Add a Review

  • I caught this film on video because the trailer wasn't too good. But it did have Eric Idle voicing Devon so I gave it a chance. I loved it. The dragon stole most of the scenes, but the other characters weren't bad either. Kayley & Garrett made a good couple and it was refreshing to see a romance that wasn't based on looks or riches. I wanted them to be together. Bladebeak was amusing and Aydon (voiced by the excellent Frank Welker) was good to watch. Rubere was deliciously villainous. The weakest characters were Arthur & Merlin but the film wasn't really about them so it didn't matter.

    The best scenes were set in the Forbidden Forest where we witness all kinds of weird and wonderful flora and fauna. There are good songs (I Stand Alone, Through Your Eyes & On My Father's Wings especially.) I also cried at several points. Ignore the bad press. Watch it. 9/10
  • Genre: Cartoon, Camelot, Adventure with female knight in training.

    Main characters: Kayley, Garret, Devon and Cornwall.

    Actors: Lots of famous ones here! There is Cary Elwes (Garret), Eric Idle (Devon), Gary Oldman (Ruber), Jane Seymour (Juliana), Don Rickles (Cornwall), Pierce Brosnan (King Arthur), John Gielgud (Merlin).

    What happens: Kayley is the daughter of Sir Lionel, one of the knights at the Round Table. The young girl dreams of following in her father's footsteps as a knight. Then, disaster strikes. Lionel is killed :-( and Kayley as well as others mourn for him. Kayley dreams on of becoming a knight...

    My thoughts: This film had good potential. It had good animation, good, heartwarming songs, good characters and lots of good actors. They released it and (on IMDb especially) it sort of flopped like a deflated balloon. What happened?

    Well, I don't know personally. I suppose a lot of people don't like this film for a number of reasons. Yes, the film isn't perfect, but it's CERTAINLY enjoyable and good to watch! It's also good for the children, they are likely to enjoy at least one aspect of the film and want to watch on (just like me when I was younger). They may enjoy the songs, they may enjoy the actors, they may enjoy the characters or the excitement, or they may enjoy the humour. They are most likely NOT to be disappointed.

    Adults are most likely to like the actors. Monty Python fans will hopefully not be disappointed by the performance of Eric Idle. Also here is Jane Seymour (but not Henry the Eighth's wife OBVIOUSLY! :-) )

    Why this film has gone down so badly is a mystery to me. I hope those of you who have never watched it before will enjoy it as much as I do.

    Recommended to: Families who like cartoon films, people who like any of the actors I mentioned earlier and people who just like the sound of the film in general - enjoy! :-)
  • I was shocked,surprised and flabbergasted by the negative reviews I would see on the web, I thought that this film a very,VERY good Arthurian movie along with Walt Disney's classic "The Sword in The Stone;" the MGM live-action classic "Knights of the Round Table" with Robert Taylor & Ava Gardner; the musical "Camelot" starring Richard Harris & Vanessa Redgrave.

    This film has everything: a very good story, excellent music, and that's one thing I love in a movie is a very good soundtrack; and an excellent voice casting too. I love Kayley, and her desire to carry on the tradition of her father in the excellent song On My Father's Wings was a great scene in the film. I also love song "The Prayer" too. The song became popular among artists like the Celtic Woman - I don't understand why a popular song would come from a film that people thought it's awful.
  • I am going to agree with the majority of the other posters here. There is a lot of good elements in this movie, but it is all put together as much more of a cliche then it had to be.

    It seemed like there were too many singing scenes and they were too abrupt and not integrated into everything. Every time one started, I couldn't wait for it to be over so we could get back to the story. And as others mentioned, the singing voices were too different from that of the characters themselves. Imagine if they had used the time during the songs to actually give more plot and character development.

    Everyone seemed too two-dimensional. As someone else pointed out, how did the bad guy even get to the round table in the first place? He was charming in his own way, but too cookie-cutter.

    As others mentioned, the animation is very hit-or-miss. The backgrounds and overall mood are very well done, but a lot of the characters were just not animated well, the hawk was frequently deformed, etc. It stood out badly due to the quality of everything around it. Take a look at something like Princess Mononoke to see characters animated on a limited budget that meshes much better with everything else, with a lot more visual style.

    It seems like it would have a feminist bent, but then she is still rescued most of the time, and the dress scene at the end seems especially absurd in the context of everything else.

    Some of the comedy elements were cute, but I did dislike all of the movie references and everything. Since everything else seems centered in the world, it seems out of place.

    Like the Black Cauldron, this was an OK movie that could have been a lot better. But at least BC didn't have all that singing. Sword in the Stone also worked a lot better while being in a similar vein.

    If you want an American animated movie that is really consistent with its own world, animated well, has good characters, etc. check out the Secret of Nimh. You can get it really cheap on DVD now. Seeing Quest for Camelot the day after Nimh, there really is no comparison...
  • raven_blood8811 October 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    Well, I finally saw it. And boy, it was nothing to sneeze at.

    (**Spoilers**) Now, I tried to give it a chance, I really did. Being a big fan of animated musicals, I tend to enjoy films of this genre. But sadly, the effort was wasted in this misshapen heap of a story. Now, for the positive side, I must say I thought the two-headed dragon was hilarious... Eric Idle and Don Rickles were simply perfect picks for their voices. However, the main characters were bland, and lacked a proper chemistry. Kayley was drastically out of place with the story. Her whole, "I wanna be a warrior" rant reminded me of Taran from "The Black Cauldron." Ladies were not knights, and did not sit with the men at the Round Table. And NO woman dressed like she did at that time. Garrett was the most boring, angsty piece of wood, it hurt. And, to top it all off, the two main characters fell in love in less than a day. (I'm sorry, but even for an animated film, that was way too rushed, considering how they got along in the first place. Ruber, the villain, was a lame, inept villain, who lacked a good motive. It was lame.

    The singing voices for the characters (not counting Devon and Cornwall (the two-headed dragon), and Ruber (the villain), who did their own singing) were all obviously different. And the songs came out of nowhere. I mean, one minute we have Kayley's dad telling her about Camelot, the next, the knights are parading and singing to Aurthur's castle. Yeah, that *TOTALLY* happens in real life. I know animated musicals have songs, but they're usually better done, and fit in with the storyline. The animation smelled... and I often saw re-used clips about three times over. And the colors were so washed out, it hurt.

    And the plot... hoo boy! Did these people even try and base it on the book it supposedly originated from? Now, I never read the book, but I read its summary, and the characters are barely anything like this. The plot is weak, watered down, and lame. I know the book was adult, but they could've made a kid-safe version of it. And Arthur and Merlin are in this for all of ten minutes, max.

    The only *really* catchy song in the film was "If I Didn't Have You", and the only really beautiful song was "The Prayer." This is sad because there were other songs scattered throughout the film. So yeah, this film tried so hard to be a Disney-clone, yet it couldn't hold the candle to other really good non-Disney films, like "The Swan Princess", "Thumbelina", "Anastasia", "Balto", and "Prince of Egypt."

    Case in point, don't waste your time. It's quite forgettable.
  • Back in the days when there is no such Oscar category as "The Best Animated Feature of the Year" , animations were for family use only. It's obvious that by 2001, adult themed animations began running off readily. Looking at the year 1998, alongside of Antz, Mulan, and Toy Story 2 ; Quest for Camelot was another successful blockbuster hit in the animation genre.

    It's an adaptation to Vera Chapman's novel "The King's Damosel", the writer of which is the founder of the J.R.R. Tolkien Society of Great Britain. Though, most fun and joyful parts of the novel are missing in this film. The basic formula of creating a Swashbuckler Adventure out of a heroic journey story has been applied again just like The Mummy, Robin Hood, Indiana Jones, Conan the Barbarian and so on.

    What's so good and staying within living memory? 1/First of all, it's very entertaining for everyone who like Swashbucklers. Must be rated "E". 2/A sense of Tim Burton style singing dialogues. 3/All the cruel and bloodthirsty fantasy world creatures are pleasant looking: Dragons, Drakels, Ogres, and the very special Two-Headed Dragon. 4/The Dark Jungle with Necromancer Trees. 5/The lost sword of Excalibur. 6/The legend of the Three Circles. 7/The story is centring on a girl who wants to be a knight! Praise for Hayao Miyazaki 8/The first time when Garrett and Kayley meet the two-headed dragon: -Garrett:What are you? -Dragon:We're the reason cousins shouldn't marry. 9/The back story of a blind farmer, and his success story becoming a knight 10/The blind farmer's silver winged falcon, and all the scenes that it's fighting with either dragons or ogres.

    What's not to like and to forget? 1/The overall animation quality is only as good as a computer game except the music. 2/Some scenes and sequences are giving homage to Star Wars, Indiana Jones and even the Taxi Driver; and those homages are stomach aching. 3/King Arthur is very weak, he is half the size of Merlin and shorter than Kayley 4/Merlin is not the Merlin as we know him, he's afraid to cast spells, and not able to protect Arthur's castle 5/The moment when King Arthur grabs the Excalibur from the stone, he seems like a 4-year-old kid pretending that he's He-Man and the people around him are the Masters of Universe 6/The fact that King Arthur is Pierce Brosnan's worst voice acting ever 7/Character development and back stories of the characters are very weak except Garrett's character 8/Visual Effects are awful 9/Over 350 animators have worked to create this animation, but it's still not "animating" what needs to be animated, 'cause the action sequences and the human movements/reflexes are dreadful 10/Sound Effects are not synchronized properly

    Give it a shot, this is at least worth watching, catch it on Youtube.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I watched this when I was little and I found it mildly amusing. When I watched it again when I got older, I saw that there was simply no good plot or interesting characters in it.

    Kayley longs to be a knight like her late father, and is well on her way to becoming the adventurous fighting female warrior that she always wanted. Unfortunately in the end, she is kidnapped and becomes the stereotypical damsel in distress who longs for her knight in shining armor, Garrett, the blind hero, to come in and save her. Why can't it ever be the other way around?

    Ruber, the villain, has no depth, no personality other than the fact that he is evil and selfish, and has no complexity, meaning or explanation as to why he does the things he does. The only grudge he has for the king is that that he just simply wouldn't give him all the land. Despite being voiced by Gary Oldman, and having a few witty lines he just becomes silly and not very threatening.

    As for the two headed dragon, they have absolutely no business being in the movie other than comic relief, which is a very weak aspect of storytelling.

    One a positive note, the music and the songs are very good. Andrea Corr plays Kayley's singing part and Celine Dion play's Juliana's. But other than that, it really is nothing special.

    4 out of 10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There were many movies that told the legend of King Arthur of England. The Sword in the Stone was probably one of the best examples for this legend. And there was another one called Quest for Camelot- Wait a minute! Quest for Camelot?!! This movie wasn't great, this movie sucked! Why am I saying this? Oh, you're going to find out in a moment...

    1) Songs, songs, and more songs. Oh, I'm sorry, this is a musical adventure. None of the songs made any sense at all. They would make Tom and Jerry the Movie look like the Music Man or The Titanic Animated Trilogy look like Singin' in the Rain! 2) Rip-offs by the dozen. I spy with my eye the main character who looks like Belle from Disney's Beauty and the Beast. There is no escaping the rip-offs! 3) Abysmal dialog. Read this following quote: "You've got to ask yourself 'Do I feel Clucky?' Well, do you punk?" Stupid. Absolutely stupid, movie! You're ripping off one of Clint Eastwood's best lines and then you inserted "Clucky" instead of "Lucky". If Clint Eastwood were to hear that, he would've said "Boy, do I feel unlucky today. One minute, I was the star of Dirty Harry and that next thing I know, my line gets stolen by an ax-chicken with the voice of Sonic the Hedgehog from that horrible TV series "The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog". Ungrateful punks."

    This movie is so unbelievably bad that it left the Nostalgia Critic making two nuclear explosions and go on a shooting spree involving Disney characters(Note: for the record, that was played for laughs and no beloved Disney characters were harmed during the making of the Nostalgia Critic episode reviewing this movie)! If I were one of those people working at Warner Bros Studios, I would've stopped the numb-nuts from making this fire-breathing monstrosity that is Quest for Camelot.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I first saw Quest For Camelot when I was ten years old (I saw it in theaters) and it was one of my favorite movies. I'm seventeen now, and yesterday, I watched this movie with my little brother. Of course, it was a lot more immature than it was when I was ten, but I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. This is truly a fun, wholesome movie.

    The story centers on Kayley, a young girl who wants to become a knight in Camelot. When King Arthur's sword Excalibur is stolen by the evil Sir Ruber, and then lost in the Forbidden Forest, Kayley sets off to recover the sword and save Camelot. Her quest is also crucial because Ruber had killed her father ten years before, and has now taken her mother hostage. In the Forbidden Forest, Kayley is joined by Garrett, a blind hermit who doesn't welcome her company at first, and his falcon Ayden. They are also joined by Devon and Cornwall, an odd and bickering two headed dragon, while being followed by Ruber and his metal minions.

    This a movie that is a cute relief to many Disney movies, and I love the music in it much more than most Disney sing-along songs. While some songs are simply silly and fun, like "If I Didn't Have You" sung by Devon and Cornwall (which I laughed all the way through due to its nudges at 20th century pop culture), many of the songs express morals and feelings that the audience can take to heart. "United We Stand" is sung by the knights of the round table, saying that "no one shall be greater than all", something that the villain Ruber doesn't like very much. "I Stand Alone" tells how Garret does not trust the world around him, having been shunned for his blindness, yet at the same time, he is opening his world to Kayley. And my very favorite song is "Looking Through Your Eyes", the love song between Kayley and Garrett, which is honest due to the fact that neither let Garrett's blindness stand in their way.

    The emotions in Quest For Camelot are also real because although there are plenty of funny moments, these are balanced by dark and serious moments. These include Kayley's father's death scene, his funeral, and Ruber's witchcraft scene. Ruber's song is creepy and dark, and seriously scared me when I was younger. And one scene that really jerks the tears for me is when Kayley and her friends reach the end of the forest, with Excalibur in hand. Garrett tells Kayley to go on without him, because he does not "belong in that world", and thinks that he doesn't deserve to love Kayley. After he leaves, Kayley says "but you belong in mine" before going on. It's really pure of heart, and made me sad. Or maybe I'm just a sap. Oh well.

    All in all, I think that everyone should give this movie a try, even teenagers. Heck, I'm a teen and I love this movie. I won't pretend to be "too old" for a cartoon sing-along movie. (In fact, I love these songs so much that they stay in my head forever and drive me crazy) Quest For Camelot may not be the best made movie, and yes, it does have plenty of flaws, but if you look past that, you're guaranteed to laugh and smile, and it leaves you with a good feeling at the end.
  • I, personally, really enjoy Quest for Camelot. I think it has a very good plot, I love the music, the animation is pretty good, and the characters are likeable. Admittedly, it does have its flaws, and it's no Sleeping Beauty, but then again, what is?

    I think many people don't give this and similar movies a chance because they're not Disney. But heck, Pocahontas was by Disney, and it sucked! So, don't judge a movie by its studio. You really should give this movie a try.
  • This is a film that I have watched several times now with the kids and find myself enjoying it more each time.

    Previous comments have compared it unfavourably to Disney but this seems unfair - it is clearly a separate product, darker and more cynical than the works of that other company. The song by dragons Devon and Cornwall - 'Without You'- stands in stark contrast to, say, the sentiments of 'You and Me Together' in Disney's Oliver and Company. Neither could I imagine Ruber, with his particular vein of sarcastic villainy, appearing in the products of that more family centred studio.

    The weakest individual moment, for me at least, is anachronistic. Devon and Cornwall sing about their mutual hostility, and their song is animated with some twentieth century props and in-jokes. This is a jarring note in a film which otherwise tries to maintain some sort of historical integrity. It is funny but creates a disruption that is hard to forget. (More acceptable is the 'Do you feel clucky?' line later on)

    There has been some criticism of the animation quality, and it does seem to vary. Some of the movements of animals, in particular, seem jumpy at a distance. However balancing out these weaknesses are such scenes as the evocation of a cold morning, when Kayley hears of her father's death, and Ruber's splendid witchcraft scene.

    Overall the film suffers from being underwritten - one wishes more time was taken in filling out character and incident before the final attack on Camelot. Cayley and Garrett fall in love too easily, while Devon and Cornwall (delightfully witty and charming creations) have too little to do. And what happens to Merlin? He's reduced to flying a bird. It's a shame as other supporting characters, like the Gryphon and the axe chicken are very well judged, and completely memorable. More unforgivable is the character of King Arthur, who is just bland.

    On the plus side, this is still a good film, utterly free of pretension. Ruber's magical creation of his henchman is a highlight, a demoniac sequence that is quite thrilling, a brilliant musical set piece that moves the plot forward, sparking huge suspense. His creations are delightfully original in themselves, frightening and intriguing in equal measure. Watching it again I was reminded of how little of this quality of real wonder appears in another non-Disney animation, Prince of Egypt - a much more favourably received work, and far more earnest in tone.

    This Arthurian adventure can be quite revealing in comparison when taken this as an unofficial sequel to The Sword in The Stone, throwing stereotypical Disney values and methods into greater relief. In its own right it is very enjoyable in any case, although it could have been even better with some extended work on the script.
  • I practically wanted to see this movie mainly because The Corrs were in it, I mean The Corrs are featured on its soundtrack, but after seeing it, I really enjoyed it. it's a really great movie I recommend for everybody to watch. Not only that it provides great music and entertainment, it teaches us lessons as well. It also feautures Camelot as a very wonderful place, outlining the story in the original Camelot story but excellently rearranging some things and placing additional characters and somehow revamping the plot but is very enjoyable and amusing, I must say, especially the part when "If I Didn't Have You" was sung by the two very amusing dinosaurs.Also the excellent songs feautured in the soundtrack which really suited the movie very well. An excellent movie for the family, a story with lessons to learn and very enjoyable indeed both for the children, the family, and also for young at hearts as well.
  • this animated movie was OK,i guess,but nothing special.the most annoying thing about it,to me,was that there were too many musical numbers,and not enough,the musical numbers themselves were kinda mundane,in my opinion.and they slowed the whole movie down,ruining any flow it might have had.the animation didn't really stand out,either.this is not a movie for young children.there are a few moments which would be a bit scary for them.there were a few funny moments,but not enough to elevate the movie. i also felt the voice actors didn't always suit the characters.finally,the movie just wasn't fun.overall,a disappointing effort.4/10
  • I for one was eager to see Warner Brothers' first fully animated feature when it was released in the theaters. I didn't expect to see a Disney quality movie, but I was happy to find out that QfC came pretty close. And now it can be enjoyed on home video, which is a good thing.

    Some animation in the movie wasn't as hot as I had hoped, but the songs... These are all really excellent. They are a joy to hear again and again. Special tribute must go to the animation of Ruber (the villain) who is really awesome to see. Ruber, to me, is the one that really makes this movie.

    Even though some of the other characters may appear a bit bland, the overall art and animation is pretty good. With a little more work, Warner Brothers should be able to produce a movie that will perhaps match a Disney feature one day. The potential is there, I'm sure.

    Quest for Camelot is a great first animated feature for WB. It isn't perfect, but it certainly has its charms.
  • This movie was a uge disappointment and I even had to change the channel sometimes from the pain. Sad, but true. The plot has a little potential, but in my opinion, this is nothing more than another Disney wannabee. The characters were not the well developed at all and the singing voice actor for the hero of the story didn't fit him well... at all. The movie lacked that feel good feeling that you feel after even some of the worst animated movies. The songs are not memorable at all and most of them weren't very good. The romantic relationship between the two main characters was a bit dull and nor lively or witty. The only good thing about this movie was the comic relief at times and for that, I'll give it a 2/ 10.
  • 'Quest For Camolot' is an animated children's film about two children who are on a mission to save Camolot. This film is set in the days of King Arthur. Generally, this is a poor attempt at an adventure animation film. There is nothing special about this film at all. The animation, music, and story do little to engage the audience and do little to impress. I found the whole film particularly dull and a chore to sit through. Dull story, dull characters, dull songs, and there was also nothing special about the animation. Although it is not a great film either, 'The Sword in the Stone' was fun, and I did enjoy this as a child - though not so much as an adult. I certainly will not be taking this quest again.
  • I will not waste many words describing this film. With a cast including such silver-screen greats as Jane Seymour, John Gielgud, Cary Elwes, Pierce Brosnan, et al., one would expect this film to have been worth watching.

    It isn't.

    It's not as bad as, say, The Swan Princess or Thumbelina, but there are better ways you could use your time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was really disappointed with this movie. Unlike allot of animated movies, I'd never seen it as a kid, but the story sounded really interesting, so I thought I'd give it a watch.

    The movie started off really well, they did a really good job of setting the story off, its when the real plot starts that the movie starts to become… well, boring and pointless. Everything happens WAY to fast, things happen without reason. For example, the relationship between Kayley and Garrett - where did that come from? One second they hate each other, then after spending, what - a couple of days together? their in love. They only fell in love because in a movie like this the main male and female characters typically fall in love, there's no development to their relationship, it only happens because its expected. Why does Ruber want to take over Camelot? Little motive towards the main villains actions make for a really poor villain, kids movie or not. Why is he even a knight of the round table anyway? By the looks of it, he only ever cared for himself, so how did he ever manage to get to that position - you don't need to be a great judge of character to see that's a bad guy. Devon and Cornwall were incredibly useless, I mean, I know all kids movies have the annoying sidekicks - I hated sidekicks when I was a kid - but they didn't do anything. They saved Garrett a ten minute run to Camelot because they miraculously learned to fly. Don't get me started on the hammer chicken thing… I still don't get what that was about. Plus, was I the only one who thought that Lionel died a bit to easily? I had to go back and see what killed him, only to find that he gets thrown across the table. He's supposed to be Arthur's most trusted knight, is he really that weak?

    Now, the characters. I've already gone into the Ruber, Devon and Cornwall. Kayley was a terrible main character. She didn't really do anything productive. I was expecting her to be a really great lead character, but in the end all she did was get captured and needed rescuing by Garrett and those useless dragons. Garrett was a great character though, as was Juliana, Arthur and Lionel.

    Most of the songs were great, especially "The Prayer," "On my Father's wings" and "I stand alone." Its ashamed that the characters voices don't fit with the singing voices. The animation was average. The voice acting was pretty good to.

    I know its just a kids movie, but there's still no excuse to some of the things I brought up. It seems that Warner Brothers just wanted to create a Disney-like movie, but missed a lot of the key things that makes Disney movies great. I'd give it 5/10.
  • !@N24 September 1999
    Animated films are becoming a dime a dozen nowadays, with newcomers like this film. Unfortunately, it comes nowhere close to the spectacular magic that Disney brings to the screen.

    Firstly, the plot is questionable in parts -- some bits of the story are just glossed over. For instance, when Garrett is terribly wounded, it all heals in a matter of seconds so that the two lovebirds can get on with their song.

    The characters themselves are quite annoying -- Kayley and her silly voice (by Jessalyn Gilsig) really get on one's nerves.

    The animation in Quest For Camelot is sadly disappointing, with not enough detail and intricacy. Perhaps the makers of the film were too caught up in the ogre -- a gem of a computer generated image but terribly out of place. The character of Ruber looks terribly similar to Hades from Hercules, while Garrett simply lacks life. In fact, the characters in general are rather lifeless. It would really help if they looked like they were singing rather than opening their mouths vaguely.

    The songs and music are quite remarkable, though, which is not surprising given that they were composed by songmaster David Foster. This was only let down by the incredibly bad casting of voices -- Andrea Corr's lovely voice did not at all sound like Jessalyn Gilsig, Bryan White was too American-pop-star for Cary Elwes and the film in general, Celine Dion too powerful for the gentle Lady Juliana. Even the singing Gary Oldman didn't sound like the talking Gary Oldman. The songs were also introduced a little abruptly, and there were too many parts where singing was in the background but the characters were actually doing something else -- a little absurd, don't you think?

    Okay. I know that from all my complaints, it sounds like I hated the film. In actual fact, it was quite watchable but boy, am I glad I watched it on video rather than at the cinemas! The kids will probably love it -- but it really does have many flaws which need to be worked on. Without the melodious soundtrack, I'd have given it 2/10 -- with the soundtrack, 4/10.
  • This was one of the least satisfying movie-length cartoons I ever saw. Admittedly I am 21, but even as a kid I wouldn't have liked it. The animation is just on the edge of average(at least for this day and age) and the voice talents just went to waste. Cary Elwes never looked and sounded duller or more emotionless. It' was as of his voice was quieter than the others and he just didn't get into his role at all. But the worst thing was his singing voice; from the uninspiring Garret to a show-off singing voice with a distinguishable American accent was simply too much. Or Celine Dion singing for Jane Seymour for that matter. The songs were terrible (and I don't want to sound like the worst anti-modernist, but some of them didn't even rhyme)and some of them were completely misplaced in the movie. You just have to see it to believe it. At on point Kayley is running for her life, trying to escape the baddies while her mother is singing how she has to be strong and not let them capture her. The only person who really put an effort into his character was Gary Oldman(no real surprise there), but his character was as typical as villains get, letting no room for an over the top performance that could have maybe softened the fall of this pathetically unfunny and lifeless movie. Oh yeah, as it had already been mentioned; I was also wondering why his character was a member of the knights of the round table to begin with. The director went with the established Disney formula, which was already getting old over at their studios as it was, so the end result here need not be explained. Don't see it if you're an adult, don't let your kids watch it, stay away and rent "The Iron Giant" instead.3/10
  • This film is like The Sword in the Stone's awkward, ugly little brother. Despite a pretty impressive cast, it lacks charm. The animation is sloppy, the "humourous" characters irritating, and the others just dull. It is filled with dire songs with meaningless lyrics, and the dialogue is just silly. I don't think Disney has much to fear from this mediocre (at best) offering.

    The other small detail I had a problem with is the heroine's name; I find it hard to believe there were many Kayleys in Arthurian England.
  • dexen8 January 2000
    Warner Brothers has since proved that it can create a good full-length animated picture, but the issue was in serious doubt with Quest For Camelot. The animation style ranged from horses that didn't quite track right to beautiful CG that pointed up how truly awful the rest of it was. Likewise, the script never settled on where it wanted to go. It was structured too much like an animated short (which is just fine for a short piece, but wrong for full-length) and the mood was shattered by anachronistic one-liners. The only good part of the movie was the duet of the two-headed dragon. If the rest of the film had displayed that amount of ingenuity and fun, it would have been a worthwhile film.
  • This is a disgusting film filled with offensive feminist propaganda from front to back. Show this to children you hate; children whose minds you wish polluted and whose growth you wish stunted. It is basically hate.

    It is astonishing that this drivel isn't banned outright.

    I have to re-evaluate the work of Don Rickles, Pierce Brosnan and Gary Oldman in light of their revolting contributions to this vile film.

    Cheap animation, cheap music, production values and creative content about the same as Felix the Cat. Sounds so much like a Felix the Cat film that I suspect common creative talent--but don't care enough to actually find out.
  • magandthebeast19 January 2011
    This movie was one of my favorites when I was a kid and still is. I love the music, the story, and the animation. It's very entertaining and cute! Don't know why people give it such bad reviews. It may be a little corny, but it's a kids movie and they all are to a degree. The cast is amazing, and the music is very catchy (I still have the songs on my iPod). The forest is very creatively depicted, and the funny parts are cute. It's not a movie that you're supposed to take seriously. It's very sweet! I bought it on DVD and my friends and I watch it together and reminisce about our childhoods. I highly recommend it! It's got the whole adventure element without being super romantic like most other cartoons, which is refreshing and part of the reason why I like it so much. It's great to show to kids, and I think it's a very cute little movie.
  • `Quest for Camelot' ranks among the worst animated movies I have ever seen. The plot is formulaic claptrap - a predictable story does not always a bad movie make, but it certainly does here, especially when played out with one dimensional, clichéd characters (take note - creating a creature with two heads that argue is no longer original or funny, thank you very much). If that wasn't bad enough, it is compounded by atrociously bad pacing of the story, a ridiculously forced love story subplot, some of the worst song placement that I can recall in a movie, feeble integration of CGI animation, dreadful attempts at lightening the mood with humour from characters other than the dragon that feels horrendously out of place (the stone creature's needless bout of flatulence is immediately brought to mind), and a moronic, baffling ending with absolutely zero explanation, that is made even worse by the fact that it is incredibly rushed.

    The acting is horribly over-the-top and painful to listen to (the stupid voice given to the gryphon is a particularly good example), with the normally excellent Gary Oldman giving a dreadful performance as the villain of the piece who can't sing well or decide what kind of regional English accent he's supposed to have. The casting of the characters is not for suitability, but for star power - in addition to Oldman, this film sees Pierce Brosnan, Jane Seymour, Gabriel Byrne, Celine Dion, Andrea Corr, Sir John Gielgud, Don Rickles and Eric Idle tarnish their resumes with appearances. The only real *voice artist* in the whole thing is the excellent Frank Welker, who is wasted by only getting to provide birdcalls.

    That is all.

    Oh, the animation is sort of nice.

    Sort of.
An error has occured. Please try again.