Siege of the Saxons (1963) User Reviews (28)

A rousing swashbuckler that entertained family audiences in 1963

[alanwriterman · 6/10 · 28 September 2009]

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 " !

Another Camelot film...

[Paul-2485 · 6/10 · 9 August 2006]

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.

Ridiculous, but fun

[falconer99 · 4/10 · 14 August 2012]

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!

Terrible, but not bad

[Valerio · 4/10 · 4 June 2008]

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.

Juvenile mix of Robin Hoodery and Arthurian legend – forgettable fun!

[barnabyrudge · 5/10 · 24 February 2007]

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!

Defend Camelot Against the Saxons!

[hitchcockthelegend · 5/10 · 29 December 2013]

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

A truly abysmal film, saved only by the wonderfully arch 'Limping Man', beautifully played by Jerome Willis.

[mickbaker-1 · 4/10 · 15 September 2007]

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.

Poor in every aspect

[Sorsimus · 2/10 · 19 January 2002]

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...

Fondly Remembered

[telegonus · 7/10 · 9 May 2005]

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.

Cheap film that uses footage from a far better film - but worth a look.

[simoncallaghan · 5/10 · 18 April 2009]

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.

There's a siege, my liege

[coltras35 · 9/10 · 9 January 2021]

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.

Nice idea, shame about the script.

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 14 August 2012]

King Arthur is in need of a good holiday. Off he goes, accompanied by his daughter and trusted knight Sir Edmund. Unfortunately, no-one knows that Edmund is a traitor, working to kill Arthur and usurp the throne. It turns out that the only fly in Edmund's ointment is archery outlaw Robin - sorry, Robert - who rescues the princess and goes off in search of Merlin.

One can see the hand of uncredited producer Charles H Schneer quite clearly - as with the Harryhausen films he produced, he has a knack of putting on screen production values well in excess of his budget (courtesy, in this instance, of expensive battle scenes lifted wholesale from other movies) while, at the same time, being unable to conceal telltale hints that his films aren't blessed with the budget to match their ambitions.

This film looks attractive - bright colour widescreen images dressed with good quality costumes, sets and locations (and, in the case of Ronald Lewis' outlaw Robert, a rather lovely tight leather vest and pants and an even more fab blonde hero's wig), and Janette Scott is always a welcome presence on screen. Where it falls down is in the script, which is clunky, and some of the performances, which are clunkier.

I have no problem with the story, which cobbles together Arthurian legend, Robin Hood, and generic mediaeval battle nonsense generally), and the whole thing is fairly jolly, unassuming stuff, but perhaps it lacks something to meet the demands of current audiences.

a rousing low budget adventure

[face-782-656201 · 5/10 · 15 July 2010]

Set during Romano-British times ( although it should be noted that all the characters are wearing dark age armour ) King Arthur goes for a hunting holiday after negotiating with the evil Saxons who are intent on conquering England on the way they are approached by dashing outlaw Robert Marshall. However a Saxon spy frames him and he is branded a traitor. The Saxons then storm Arthur's castle and he is killed. Robert must now take the king's daughter to merlin in order to put her on the throne. The film delivers a camp and obviously low budget feel , however if you can get past the anachronisms and bad sword fights it is highly enjoyable just don't watch it if you are a history buff.

Load of stupid rubbish.

[p_nallen · 1/10 · 18 January 2002]

"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.

They don't make them this bad any more

[Fanx · 1/10 · 27 April 2005]

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.

Fun and lost to today's viewers

[mhorg2018 · 5/10 · 30 June 2018]

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?

British Pulp Entertainment

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 18 January 2011]

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.

And all I wanted was 20 gold pieces!

[sol-kay · 5/10 · 19 January 2011]

***SPOILERS*** Ridicules costume epic involving the life and death of the legendary King Arthur, Mark Dignam, who in the film at least is killed by the scheming Edmund of Cornwall,Roland Howard, who's secretly planning to betray him and his kingdom to the hated Saxons after all the dust,in a Saxon invasion of jolly old England, settles.

Edmund didn't expect to run into trouble after he offed the King with Arthur's strong willed and pretty daughter Katherine, Janette Scott, and the smiling and big hearted outlaw Robert Scott, Roland Lewis, who unlike Robin Hood took from everyone, rich & poor, and kept it all to himself. It's after King Arthur was killed by his man disguised as Saxon warriors that Edmund proclaimed himself King of England despite that the true heir to the throne Katherine was still alive. It was up to the outlaw Robert Scott together with Katherine, who was in hiding, to put an end to Edmund's reign together with the Saxon's who were, as his enforcers, to put and keep him in power and under their control! To Edmund's big surprise his "friends and allies" The Saxons had other plans for him and they had nothing at all to do with his becoming England's next King!

Meanwile back in the forest Scott together with Katherine mustered the local woodcutters blacksmith and farmers into a force to be reckoned with known as "Arthur's Army". Scott & Co. are determined to put an end to the Saxon's plans to take over England which they lost to William the Conquerer back on October 14, 1066 in the battle of Hastings! Scott tracks down the by now feeble and addled brained Marlin the Magician, John Laurie, to prove to the people that Katherine who was rumored to have been killed, together her father King Arthur, is the real deal the Queen of England! Thus preventing Edmund, before the Saxons did him in, from accenting to the English throne.

***SPOILERS*** With that creep Edmund of Cornwall now out of the way it was up to Robert Scott and his "Merry Men" lead by Francis DeWolff the Blacksmith to keep the Saxons from taking over the country. This sets up the big final in the movie where Scott & Co. put an end to the Saxon dreams of conquests by putting an end to them and the late Edmund of Cornwall's #1 assassin the all in black Limpy Louie or the Limping Man, Jerome Willis, as he's called in the movie credits. Limpy who screwed up every assignment that his late boss Edmund of Cornwall gave him screwed this one up big time in him letting Scott put him away with his own arrow that he, as you would have expected, missed hitting him with from as little as 10 feet away!

P.S Roland Lewis looked so muck like fellow Welsh actor Richard Burton that you could have easily mistaken him for his twin brother or even Richard Burton himself!

Not as bad as all that...

[patriciahammond · 7/10 · 27 April 2005]

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.

Forgettable, but fun in a way

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 27 February 2011]

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

Patchy adventure but not without some charm

[MattyGibbs · 6/10 · 3 February 2015]

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.

Shearing the Siege

[wes-connors · 3/10 · 23 January 2011]

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

More a ludicrous fantasy than a historical adventure

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 20 December 2016]

This might well be the most historically inaccurate film of all time. I think they should have just made it a fantasy film and have done with that, rather than attempting to make it of a particular period. The bad guys in this film are Saxons, which would indicate that it's supposed to take place in roughly the sixth century, a time during which King Arthur was battling the invading barbarians. However, the costumes and backdrops are definitely those of the twelve century, with lots of Norman castles made in stone, jousting, elaborate suits of armour, kite shields and the like. To make things even more incomprehensible, the hero is one Robert Marshall (possibly a relation of famous knight William Marshall?), who seems to be Robin Hood in all but name, living out in the greenwood with his merry men. Oh, and the Saxons wear ludicrous prop horned helmets which were a flight of fancy invented by the Victorians (if you tried wearing one of these in battle it would be knocked off right away on account of the horns).

Apart from the ludicrous attention to historical detail, this is a really unrewarding hodge-podge of a film. It looks to be an Arthurian film, but most of the time it's just chasing about in the woods or in various castle settings. I found Ronald Lewis to be an utterly unlikeable hero, a sleazy character determined to bed the young princess. Said princess, played by Janette Scott as if she's in a CARRY ON film, sports a ridiculous early '60s haircut that's supposed to help her pass for a guy. Huh? There's a little more gravitas lent by the supporting players, including Ronald Howard's bad guy, Edmund of Cornwall (another made up person). Howard is actually pretty nice for a bad guy, and his abrupt ending is pretty funny. Jerome Willis is delightful as the dastardly "limping man" and larger-than-life Francis de Wolff has fun in his cameo as a blacksmith. Also look out for Charles Lloyd Pack who pops up early on as a physician and John Laurie as Merlin, the crusty old sage.

Director Nathan Juran was responsible for some colourful children's classics (JACK THE GIANT KILLER and THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD) but this is one of his weakest films. The flimsy sets and poor action scenes sap life from the film, and some liberal use of stock footage at the climax (stolen from THE BLACK KNIGHT) doesn't really add to the entertainment factor – other than providing some amusement as they keep repeating the same bits of people falling from the battlements over and over! Altogether this is a ludicrous movie that fails to be worth anyone's time.

Siege of the Saxons...keep them under siege

[veronicammartin · 3/10 · 20 October 2009]

They don t make films like they used to ! Thank Goodness in this case . At first, I was hoping that the appalling time errors showed it was a US film but NO , it's a UK film .No excuse ! How dreadful ....castles in Saxon times , circular chandeliers , armour , portcullis, ..... all appeared a few hundred years after the Saxons... oh and Saxons with bronze aged horned helmets .....ha

This would never happen in modern films where attention to detail is so much better and historians would be consulted as to accuracy . The worrying thing would be uninformed people actually believing the anomalies .

The standard plot boy meets girl .......... but such a laugh .... fair cheered me up nonetheless ... A huge laugh of film whimsy to watch while tucked up in bed with swine flu . It made me realise there IS something worse than flu ...... Siege of the Saxons .

How it compares to other Arthurian movies?

[Pellam · 2/10 · 17 March 2020]

Saxons you say? A historically accurate Knights of the Round Table reboot perhaps? Nope, more like a tacky Knight Rider 2000 prequel.