Lancelot chevalier de la reine

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.

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!"

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.

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

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.