Lancelot chevalier de la reine

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.

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" .

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!"