match those we see later in this inserted footage. And half the fun is trying to identify from where the inserts come: Alan Ladd fighting at Castell Coch in Cardiff is the most obvious. But if you're a student of architecture, you'd better avoid this, as there are so many styles all mixed up, but all post-1066. And all this and Laurie Johnson too!

Robin Hood meets King Arthur, as performed by the Batley Townswomen's Guild?

The film is ludicrously bad, in too many ways to list. However, the leading actors give it their all, and they have nothing to be ashamed of.

The result is surprisingly enjoyable, and I might even watch it again on another day when my brain (like King Arthur at the start of the film) needs a complete rest.

Other than that, I have nothing to add to the reviews by Jonathan Dabell and Paul Round, which are both spot-on.

Director Nathan Juran spent much of the '50s and '60s churning out low budget potboilers like Attack Of The 50 Foot Woman, The Brain From Planet Auros and The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad. In 1963 he brought us Siege Of The Saxons, a fairly enjoyable mixture of Arthurian legend, Robin Hoodery and historical epic which doesn't stick in the mind for very long. The film is aimed mainly at adventurous schoolboys – it's a bit too silly for adults, though they might find some nostalgic value in it if they're of a certain generation.

King Arthur (Mark Dignam) is gravely ill and so goes to stay with his champion knight Edmund of Cornwall (Ronald Howard). Arthur does not realise that Edmund is actually a traitor who plans to murder him and seize control of the throne in the name of the Saxons. Edmund thinks he will accelerate his route to the throne if he marries Arthur's daughter Katherine (Janette Scott), but this part of his plan falls apart when a roguish outlaw, Robert Marshall (Ronald Lewis), witnesses the king's murder. Robert spirits Katherine away from the usurper and takes her into hiding in outlaw country. Meanwhile, Edmund claims that the king's daughter has died and that as a consequence of this he will assume the crown for himself. While all this is going on, Robert and Katherine are busy seeking out the magician Merlin (John Laurie – who would later find fame as Private Frazer in Dad's Army). With Merlin's help they head for Camelot, hoping to prove that Edmund has no genuine claim to the throne, and that Katherine is in fact the true heir. The Saxons plan to discredit her but as everyone knows only someone from the true royal bloodline can wield Arthur's famous sword Excalibur….

The film looks very much of its time, with budgetary limitations which are evident throughout. In the battle sequences, for instance, no amount of editing, photography and costumed extras can hide the utter lack of realism. Having said that, the film has compensations along the way. Lewis and Scott make an attractive leading couple and they give enthusiastic performances, while Laurie hams it up amusingly as the crusty old wizard Merlin. The Technicolor photography is pleasing on the eye, and Laurie Johnson's score lends suitable dramatic impact to all the scenes that need it. Siege Of The Saxons is enthusiastic nonsense…. fun while it lasts, but the next morning there's absolutely nothing left to remember!

The King Arthur legend gets a fanciful spin in this colourful but weak British offering. Directed by Nathan Juran and starring Janette Scott and Ronald Lewis, it's all about medieval malarkey as Lewis' Robin Hood type character wanders the lands with Scott's disguised princess in search of Merlin (John Laurie). They need the great wizard to stop the dastardly Edmund of Cornwall (Ronald Howard) from seizing the throne of Arthur with help from the Saxons.

It's played for light hearted thrills, the cast having fun prancing about in their borrowed costumes (much of the production uses props, costumes and footage from some earlier swords and shields movies), and Juran never lets the story sag and knows when to perk things up with an action scene or some character merriment. Harmless fluff really. Played as the "B" picture to Jason and the Argonauts and in that context it's a fun enough warmer upper! 5/10

I fondly remember Siege Of the Saxons from a Saturday matinée I went to as a child. It may not play well with adults, but I don't think it was intended for grown-ups in the first place. It has a decent cast for the kind of film it is, and I recall Ronald Howard (son of Leslie) being quite good. There are some good battle scenes, none too graphic by today's standards. The movie is kid's stuff; the color is nice; the actors don't embarrass themselves; and the limping man looks as sinister as he's supposed to. I also recall Janette Scott as being quite attractive, as indeed she was. This would probably be a good movie for children. It's exciting in much the same way Robin Hood is.

A truly abysmal film, saved only by the wonderfully arch villain - 'The Limping Man'- beautifully overplayed by Jerome Willis. As a keen Arthurian scholar and Dark-Age reenactor, I can say that this movie bears absolutely no relation to history - or even legend! Who was Edmund of Cornwall for goodness sake? He is unknown to this period of history.

However,it is the type of film that I would love to own,if only for Jerome Willis's character.

The film is so typical of its genre and is a 'must have' to complete anyone's kitsch collection of cheesy swashbucklers, in the same way that one has a copy of 'Agadoo' and 'The Birdie Song' in a record collection.

Unimaginative would be the least insulting word I would use to describe this cheap "epic". The plot is a combination of cliches, acting is bland (bot not quite hammy enough to be enjoyable), cinematography is bland, direction is unimaginative, costumes suck and so on.

A film that truly deserves to be forgotten in the vaults of history...

Highly enjoyable film with plenty of exciting action and tense moments. It's plot is quite engaging and moves at a clip. It's a pulp style mediaeval film that is designed for kids at heart -like me! There are some excellent cinematography and a tense scene when the hero rides into an abandoned castle. On a purely entertainment level this is fantastic.

I finished watching this movie about, oh, five minutes ago, and went straight to IMDb to read more about it, and was rather surprised to see that the only two members who've left comments thoroughly trash it. It's actually a highly satisfactory way to spend a rainy afternoon, what with an excellent cast (no, they're not hammy. If you want hammy there are plenty of other films to oblige you), an accomplished and effective score with lots of brass, and well choreographed fight sequences which give a good idea of how heavy those Anglo-Saxon weapons were. Cinematography is also pretty good, with castles that look the way we'd expect them to look. And the costumes are evocative without looking too fancy-dress (consider that this is 1963!). Pacing is good, and although it won't be in anyone's top twenty films, it does deliver a good time. Laurie is excellent as Merlin, mystical and frail with ancient hollow eyes.

A film so awful it can only appeal to swashbuckler buffs. I enjoy watching this take on the Arthurian legend with its anachronisms etc as detailed by other "fans". Check out Alan Ladd in the Black Knight and see how much footage Siege of the Saxons borrowed. Its very amusing how they shoe-horn in the armour and helmet worn by Alan Ladd in his superior swashbuckler to allow use of the final battle scenes which were obviously beyond the Siege's budget to stage properly. The first time I saw this tremendous film I was only about ten and I spotted Alan Ladd's helmet and armour straight away - I don't think I have seen another arthurian/medieval knight wearing short-sleeved armour which was another pointer to Alan Ladd's film and sure enough jousting and battle scenes are lifted in their entirety. And since when did King Arthur have a daughter?? Nice to see Dad' Army stalwart John Laurie playing Merlin though.

"Celts" dressed as Normans fighting uniformed Saxon enemies with truly pathetic horned helmets, (even for the '60's). Atrocious script, third-rate acting and cast. No redeeming features. God knows what caused this film to be made. No merit, even as a warning of what stupidity and vanity can produce when combined with money.

With all the trash that Cable/Satellite and streaming services show today as filler, why isn't this fun little movie about a knight planning on betraying King Arthur on TV anymore? What's the problem here? I haven't seen it in years and would love to see it again. Why have certain movies simply been forgotten?

Just saw this on daytime TV and it is true - it is hilariously awful. I generally like trashy 'sword & sorcery' and 'sword & sandal' melodramas but I believe with this film I've discovered a bottom line beneath which not even I will sink. It is so terrible it actually warrants a viewing, if only to spot the faults in it. The costumes and storyline appear to have been lifted lock, stock & barrel from a 13th Century Robin Hood tale and and shoe-horned into a dark age post-King Arthur setting. The final set piece battle is risible, mostly mid-range shots of teams of knights charging either left or right. The best part of the whole film for me was spotting the telephone wires in a couple of scenes - a true 'Ed Wood' moment.

Siege of the Saxons is an historical adventure though the history bit is wildly inaccurate to say the least. The plot is pretty standard, King Arthur is killed and Edmund tries to take the throne from his daughter. The only thing stopping him is a thief and a ragtag band of peasants.

The dialogue is pretty poor and at times laughable whilst the acting varies wildly. There is a good performance from Ronald Howard as the bad guy Edmund and Ronald Lewis just about convinces as Robert. Unfortunately Janette Scott wildly overacts as Katherine although on the plus side she does look good.

The filming again is patchy and this seems to depend on the location the filming was set in. The forest scenes being the best of the bunch.

Despite it's (many) faults, Siege of the Saxons does at least succeed in being mildly entertaining. Thankfully it never takes itself seriously and there are some decent scenes to keep your interest.

It's very much a film of it's time and very dated but as a time filler I've certainly seen far far worse.

Films like Siege Of The Saxons are the equivalent to our B westerns in the USA. Back before the Sixties and we became more cynical worldwide, this stuff was great entertainment fodder and occasionally made it from the United Kingdom to this side of the pond.

The Robin Hood legend is combined with the Arthurian legend in Siege Of The Saxons. King Arthur has a daughter, bet you didn't know that named Katherine and played by Janette Scott. But he's also got the ambitious Edmund of Cornwall played by Ronald Howard who betrays the king with an ambush by invading Saxons. Arthur is killed, but Katharine lives on and fights for her throne with a Robin Hood like character named Robert Marshall played by Ronald Lewis.

Back as a lad I remember such British imports as Sir Lancelot, Robin Hood, The Buccaneers etc. on at family viewing hours and I enjoyed them immensely as much as I enjoyed the B westerns of the time as well. Every culture in the world develops its own pulp entertainment. As for Siege Of The Saxons it plays like an episode of either the old Robin Hood series with Richard Greene or the Sir Lancelot series with William Russell, both actually.

Nothing great about Siege Of The Saxons, but take it for what it is British pulp entertainment.

I remember enjoying this when I was a kid. Which shows how indiscriminating I was, because it is drivel. But it is worth sticking with for the battle scene at the end, which is exciting, lavishly staged, and takes place in a noticeably more arid landscape than the rest of the film. It seems the producers acquired from somewhere a lot of stock footage of knights besieging a castle, and constructed a film around it. With costumes being chosen for continuity. Within the battle scene there is much blending of old and new footage. This is not entirely seamless. It is conspicuous that the battlements behind which the archers are sheltering when struck by an arrow are of a different design to the battlements from which they fall. You get a lot of chance to study this because the same archers fall from the same battlements with some regularity. 6 out of 10 then for nostalgia, and because I would probably still be thrilled by it if I was eight years old.

Siege of the Saxons is not really a good film. It is rather forgettable, with too short a length and a plodding pace. It is unimaginatively directed, some of the cinematography is dull in places and the script is cheesy a lot of the time. The plot is rather ramshackle and clichéd, the battle sequences are rather sloppily edited, the ending was a tad disappointing- I feel it was in need of a bigger climax and it was rushed- and the characters aren't given enough time to develop. However, despite these many problems, I found it fun in a way. It does have a rousing score, some of the costumes are quite nice and the performances do help elevate. Mark Dignam is rather wooden and doesn't get enough screen time to shine, and as for Ronald Howard I wasn't sure what to make of his performance. That said, Ronald Lewis is a dashing and likable hero, Janette Scott is beautiful and surprisingly not as vapid as she could have been and Jerome Willis is an imposing and chilling villain with a dodgy leg. In conclusion, not a great film by any stretch of the imagination but it could have been worse. 4/10 Bethany Cox

In Medieval England, "Robin Hood"-styled outlaw Ronald Lewis (as Robert Marshall) courts not only knighthood, but also King Arthur's daughter Janette Scott (as Katherine), while they battle sneaky Ronald Howard (as Edmund) and the Saxons. This film has an odd beginning, and doesn't appear to have been structured very well. After it gets going, you can see it was intended as a light and low-budget adventure with absolutely no high aspirations. They use action footage from "The Black Knight" (1954) well; while far from great, "Siege of the Saxons" is at least better than the one it borrows from; though lesser known, Mr. Lewis outperforms an ailing Alan Ladd. Ms. Scott's inconsistent hair style looks like it led to some re-writes.

*** Siege of the Saxons (7/63) Nathan Juran ~ Ronald Lewis, Janette Scott, Ronald Howard, John Laurie