Customer Reviews

Knights of the Round Table

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Well, folks, it was 1954. Not many of you were there, but speaking as someone who was 10 years old when he first saw this film, it was the "thing that dreams were made of." You have to look at films from the early fifties without reference to what you get today. Good special effects meant that he studio fans actually blew all of the costumes in the same directions. The studio system was about to die. Movies paid the bills with star's faces. A 10 year old went to see the story, and this is a great story. You can watch this movie. It isn't history, or fantasy. It is just a lot of fun from a time when you could set through it a second time for free if you called you mom and asked her not to come get you for two more hours. Put this in your collection and you can watch it once a year and enjoy it. And if you really want historical accuracy, this film is it. It is just exactly what films were all about in 1954 before TV came along and shrunk everything into one syllable.

KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE is a movie about the classic tale of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and Guinevere. Lancelot's ill-fated love for Guinevere is played out against a background of cavalry charges, fierce battles and pageantry. The plot is amplified by the rivalry between Lancelot and Mordred as well as Sir Percival's quest for the Holy Grail. Merlin appears in the film as an advisor to Arthur and Lancelot's wife dies while giving birth to the future Sir Gallahad.

Robert Taylor as Lancelot and Mel Ferrer as Arthur are both superb. Ava Gardner makes a beautiful Guinevere but her acting seems to be a little flat. The strong supporting cast includes Stanley Blake, Felix Aylmer and Robert Urguhart.

KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE received Academy Award nominations for Best Color, Art Direction and Sound. The main competition for Oscars in 1953 came from STALAG 17, ROMAN HOLIDAY and FROM HERE TO ETERNITY.

Richard Thorpe also directed Robert Taylor in IVANHOE in 1952.

"Knights of the Round Table" was MGM's first feature in the newly christened widescreen format of Cinemascope and the studio's inexperience with a 2:35:1 aspect ratio, in retrospect, is rather obvious. The audience is treated to drawn out battle scenes (that are thrilling) and lavish spectacle. But the whole look and feel of the film is very theatrical, like Shakespeare on stage. Robert Taylor, usually so natural, is uncomfortably stiff as Lancelot, while Mel Ferrer fairs slightly better as King Arthur. Ava Gardner is wasted as Gueneviere. Sets and rear projection are glaringly obvious. Over all, for its historical context in the early days of widescreen film, more than entertainment value, "Knights" is a worthwhile movie.
Warner Home Video has given us a generally good looking print. No attempt has been made to remove age related artifacts from the negative. Overall, the quality of the transfer is very smooth though, at times, it can seem somewhat digitally harsh. Exterior footage tends to suffer from a considerable amount of film grain while interiors are well balanced. Black levels are perhaps a bit weak and fine details are lost in the darker scenes. Close ups look gorgeous. Long shots suffer from pixelization. Fades between scenes tend to suffer from a sudden grainy quality that is customary for all Cinemascope film stock of this period. The audio is stereo surround and amply provided for considering the limitations in the original recording.

EXTRAS: Mel Ferrer comments on the film's production. There's a featurette movietone trailer and the film's original theatrical trailer too.
OVER ALL: Not a bad movie but an incredibly dated one, "Knights of the Round Table" nevertheless offers up a good example of vintage Cinemascope film making from the 1950's.

Three cheers to fellow reviewers who identified problems discerning adults will have with this film: the miscasting, the dull acting of Robert Taylor, the AWOL acting of Mel Ferrer, the bad accents, the lost plot threads (what about that Holy Grail?).

But for watching with a little boy, plastic sword in hand, this is great stuff. It's good where it needs to be good: the action, particularly the battle scenes; the scenery; the costumes and weaponry. Moreover, the talk of honor is done seriously, and the Christian piety expressed is a very good thing (and a rare thing, too, in films these days). One can talk around the business of adultery and talk about trust and promises and love on the one hand, and gossip and intrigue on the other. Overall, a delightful film for the young; my six year old son and I will be seeing this a few times. Recommended.

With the cast this movie had, I would have expected a bit more life. First bit of trouble is Robert Taylor. Why the man rose to the star he did is amazing because he had all the range from A-B. His performance is very monotone, but oddly enough everyone seems to try for that flat, non emotional level. Maybe they think Brits talk like that???

The costumes are gorgeous, as is the radiant Ava. But there is no fire in the leads and all seem to barely know their lines continually uttered with one tone indifference, let alone FEELING the part. The passion is missing in the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle, because of lack luster performances by all three, most especially Taylor. He is a dead dull which really sinks the movie. The only one really showing any spark of true swashbuckle was the late Sir Stanley Baker (Zulu) as Mordred (all connections to being Arthur's son sanitised from the script!!!).

If you just want a pleasingly dated look at a richly coloured costumer in MGM wide screen, this is nice watch. Great for Stanley Baker Fans or Ava Gardner addicts. However, if you are true fan of the round table or good acting take a miss, for by the end you will be yawning......

A very enjoyable movie about the legend of King Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere. Robert Taylor is perfect as Lancelot... noble and chivalrous, although human at the same time. Colorful and full of heraldry, if you like stories of the age of chivalry, you'll enjoy this.

Rule one of King Arthur stories: there is no "definitive" version. Every writer or filmaker adjusts the story to serve their audience and/or the point they are trying to make. That being said, this version was created to serve the Hollywood epic audience to tell a tragic story of love and war in the middle ages, and it does that job.

The story here follows Arthur gaining the throne and his friendship with Lancelot, both of which are threatened by Lancelot's love for the Queen, Guenevere, and the ambitions of Morgan, Arthur's half-sister, and her champion, Mordred. The film is filled with the kind of spectacle you would expect form a miod-'50's Cinemascope epic. There are battles, jousts, swordfights in woods, fields, castle steps, court pageantry, heraldry, court dancing, challenges, court intrigue, and a passionate kiss or two. Merlin is there, but there is no "magic" to speak of. He is there mostly as an advisor to Arthur.

The acting is rather stilted. Robert Taylor has about two expressions, mouth open and mouth closed. Niall MacGinnis is at his stoic worst. Mel Ferrer keeps a straight face and does express some of the sadness of the king's position. The women (Ava Gardner as Guenevere, Anne Crawford as Morgan) get to emote, Crawford especially playing off Stanley Baker as a sinister plotter.

The use of heraldry is very effective. The designs are mostly of period style, and allow the viewer to tell who is who. The armor shows some very good work, marred only occasionally by non-period details. The swordfights, though falliing into the typical Hollywood style of holding the shield behind, taking big wind-up swings, and stabbing the armpit, is done with verve and energy. One battle scene is a direct swipe of Olivier's Henry V, only more exciting. The cosumes are almost completely the product of the designers imagination, only somewhat inspired by period styles.

This was MGM's first Cinemascope movie, and it shows. I have seen it both in pan-and-scan and in a Widescreen DVD. In p&s, the cinematography looks downright boring and uninspired. In widescreen, you realize that each shot was carefully composed to make maximum use of the whole screen. The action on screen is still a little stiff, but the picture is beautiful and, in some instances, powerful. Unfortunately, I don't know of any widescreen editition in the USA.

The differences in the plot of this movie and "Le Morte D'Arthur," which is credited as the source material, could fill a book, and the period style of the costume, armor, and production design fits more the period in which it was written (1400's) than in which it is set (post-Roman Brittain). The script is corny, but if you can get into it, that's part of the fun. This movie is worth seeing at least once, being generous towards the Hollywood sensibilities under which it was made.

1953's KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE was MGM's first wide-screen motion picture (filmed in CinemaScope in England). What the film lacks in scripting is made up by spectacular and brilliant cinematography by Freddie Young, colorful art designs by Alfred Junge and Hans Peters and an exciting score composed by Miklos Rozsa (a prelude to his majestic EL CID score). Robert Taylor looks good as Sir Lancelot of the Lake. Mel Ferrer is King Arthur. Ava Gardner is Queen Guinevere. (Sir) Stanley Baker comes off best as Sir Modred who plots to undermine King Arthur. There are large-scale battles and much swordplay throughout the adventure. The sword fight between Sir Lancelot and King Arthur is well filmed and the most dramatic which sets the stage for the relationship between these two men. There is another sword fight later in the film between Sir Lancelot and Sir Modred's men. This is a well-staged and choreographed duel which takes place on the steps outside Lancelot's quarters in the castle. Despite all this swordplay the story is somewhat static and does not really evoke that much emotion from the viewer. However director Richard Thorpe is successful in conveying Guinevere's love, through a restrained but effective performance by Ava Gardner, for Sir Lancelot. Ultimately it is a solid film in the old Hollywood traditions of storytelling.

I highly recommend this movie. It is very entertaining.
Robert Taylor is great castin th role of Lancelot. I'd give
it 10 stars if I could.

Based on Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur (Collector's Library Editions), which is probably the best-known of the pre-19th-century versions of the Arthurian legend, this sumptuously colorful film has all the strengths and weaknesses of its time. Sir Lancelot (matinee idol Robert Taylor), son of King Ban of Benwick (a small realm in Brittany), comes to England in search of King Arthur (Mel Ferrer), whose reputation has convinced him that he is the perfect liege-lord. When the two encounter each other in the woods and anonymously duel to a standstill, their friendship is cemented forever. But when Arthur sends for Guinevere (Ava Gardner), whom he has long loved, to become his queen, and Lancelot rescues her from the Green Knight (Niall MacGinnis) and finds himself struck by love as well, a serpent enters Eden.

The production designers wisely assumed, as did Malory himself, that Arthur, if he existed, presided not over a court of 6th-Century Celts, but over a country much like Malory's own in both technology and sociopolitical organization. The script suggests that Lancelot and Guinevere never physically consummated their passion; indeed Lancelot is determined not to betray Arthur, and allows himself to be married off to Elaine (Maureen Swanson), sister of Percival (Gabriel Woolf), who loves him and whom he comes to genuinely care for, and sent up to the northern border country so temptation will be removed from both of them. Merlin (Felix Aylmer) meets a fate unlike the traditional one familiar to most of us, and some viewers may wonder how Arthur's legitimate half-sister Morgan le Fay (Anne Crawford) can describe Mordred (Stanley Baker) as her heir, since no blood link between them (or between Arthur and Mordred) is ever mentioned. There is, however, a real feel for chivalric tradition in the script, and several good action sequences ranging from single combats to full-scale battles, and like Errol Flynn's classic The Adventures of Robin Hood (Two-Disc Special Edition), the film is so splendidly mounted that you can forget the inaccuracies and just enjoy it for its own sake.