Tirogesflair

{{Contains Spoilers }}

'Lancelot and Guinevere' -aka 'The Sword of Lancelot' is a movie that seems to be well out of its time even in 1963. Its acting style, dialogue and costumes (everything used looks at least second or third hand) is more akin to the early 1950s epics (Ivanhoe, King Richard and the Crusades etc) than to say 'El Cid' made only a few years earlier in 1960.

Not only is the film set in the Middle Ages - the cast are all pretty middle aged as well - and look it . King Arthur (Brian Aherne) was over 60 when this movie was made , yet even with a fake beard, he still looks at least 50. Perhaps he had too much fun in Camelot with the knights to think about marrying but the arrival of Sir Lancelot and his magic soap may make a difference !

A rather mature looking Lancelot (another ageing bachelor it seems ) scares the other 'dirtier' Knights with his soapy ways and also has a French accent which unfortunately reminds you a bit of Inspector Clouseau. (Shame Peter Sellers wasn't up for the film role). Instead you have the barrel chested Cornell Wilde as the Gallic Knight errand whose new task it to claim Guinevere for King Arthur at a rival's court in a death or glory tournament . Lancelot wins that encounter and escorts Guinevere back to Camelot. However, before they arrive, he suggests that Guinevere has a bath in the local pond where he joins her with her = a tout alors ! - magic soap as apparently supplied by Merlin. One quick scrub down - and it is love at first lathering..

It is a shame the film wasn't turned into a comedy - as I was quite taken with the idea of a clean Frenchman showing how the English..(or are they Britons) to bathe ! Unfortunately - and with the cast showing a deadly earnestness in the ridiculous story - the movie ploughs on to more unintentional humour along the way. The Vikings also turn up - those horny helmeted heathens ! - and nephew Mordred gets busy plotting for a more or less familiar ending known to Arthurian myth lovers.

Besides the absurd sub Shakespearean style dialogue - bouts of weird laughter and back slapping in Camelot every time someone tells a feeble joke, one the glaring daftest ideas for the film was to cast Wilde's wife Jean Wallace as Guinevere. They look like a married couple to start off with ! - and there is no way even the camera can disguise it but this Guinevere looks pretty old to be the most desirable virgin in the land. Perhaps everyone in this film had a wash down with the magic soap , to believe this casting as feasible or acceptable.

The film does get a partial redemption in that more time is spent out on the battlefield fighting against various enemies of King Arthur but overall 'Lancelot and Guinevere' should only be seen by fans of bad films.

Like most reviewers here - I saw the film originally on the big screen back in 1972. As an eager young historian then - I recall how much this film helped bring to life Winston Churchill and political and social life of Great Britain in the decades before the First World War. Simon Ward was brilliant as the young Winston but Robert Shaw's tortured performance as Lord Randolph Churchill stand out - especially the scene where he is addressing the House of Commons when clearly his mind was fast gowing. Anthony Hopkins does have a small - but crucial role in the film as Liberal M.P David Lloyd George. It was his friendship with Churchill and the then political issue of tariffs v Free trade that led to Churchill leaving the Conservatives and becoming a Liberal for the next 20 years. I do also recall the final 'ghost' scene - so i will be interested to see what the new DVD will do about that as a missing scene from the earlier video release.

An instantly forgettable - a film that rewards no one with renewed viewings. I got the impression no one cared about this film - certainly not the actors and all the tech stuff was thrown away . So how do you build a plane out of a crashed one ? That bit was skimped over but if so, where was the film's plot ? There was no love interest, no real threat (except at the end when the 'Nomads' lined up on a horizon in the way I think I have seen in many Westerns). Everyone phoned in a performance on this movie and it should have been scrapped on the runway.

I trust everyone will be tempted to see the original 1965 film.

Not having read the book but familiar with its contents and story - I found this film a real chore to endure - and not something I would like to repeat either. It was a film that appeared to be like a contestant in a reality show where it had to do 20 things in two and a bit hours. It appeared to be making sure it was covering the ground of all those who had read the book (so a lot of the book's scenes are there as well - as I understand from my partner) - but also deal with those who had no clue about anything. Hence the weird 're-enactments' from Christianity's past including Emperor Constantine, paganism's fall, The capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and the secret the Knights Templar had found which allowed them to blackmail the papacy . For those in the middle - like myself - well , I kept thinking - 'there is no time for us to get to know - or care about these characters'. I think also it was an interestng clash of acting styles. The British actors had no problem getting into their roles (McKellen, Bettany and Molina) but Tom Hanks was a tourist in his own movie. As for Audrey Tautou - her strong French accent wasn't charming when you couldn't understand what she had just said. So for fans of the book - go see. Anyone else - hope Ron Howard has made a better film by the time the DVD comes out.

It is a shame that this TV series is only available in French . I hope someone or some organisation produce a version with English subtitles in the near future.

I recall seeing a lot of this series on BBC 2 (with their own subtitles I presume) when it was shown here in Britain. In fact I must have only seen it once and yet there is much I recall from just one viewing. The opening tableaux scene where all the actors are shown standing on steps so that it is like a 'recall' about what happened in the previous episode. Also I recall my interest watching the 'English' segment set in the court of Edward II and his murder in a dungeon (I was only in my mid teens then), the strangulation of the French Queen and the rich (and rude) language used by Robert of Artois ! I admit I haven't read the books but this series is on par with 'I Claudius' in quality !

I admit I saw this over 25 years ago but recall it wasn't very good. I do remember a scene where the Italian actor playing the Pope Alexander VI (Adolfo Celi) shouted he wanted to see 'Nipples' - but it could well have been 'Naples'. I think it was the former as there was an orgy going on at the time. This series tried to be like 'I Claudius, but lacked focus (and good writing !) and wasn't repeated . In fact the BBC who made this also made the 'The Cleopatras' - which I think was even worse !! It will be interesting to see if there is a change with the Scarlett Johansson/Colin Farrell version which is to go into production soon.

Perhaps this is a man thing but I do remember watching this about 20 years and being surprised to see a group of women totally naked in a shower situation. Before - this was a scene that was usually the mark of a teen movie (think 'Porky's etc) with the guarantee of seeing young, gym fit Hollywood women on display. I also recall that in this scene Julie Walters insisted that the (male) crew also strip off when they shot the scene as well - perhaps that is why it does seem to go on for ages !

As for the rest of the movie - It appears to be very lazy and unfocused. There are no big surprises. The ones who dream of being assertive - are assertive - and those who are not - don't. Perhaps the whole film needed a good re-edit in the end.

I bought this at a shop for £4.99 - without anything about this film . I thought the prescence of Morgan Freeman in it would at least make it watchable. OMG !

Like other reviewers - the film does start well and does seem to be 'going' in the right direction to get your interest, wind up tension and at least care what is going to happen. The four main leads are introduced - and we even get a flash back about how they meet a strange kid many years ago which forged their bond - one with psychopathic powers.

However enter the aliens - and the film goes right down the toilet ! Less than dazzling SPX and what look like Alien's seldom visited relations really makes the film lose its tension. But there is worse to come ! Morgan Freeman is given a role - and lines - so bizarre and stupid that I wondered if I was watching another film- perhaps a take off the "Naked Gun" movies. His role as a secret leader of the "Blue Unit" whose job is to obiliterate aliens with helicopter gunships is just so laughable. Tom Sizemore - as his rival - is given nothing to do except to look menacing - and then 'Friendly' menacing.

All in all an utter waste of time ! So even if you get this movie for £2.99 - AVOID !!!

I have seen elsewhere that the DVD version of this film is a possibility for Christimas 2005. It will be one of those movies that will I am sure stun all those who have never seen it before. I was too young to see it at the cinema - and only remember it from one viewing on TV (BBC I believe as there were no ad breaks ) in the mid 1970s. The film's use of songs to tell a story ( an idea ahead of its time) and the use of a pier in Brighton to re-enact a lot of the film is poignant as that pier is now a ruin itself -a burnt out tangle of twisted metal.

The scenes I remember well are the one of Sir John Mills as Douglas Haig leapfrogging and the final scene of the soldiers lying on the green grass and then the scene morphing into what looks like thousands of crosses. Indeed this a film to debunk militarism, imperialism and blind patriotism.

I have to thank my wife to be to introduce me to this show in the UK. In fact - I don't even know if it ever aired here but thanks to Series 1-2 being available on DVD - I have been watching them.

It combines the cartoon skills of the Simpsons with the anarchic edge of 'South Park' - without going over the top on gross humour. It is hard to see why anyone would like the oafish, insensitive and culturally uninterested Pete - but it works very well. What are liked about the show was it 'fantasy trips' when someone

mentions a subject - and you see the main characters in that situation. And it doesn't have the 'let's be cute' approach that I think always lurks around in the Simpsons. So my advice to fellow Brits - if you cannot find this show - ask a friend in Canada or USA to get you send a DVD set of the 'Family Guy' this

Christmas !

Having watched both Shark Tale and Finding Nemo at the cinema, this is like comparing fish with fishpaste. I did find some of 'Shark Tale' funny - indeed if 'Finding Nemo' had come out after this , I would have been more impressed. The film is as others have said here - a 'star vehicle' -in which the fish characters are made up to look like the actors. Just as well no one asked to have their performance removed from the movie ! When you compare this to Nemo - does Dori the fish look like Ellen DeGeneres or the pelican remind you of Geoffrey Rush. Thought not.

Perhaps the analogy here is a bit like the old days of Disney and Warner Bros cartoons - the later were always a bit of a Fast Food approach to animating movies. Perhaps Dreamworks wants to mine the same seam of humour - which will be OK for the next few years but will leave audiences puzzled in about 20 or 30 years when they try to remember who Will Smith was.

So my advice to 'Dreamworks' is plug and promote 'Shark Tale' for the next year or so but don't expect to see this as a long distance franchise.

This series has been repeated on BBC from its initial transmission in the UK - about five years ago I think. Why it has not re-appeared in the USA is an interesting point but I do know that there is a new TV production about Darwin's life which used his house to shoot some scenes .

That will be interesting to see but should not take anything away from this earlier effort which does remain an excellent introduction to the life and work of arguably one of the most influential people who have ever lived. With the exception of religious or creationist cranks, the evolution of species by natural selection remains the corner stone of biology - and in this series we can see how the young Darwin comes across this insight. Perhaps the debt owned to others is not always acknowleged in this series and the important role of Alfred Russel Wallace who came to the same conclusion as Darwin is glossed over but undoubtedly the series is best when it is on board the Beagle. The role of Captain Fitzroy is also important - and he does not come across as a religious bigot but as a man who ridiculed in his efforts to assist the poor indians he found in Terra Del Fuego . Only recently in England was his name immortalised as well when an area of sea used for weather forcasting was changed to his - in debt to his other work as a map maker and a pioneer in accurate weather forecasting .

A recommended series - and perhaps the BBC have got round to re-issuing it on DVD sometime,