Les aventures du roi Arthur

This film is intrinsic to many people of my age who remember the television series from their childhood. Sure the acting is not great, the story is nothing to do with the King Arthur legends, sure the costumes are vaguely 70's hippie inspired. But its great fun. In my opinion the Arthur legends are at best interesting at worst lies. No one will ever prove King Arthur existed. However if you do think he existed than in reality he was probably like this film depicts. A Celt warlord in ancient times. The cast list includes many young actors who went on to be famous so perhaps they where learning their craft.

My advise get this film its great fun. It's not meant to be serious. Plus its a film spin off of a 70's television series in the UK.

Since this film has begun to appear on cheap DVD compilations, I feel it my duty to warn the potential viewer of the following: 1. This film was clearly made as a pilot for a television show which I don't believe ever made it to the home entertainment center.

2. This film has nothing to do with the King Arthur of legend.

3. This film has nothing to do with any possible historical King Arthur.

4. This film has nothing to do with either the Dark Ages, or the Middle Ages.

5. The dialog is just one long recital of every "swashbuckler" cliché in film history.

6. The actors are very unprofessional and very hammy.

7. The story is absurd and absurdly directed. No wonder the actors didn't perform well - given such weak material, who could? 8. The sets were cheaply tossed together, the camera work is shoddy, the editing poor, the costumes a laughable conglomeration of fashions from different time periods, and the action sequences unbelievable and confusingly filmed.

Follow the example of TV execs who here made one of their better decisions: reject this film.

Made on the cheap, as lively as it is grimy, this little-seen film is surprisingly effective...for once the most likely period of Arthur's legendary existence is portrayed in the gritty and grubby way it must surely have have been. If you're looking for a lovely and romantic Hollywood version with colorful costumes, plumes, armour and beautiful ladies (set in a never-was gallant and chivalrous century anywhere from the 12th to the 14th) this Arthur is not for you. There is no Round Table (only a daring plan to unite deadly, traditionally squabbling enemies.) There is also no Lanceclot and Guenivere. But there is an actually plausible contest to pull the sword from the stone which is crucial to Arthur's plan. Though this film is on a rather small scale and an all too apparent smaller budget, it succeeds where larger and more expensive efforts have failed. It gives a lot of down to earth character to these legendary men and makes them understandably human and believable. Tobias makes a great young Arthur, but Gothard should have been given more and Blessed a bit less. He tends to dominate the film in his crude portrayal of Mark of Cornwall. It is surprising that this film didn't spawn an immediate sequel. It would have been interesting to see this kind of earthy realistic treatment of some of the later events in Arthur's life.

As has been said in other reviews this is a feature film that has been put together by cleverly editing the popular children's television series that was screened in the UK in the early seventies. It was immensely popular and is fondly remembered by many people of that generation. Like so many UK TV series of that period it was shot on a minimal budget and at times tends to be somewhat creaky and the dialogue at times clunky - but the stories were written by many of the top television screenwriters of the period and many of the 30 minutes shows are little gems. The low budget also meant that the set designers were apt to be creative and thus what we have are wooden sets and oodles of mud - in other words brutal realism. And - the key cast members Tobias, Gothard and Watson - plus a wonderful bombastic Brian Blessed - fill the screen with gusto and give larger than life performances that make you fondly chuckle and root for them. One reviewer has pointed out that he feels that it is historically inaccurate. He is wrong. If there was an Arthur/Artoise - he was a Celtic warlord - who may have become a king during the early period of the dark ages, when Rome withdrew from Britain. Thus historically - it is the most accurate version of the legends yet made. As an aside the original television series - 23 episodes - has now been released as a box set.

As a child of the 70s, I've never seen this series on American TV (reruns that is, I was born in '72) - and I would have watched it!! My understanding this is a BBC TV series from '72-'73. I am happy to see the edited/abridged version put into a film - it's pretty good.

This is a gritty take on the tale, more realistic than the high polished, well rehearsed fight scenes that most films of this nature have. Realistically speaking, real mean would not have been like "superheroes" as they usually try to make them out as in films today. This film cuts past all that fancy, flashy stuff and gives more realism to the action. Film makers today need to realize that "heroes" are not suppose to be comic book "superheroes" - two different things all together.

Nice little film that I'm enjoying watching as I type this review.

9/10