Camelot - Der Fluch des goldenen Schwertes

This movie is based on an old English poem, unfortunately the scriptwriters couldn't match the prose.. It has a wonderful cast all earning a pay check and nothing more. But, it is fun to watch, for all the wrong reasons., The lead hero Gawain is obviously based on Prince Adam, AKA He-man, he looks the spitting image, the music is atrocious and the acting is woeful. Grand Moff Tarkin, James Bond, Gimli, a Time Bandit and Albert Steptoe and it's still awful (but fun in a bad way).

I loved this movie! It's a laugh out loud, so bad it's good escape from reality. If your brain is tired of thinking, see this movie and enjoy the break.

The plot is simple and easy to follow, the acting isn't ALL that bad, the costumes are hilarious, the locations are reminiscent of a vacant lot in Pasadena.

Sure, the ending may leave you saying "huh? can I have the last couple hours back?", but you weren't expecting an academy award winner were you?

I think the highlight of this movie is Sir Gawayne's hair-do. Even the Olsen Twins would be jealous.

See this movie and laugh!

Both the stories of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Owain a the Lady of the Fountain are classic remnants of an oral tradition more ancient than the French Norman Romances and 14th Century Welsh Mabinogion story collections, yet both thought these two stories worthy of retelling and recording in written form much like Tristan and Parzifal. And there's a good reason for it, obviously good enough reason to get the likes of Sean Connery, Trevor Howard, Lila Kedrova, and John Rhys-Davies to take part in this admittedly cheesy production. (The fact that this was a Golan Globus production should have been a clue to any movie fan.)

The ancient Celtic bards had to memorize some 100 major stories and 200 minor ones to entertain the folks during those long cold winter nights. While Tristan and Parcival belong to the former, Gawain and Owain belong to the latter. These are ribald entertainments for light late night story telling entertainment much like a James Bond, or a cheesy B-Movie. In fact I have heard one professor of Medieval Studies refer to Owain as the James Bond of the Arthurian cycles. And the middle part of this film that deals with Lyonese captures the whole Bond formula (or I should say formula which Fleming followed) of impossible predicament (ala Dr. Evil's "No. Intend to set up an elaborate death and walk away assuming it happened."), narrow escape, beautiful damsel, daring do, hand to hand combat against impossible odds complete with tongue in cheek reparté.

I loved the movie for what it was from the moment I saw Trevor Howard's aging Arthur acting line the mean spirited cranky old fart the Welsh triads depict (not the "boyish" one of the Gawain poem) , through Lina Kedrova's scary horny old widow queen, Rhys-Davis's Fontenbras playing with toy soldiers, and of course Connery's transcendental Green Knight. Sure I missed some of the original story elements of both stories - the fountain and the ogre with the giant club - and I hated that cheesy last scene with Linet that they added on the end of the perfect ending scene with the Green Knight.

But this one captured the spirit of the older tales of the Mabinogion (from which we get the oldest Owain and the Lady of the Fountain) much better than the Saxon-Norman poetic retelling of the Gawain story. Ribald, cheesy, fun with a few moral lessons thrown in for "redeeming social value." In this film's retelling one gets a much better feel for the kind of story the bards might have told the assembled drunken retainers in the King's Hall on a late mid-winter night.

I give it a 7 for capturing the spirit of the tradition (that Monty Python Holy Grail feel that one detractors here noted as though it were a bad thing) , great acting by the legendary actors in smaller parts noted above and the James Bond pulp fiction feel. I'm detracting points for the music, skipping the fountain/storm and the ogre/giant, and that dumb ending scene.

(PS contrary to one reviewer's accusation that it looked like a back lot in Pasadena, these were real Welsch castles including Cardiff and the former Palace of the Pope in Avignion.)

The Sword of the Valiant looks like an exciting film. It stars Sean Connery, Miles O'Keefe, Trevor Howard, Peter Cushing, Leigh Lawson and Ronald Lacey.... with a cast like that, you feel sure that it must be a big, expensive, epic-scale production. Furthermore, if the script was rubbish, then surely they wouldn't have been able to persuade so many top actors to appear in it. Armed with this sense of certainty that the film is going to be a good one, you sit down to watch it with a degree of eagerness. Only then do you realise what a terrible, terrible mistake you've made.....

Yes, The Sword of the Valiant is a stinker! It stinks to high heaven in fact! It marks a career low point for Connery, and is only slightly better than O'Keefe's most legendary bad film of all, Tarzan the Apeman (1981). The story follows O'Keefe (sporting a laughable blond wig) as he sets out to solve a puzzle set for him by the evil Green Knight. He has just one year to solve the riddle, and if he has not reached an answer after that time he will die.

The make up department emerge with some credit. They've made Connery's Green Knight look quite good. Other than that, the film is a failure on every conceivable level. The music is awful, the supporting performances are embarrassing, the script is amateurish, the pacing is tedious, the climax is dreary, even the hairdressers (!) have failed to do their job competently. If you insist on watching The Sword of the Valiant (and believe me, you'd be best advised not to) then prepare yourself in advance for one of the most stupefyingly inept experiences you are ever likely to put yourself through.

What can you say about a film that tries to emulate another film for the sole purpose of capitalizing on its runoff?

Not a whole lot.

"Sword of the Valiant" feels like "Excalibur's" evil twin brother. Boorman used green gels on his lights in his Arthurian film to accentuate the green in the wilderness of the dark ages, and to underscore another theme. "Sword of the Valiant" also lights its characters with green gels clipped over the lights, but probably only because Boorman did it in his film, because there's no real purpose for it here. Boorman's "Excalibur" had fog effects, Maximillian like armor for the knights, pitched fights on a variety of terrains, and bases its tale on the King Arthur legends. "Sword of the Valiant" does this, but with a cheap-budgeted feel.

The acting, for what it is, is hit or miss depending on the actor and/or scene. There's little in the way of high drama here, but the performances are certainly above B-movie quality. Yet even here it depends on the character. A couple of the female supporting cast, notably the antagonists, are horribly directed, as is the case with much of the film's performances. Miles O'Keffe does a pretty good job of portraying a young knight in search of adventure, but his character never really does anything beyond going through the motions of the plot. Sean Connery does a good job, as usual, though the glitter and mini antlers on his head were just too much. I don't know who decided to go with that scheme, but it's pretty silly. Fortunately we know it's Connery underneath all that, and his performance helps to take away the two rediculous facets of his costume. The stunning Cyrielle Claire gives a performance that is much like that of everyone else in this film; good, but somewhat flat due to lack of direction. Everyone gets the job done in the end, but no Oscars will be found here.

And, as has been mentioned, the musical score is one of the worst ever married to a film. It almost sounds like some public domain music I've heard pasted onto cheap 16mm documentaries. It's that bad.

But the worst thing about this movie is the cinematography. It's cheap, bland, uninspired, and just plain worthless. A lot of zooms are used, as are a lot of cheap edits from equally cheap angles. I might blame the cinematographer, but somehow I get the feel he was just doing this gig to get a paycheque. There's no real heart to the look of the film, and that's the real killer for this movie. For if it had been better shot, then some of the other negative qualities might've been mitigated.

The art direction is probably the one real plus for this film. Connery's antlers and glitter aside, the costuming is fairly good, and the locations, though not very well shot, are likeable, and also fit the overall feel of the film.

And for those of you laughing at Mile's O'Keefe's "page boy" haircut you should know that a page-boy was squire in training in a medieval court. Pages were young boys who ran errands and served both lords and ladies of a castle, learning manners and other skills that would serve them should they ever reach knighthood. Their hair was usually cut short with bangs all around. This is where the term "page boy haircut" comes from. The worst that can be said is that poor Miles was given a pretty bad wig. That and the hair was probably too long for the period. Otherwise it's fairly accurate.

For a knock off of a high budgeted production "Sword of the Valiant" does OK. In fact given what's presented the film could've been a lot worse, but a talented cast and good art direction can only take a B-movie so far, particularly one that's poorly shot. I first saw this film back in the 80's on HBO, and picked up a cheap copy of the DVD yesterday. The transfer, as can be expected, isn't all that good, even though it's MGM publishing the title. In fact the only real clean (non-grainy) image is on the trailer that comes as a bonus feature. Go figure.

It's worth a look if you have nothing else better to do, but don't expect too much from it. If you're a die hard fantasy or medieval film fan, then it should entertain. That and the Linet character is fairly easy on the eyes :-)