User reviews

After playing "Constantin IL Grande" ,a sword and sandal made in Italy ,it was only natural that Cornel Wilde wanted his own costume drama ; then again ,with wife Jean Wallace ,his usual leading lady , he opted for another version of "knights of the round table ",hardly ten years after Richard Thorpe's and a few years before Joshua Logan's musical "Camelot" .

LIke most of the versions (including more recent versions such as Boorman's) , the story essential deals with the legendary triangle .Guinevere is beautiful ,but perhaps too "Iseut" ,too "Germanic " ,too nordic and I have a tendency to prefer Ava Gardner.

There's an unusual humor in the first part : the foam of the soap -which had been known since antiquity (the Gallic used it) - which scares Lancelot's companion is a good idea ;and during the bath they share in a small lake (in full clothes!) , soap may be the magic potion which causes eternal love between the knight and the soon-to-be-queen.

As it has already been pointed out ,the villains provide the movie with its low point :they are insignificant and cannot hold a candle to Stanley Baker and Anne Crawford in Thorpe's movie ;Brian Aherne is a noble king ,but he remains passive and listless .

And that's probably what Wilde wanted : to enhance the beauty of his co-star/wife (who ,unlike Gardner,can wield a sword) and his feats ;his film is pleasant and compares favorably with the other versions .

Little did the critics -who considered Wilde a lightweight as far as directing is concerned- know that his following effort "the naked prey ",would be a genuine masterpiece which would influence countless other movies ,especially Gibson's "Apocalypto" .

A stirring tale of knights, chivalry, and the days of the Round Table in the time of King Arthur is brought to the screen with full pomp and pageantry . It deals with ARTHUR-LANCELOT-GUINEVERE triangle that brings to life again , including a sincere respect , though also fictitious , of the old legend . Set during the civil wars of 6Th-century England where rules the king Arthur (Brian Aherne) , he achieved to maintain the Christianity and civilization in the west of England , though no exactly congruent with the VI century , time was presumed to have lived but the film is developed in a high medieval panoply . Wandering swordsman Lancelot (Cornel Wilde) falls for beautiful Guinevere (Jean Wallace) , soon to be Arthur's queen . Later on , Lancelot fights evil renegade knights , Barbarians invaders and villainous Mordred , Arthur's son .

Big-scale battles , tournaments , betrayals , passion , and impressive outdoors , all of them are pieces for a tremendous epic , are all here . However, it just doesn't woork , at times . The result is almost always the handsomest of films to behold and the plot will cause much eye-rolling . Dramatically , it has its moments , too , blending grandeur and intimacy . The battles scenes hold all the excitement and gore by that time the censorship allowed , which was not for the fainthearted . This period action classic features Lancelot, the bravest knight of the Round Table and the moving story of the romantic triangle starred by Cornel Wilde, who is badly miscast , and his real wife , the lovely Jean Wallace . The real-life marriage yearn , gaze and kiss intensely ; it is worth the time it takes to watch . In spite of lack real documents about legendary feats of King Arthur, allegedly in VI century King of Bretons , during XII century was created some writings by French notorious authors who romanticized the legend as Chretien of Troyes and Thomas Malory that wrote the Bretons series with their knights looking for the Holy Grail. Besides , Godofredo of Mormouth publicized in 1136 the ¨History Regnum Britanniae¨ and in XX century John Steinbeck wrote about the events of King Arthur .

The motion picture was professionally directed by Cornel Wilde . Cornel Wilde, who also acted , co-produced and directed this film, as he ambiously romps some Arthurian legends in this spectacular slide of sword , blood and battles . Other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur resulted to be : ¨Knights of the round table¨(Richard Thorpe, 53) with Robert Taylor , Ava Gardner , Mel Ferrer , Stanley Baker ; the musical ¨Camelot¨ (Joshua Logan), with Franco Nero , Richard Harris , Vanessa Redgrave ; the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨ considered the best and tremendous epic (John Boorman, 81) with Nigel Terry , Helen Mirren , Nicholas Clay , Nicol Williamson , Cherie Lunghi ; ¨Merlin and the sword (Clive Donner , 85) with Malcolm McDowell , Candice Bergen , Edward Woodward; ¨Merlin¨(1998) with Sam Neill , Miranda Richardson , Rutger Hauer , Isabella Rossellini , Martin Short ; First knight¨ with Richard Gere , Sean Connery , Julia Ormond ; and recently ¨King Arthur¨(Antoine Fuqua, 2004) with Clive Owen , Stephen Dillane , Ioan Gruffud , Mikkelsen , Kiera Knightley . The picture will appeal to aficionados with chivalric ideals and historic movies fans .

This was a take on King Arthur (Brian Aherne) and his knights of the round table that I picked up time ago. It is one that I've had for years without seeing. I have a break in watching stuff for podcasts so I decided to give it a watch.

For this one, King Arthur wants to become king of all England. There is another king that opposes him. His name is King Leodogran (John Longden). Arthur gets the idea to marry his daughter, Guinevere (Jean Wallace) as a way to create an alliance. A deal is struck, trial by combat. Arthur's best knight against Leodogran. The only choice to send is Lancelot (Cornel Wilde).

Being one of the greatest knights of all time, he wins and brings back Guinevere to marry his king. The problem is that the two of them fall in love on the way back. Arthur has a son, Sir Modred (Michael Meacham) who has his sights set on the throne, but being that he is illegitimate, he needs to prevent king and his new queen from having a child. He does everything he can to create havoc. All the while, Guinevere expresses her feelings toward Lancelot, complicating things further.

What shocked me with this movie was that it is from Universal. I knew they did other things outside of horror, but the quality of this shocked me. What I mean there is that I don't think it is great. Wilde co-wrote, directed and starred in this one. That was something that intrigued me. I think he does a solid job telling this tale. It has a runtime of around an hour, but there is a lot of story. This is a bit slow if I'm honest. The fight scenes when we get them are good. It is more violent than I was expecting. Not the best take I've seen of this story, but it was fine.

My Rating: 6 out of 10.

In and around the castle Camelot, brave Cornel Wilde (as Lancelot) and virtuous Brian Aherne (as King Arthur) vie for the affections of lovely Jean Wallace (as Guinevere). The emphasis is more on swords than sorcery; and, the fighting is more violent than the production year suggests. Clearly, "Lancelot and Guinevere" was meant as a more realistic, for the times, "Knights of the Round Table" film. And, Mr. Wilde can be seem dismembering opponents. The sexual situations are not as advanced, however...

Ironically, the three stars are around 20 years too "advanced", in physiological years, for the parts; it's not too bad, though, as they only look around 10 years too old. They are still very attractive. And, so are two young cast members "introduced" to film goers, Iain Gregory (as Tors) and Michael Meacham (as Modred); they more than hold their own among the veterans. The producer/director/star credits should confirm any vanity production suspicions. It was re-titled "Sword of Lancelot" in the USA.

**** Lancelot and Guinevere (6/2/63) Cornel Wilde ~ Cornel Wilde, Jean Wallace, Brian Aherne, Iain Gregory

King Arthur sends his trusty right hand man, the knight Sir Lancelot to a rival kingdom to win the hand in marriage of Guinevere. He succeeds, but falls in love with the maiden. She marries Arthur but secretly yearns for Lancelot. After a time, they become lovers & when Arthur finds out, their friendship – sabotaged by a rival knight – becomes very strained.

Originally released in the United Kingdom as Lancelot & Guinevere, this 1963 adventure film was directed by its star, Cornel Wilde. Wilde also produces & cast his wife at the time, Jean Wallace, as Guinevere.

While not the definitive version of the Camelot story, Sword of Lancelot is still reasonably watchable. The film has some passable acting &, like most of Wilde's directorial efforts, filled with action scenes. The fights & battles are the showpiece of the film & are quite violent, even by 1963 standards. There is some passable plotting but the pace tends to drag a little inbetween the battles. Wilde & Wallace might be a good pair on the screen but they are both a little too old for their roles. Having said that, Sword of Lancelot is still a pretty reasonable Dark Ages adventure film, although I still prefer something like Under the Red Robe over this.

Cornel Wilde had an interesting career as stand-by leading man for Tyrone Power at Fox. His biggest role there was in Forever Amber, made when Power was doing another big budget spectacle, Captain from Castile and was unavailable. Wilde should have had a bigger career, but never got the breaks.

He and Mrs. Wilde (Jean Wallace who played Guinevere)dusted off the Lancelot and Guinevere story for another go. Wilde supposedly sank a lot of his own money in this film and lost a bundle. This kind of film really needs the full backing of a big studio.

MGM did this far better with Knights of the Round Table. Although Robert Taylor was a stoic Lancelot in that film, the overall production values were far better with that product. Wilde dusted off the French accent he perfected in The Greatest Show On Earth and played Lancelot properly as a Frenchman. But Ava Gardner was a Guinevere to die for as opposed to what Mrs. Wilde did with the part.

Brian Aherne plays a noble Arthur. But Stanley Baker and Anne Crawford as Mordred and Morgan LeFay were light years better than the two who played the parts here.

A good action film that is reasonably faithful to the Arthurian legends as interpreted (and sometimes actually written) by Thomas Malory in the 15th century. The addition of the "Viking Invasion" dates only to the movie itself, but provides for some good action sequences. And action is the hallmark of this movie. The battle scenes are very well done and the arms and armor (except for the Vikings' horned helmets) are reasonably authentic for the late 11th century. The individual sword fights seem like hard and deadly work----no dancing and prancing or choreographed acrobatics as in most films of this genre. Just clanging metal and men straining in their armor, with gory and graphically depicted consequences.

The film is indeed part soap opera, as is the Lancelot/Guinevere part of the Arthurian Cycle, but these interludes are done in a matter of fact, rather stark manner. This and the copious action scenes make for a fast moving, absorbing pace with little down time. Lancelot's French accent seems a bit contrived, and the dialogue is somewhat clipped and less theatrical than in most epics, but this only adds to its realistic qualities.

An excellent film by a man (Cornel Wilde, who also stars as Lancelot) very underrated as both an actor and filmmaker.

Dvd version I watched entitled "Sword of Lancelot"-US title 1st watched 3/25/2022 - (Dir-Cornel Wilde): Valient attempt at creating an epic story of the relationship between Lancelot and Guinevere fell short mainly along the lines of believability, and the inability of the actors to pull in their audience. Cornel Wilde acted, co-produced and directed this effort, and obviously put a lot of passion into it. Jean Wallace as Guinevere never really does well enough to help us understand her perspective as the Queen of King Arthur and lover of Lancelot. Wilde as Lancelot does a better job, and Brian Pherne as King Arthur fairs okay. The story starts as they battle for Guinevere to be won over as Queen under Arthur, than quickly she falls for Lancelot as well. The battles that ensue were actually pretty well done despite not being clear on the reason for them, but the story keeps coming back to the lovers and their plight. The movie was longer than it could have been due to the battle scenes, which came across as un-important. I was glad I watched this movie, but in the end I can't recommend it unless you are a fan of this genre.

WHAT's this? Not a solitary comment on one of the really good medieval flicks of this period?

Actually it was one of the last, coming at the end of the cycle that had included KING ARTHUR AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, PRINCE VALIANT, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH, THE BLACK KNIGHT....all big moneyspinners in the 50's. It was also just 4 years shy of Richard Harris' beloved, but overblown musical CAMELOT.

The film performed disappointingly at the box office as audiences tastes had changed and biblical spectacle was all the rage by the early 60's. By '63 even THAT had waned, THE LAST DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH having closed the chapter on epics the previous year.

But hey, Cornel Wilde was a ragingly in-form Lancelot and pulled out all stops to impress his lady Guinevere. Course, her husband, King Arthur was majorly disgusted with both of them and things were messy there for a while. But you know, simply nothing overcame life's little set- backs in those days of yore, like crushing a few skulls in with a mace or broadsword and Lancelot was the champion after all. Some reviewers at the time took exception to Lancelot's french accent (Ah, my GuineVERE, u know 'ow I love you non?, ees not your coleurs 'anging from my lance-tip cherie?) Well ze franch accent or not, Cornel made as good a Lancelot as anyone ever has. This film rocked.

Think A KNIGHT'S TALE handled seriously!

Cornel Wilde has a reputation as a independent writer, director, actor type, in the vein of Sylvester Stallone, Woody Allen, and others. He did some fine pieces of work; the best of which was Naked Prey. He also did a pretty good job with Beach Red. But this effort was a little too big for his britches. He tried to pull off a Kirk Douglas or Mel Gibson (both successful as independent producers of Spartacus and Braveheart), but he could not do it. There was too much ham in the film from the supporting cast. More ham than in a German deli. The battle scenes were rife with mistakes (one guy is standing around with an arrow in his heart). The early love scenes are very good, and believable, but Merlin reminded me more of a rabbi than a wizard or magician. All he did was give advice. The secondary characters, except for Arthur, were just not that believable. All in all, a watchable film, but be ready to wince every once in a while.

Horrible script, horrible acting. It is true to the 60s in its attempt to make the characters natural and human, mostly coming across as an odd mixture of antiquated language and modern gesticulations and ways of conversing. However, it is interesting in that it is much closer to the story of Tristan and Iseult, one of the sources of the Lancelot and Guinevere story. Lancelot, like Tristan, is entrusted by King Arthur (King Mark) to escort Guinevere (Iseult) to Camelot. They fall in love during the journey, thanks to a soap that Lancelot jokes about as being a magical charm from Merlin (like the love potion labeled poison that Iseult drinks).

Well they sure don't make films like this anymore and I agree with the comment this film rocks! The battle scenes alone were way ahead of there time with gore and spectacle. It was the first time I had ever seen a man cut in half by a sword. It shocked me! I saw this film for the first time when I was a kid and it has stayed with me through the years.

It has solid acting by Cornel and cast. Indeed when I think of the Lancelot I don't think anyone portrayed the medieval knight better. This was one of the movies that once you started watching it you where glued to the screen. A great period piece. If you have seen this movie and enjoyed Cornel's acting the films The Naked Prey and Gargoyles (a made for TV movie) definitely made a splash !

Lots of knightly action and a well matured love triangle. The most magical thing here is a bar of soap.

Richard Thorpe was, for MGM, the great specialist of medieval actioners, in the fifties, I mean. IVANHOE, KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, QUENTIN DURWARD, and in the sixties Franklyn Schaffner gave us the awesome WARLORD, a milestone in medieval film history. This one, directed by Cornel Wilde, is purely awesome too, with a terrific production design and, as with many other Cornel Wilde's films as a director, some bloody, brutal short scenes. It is not cheesy at all, the acting is perfect and I am ashamed that this movie had never been released in France when it was released in Belgium, for instance; that's why it has a French title.... It has been aired only a couple of times since on cable movie channels, French TCM like channels. This is a true gem, gripping, riveting, with no length at all and outstanding battle scenes. Yes, Richard Thorpe would not have done better.

Bad acting, ridiculous story telling, bad dialogue & unexpected changes of scenes! Is King Arthur that idiot & he can't see Lancelot getting too chummy with Guinevere? The characters couldn't see how rotten was Moldred? Stay away. Better watch Godzilla smashing Tokyo once more.

PS: There is NOTHING to be changed. A bad movie for eternity.

This is probably the best film on the subject, that usually gets boggled up in romanticised legends and Hollywood schmalz and nonsense. The script is very apt and convincing, and the action is thoroughly efficient, never admitting a dull moment and never getting lost in pathetic sentimentality. Jean Wallace as the Queen is alwaýs a difficult character to interpret, but here for once she is not overdone in her wanton weakness or outrageous shamefulness. Cornel Wilde started as an Olympian master at fencing, and this film must have been something of the ultimate realization of his dreams. He makes a very convincing Frenchman, and there are two great battle scenes which alone make the film outstanding. The one thing to object against is the king. Brian Ahearne makes the best of it in a reliable performance as usual, but why has the king to be so old? In another version Sean Connery was equally old, but there is nothing in any legend to imply that King Arthur must have been an old man when he married Guinevere. Both Joshua Logan's 'Camelot' (two years later) and the excellent TV screening of 'The Mists of Avalon' both make the king as young and fresh as Guinevere, and both Arthurs are more convincing. For some reason Morgan le Fay is absent here, Merlin is rather second hand, and Sir Mordred is not given much of a character. Of course, the centerpiece is Lancelot and Guinevere, they need no one else, and their story is quite good enough to give Mordred and Morgan as little space as possible. The highest credit though goes to the script, which actually Cornel Wilde himself was part of besides directing the whole thing himself.

Directed by Cornel Wilde. Starring Cornel Wilde, Jean Wallace, Brian Aherne, Michael Meacham, Archie Duncan, George Baker, Iain Gregory, Adrienne Corri, Mark Dignam.

Lancelot (Wilde, who also directed and co-produced) and Guinevere (Wallace) swoon for each other in between shared looks of constipation in this unimpressive medieval romantic adventure. King Arthur (Aherne) plays third fiddle in the forbidden romance, which is just as well since it gets tedious fast. Final battle scene is well-staged and marginally exciting, but it will only be seen by viewers that are still awake. Aside from sagely introducing soap to the unwashed Britons, Merlin (Corri) is drastically underused; Meacham had potential to be a memorably wicked Modred after seeing him share sinister whispers with his hunting bird, but alas he's too often shuffled to the sidelines--he doesn't even get to be onscreen when killing a major character, an incident which takes place so abruptly that the scene announcing its occurrence can't even be trusted at first. Wilde's screen presence as a stellar swordsman and lover can be best described as middling, while Wallace makes for one of the most insipid Guinevere's to ever appear on film. Also known as "Lancelot and Guinevere."

38/100

Cornel Wilde should be awarded an "E" for effort in The Sword of Lancelot, a gabby, murkily photographed, and surprisingly bloody King Arthurer from 1962. Wilde as Lancelot sports a dandy little French accent that reminded me of the guy in the tower in Monty Python's The Holy Grail while he fights for the king, until he gets all gushy over the lovely Jean Wallace as Guinevere.

There is quite a bit of long-looking and love-talking and smooching between the real-life couple (and a tightly shot post-coital embrace with the two drippy and funky; boy, what did the folks at the Production Code think of that?), but after a good while, you're starting to grumble at the screen to GET ON WITH IT, whatever it might be.

The battles swing from the hokey to the excitingly bloody. You don't see many guys get their heads split down the middle in American movies in 1962, and Wilde does stage a couple of well-thought-out sequences, so there is some benefit to sitting through the kiss-kiss to get to the clang-clang.

The whole Arthurian legend is such an appealing story that even though Wilde has two strikes against him--a budget equivalent to pocket change (the film quality is so bad, I honestly checked my glasses to see if they needed cleaning) and the fact that most everyone involved looks a good generation too old for the story--he still brings some real love and passion to the screen.

Which is why The Sword of Lancelot should be taken at face value, and even though Jean Wallace is pushing forty in the picture (too mature for a maiden), all I can say is, "What a face!"