Arthur the King

The actors tried, they really did, but it was badly cast, the writing was so-so. The one redeeming virtue in this film is the only dramatization of Sir Gawain and the Loathly Lady that I've ever seen. This is a wonderful story, and should be made into its own movie. Go read it, and learn something very important -- what is it that women truly want?

Probably the worst movie ever inspired by or blamed on Arthurian myth, this features some talented actors struggling valiantly with terrible miscasting (only Dyan Cannon as an American tourist seems comfortable in her role) and an awful script. The sets look cheap and stagey, and the only entertaining thing about the whole film is how laughably bad the special effects are. This is so utterly without redeeming features that I can't recommend this to anyone - fantasy fans, fans of any of the actors, not even lovers of bad movies.

I guess Dyan Cannon, Macolm McDowell, Edward Woodward, Candy Bergen, Liam Neeson and Rupert Everett must have been in it just for the paycheck. This film is bad-- even for TV. I rented it because I was desperate for a bit of romance for my wife who was ill. Well, it was a stinker. The low budget special effects were out of the three stooges era. The fight scene with King Arthur and the "Undead knight" was a high point, reminding me of Monty Python's Holy Grail. I could go on and on about the abuses to the Arthurian legend but this film is a parody of itself and little more can be said on that account. My biggest disappointment was Candace Bergen who has been a long time fav. Another reviewer here has already noted the shortcoming in her role and we can leave it at that. Neeson was absolutely comical; Everett was ghastly; Woodward was his hambone usual delightful self and Dyan Cannon, (born the same year as myself) was great because she was playing herself. Unless, you're really bored and looking for a lampoon of a costume drama, I might not recommend this one.

I remember seeing this movie a long time ago when I was young. And I remember liking it, of course I was a youth. But, still, what I liked about it was the fact that it had the Arthurian element of fantasy to it. I like that in any movie, so-called "good" or "bad." By the way, does anybody know where I can find this movie to either rent or buy so I can make a wiser judgment for myself?

Thanks for any info, my email address should be available after the comment.

Unbelievable. This movie is without a doubt one of the poorest excuses for wasting celluloid I have ever seen. I like the whole King Arthur/Knights of the Round Table genre, so I was prepared to give it a little latitude when I started watching it and saw in what direction it was going (downhill), but this movie's stupefying ineptness is mind-boggling. Candace Bergen in a red Bozo the Clown wig, cackling maniacally as she spouts gibberish that is supposed to be magic spells, Liam Neeson playing a Pictish barbarian talking like an Indian in a 1930s western ("Me have many babies with this woman! Me go now!"), poorly staged "battles" that looked more like a crowd of drunks lurching into each other, cheesy special effects, and some of the most brainless dialogue this side of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" combine to make this movie a laugh riot. The "acting" is at a junior-high school level, the photography is washed out, it appears to have been edited with a chainsaw--and they are just its =good= qualities. All in all, an experience to remember--if you can stay awake (I couldn't; I missed the last 20 minutes because this thing put me to sleep...).