Prince Valiant

For fans of Harold Foster's Prince Valiant it is a bit disappointing, but very suitable for children. Despite his homo haircut the original Valiant is very masculine, philosophical, and smart. He does not perform foolish acts or show inability with the sword, ever. In the movie he looks too young, shy, messy and foolish. The cast is inadequate, the camera trembles and the fight scenes are unacceptable... but again, not for the children, there are nice places to be viewed causing the correct time effect. There are not enough elements to make a good movie, lacks of art direction, continuity, actor performance and specially edition. The movie was pretty bad edited. Beside the gorgeous naked back of the princess coming out of the bad, the castles, the open air scenes make a very pleasant environment worth to be seen. Ron Pearlman's performance is great as usual but do not save the picture. Maybe i would like too much to see this movie under the view of Ridley Scott, stronger characters, something more close to the original personality and the meaning of Prinz Eisenherz.

Beautiful sets, great costumes and makeup.

Run of the mill script. Mediocre acting.

Bad special effects and stunts,and bad film-editing.

The special effects were truly terrible. Just stop-the-movie awful. Alligators that don't move and clearly are not alive. One alligator, clad in plate mail (huh?), shoots vertically out of the water into the air and descends down onto the stonework beside the water, where it doesn't move -while characters run about, pretending to be fearful of the clearly-lifeless, unmoving armor-clad alligator.

And lots of characters swinging Tarzan-like on ropes, slamming feet first into the villains. Except the actors are clearly hanging on ropes being moved by an overhead crane. And the ropes move slowly, as if there was great concern on the set about hurting the actors. In these scenes the villain conveniently stands in one spot until the slow-swinging good guy finally collides with him. This isn't a one-time screw-up; the slow-swinging Tarzan-bit happens over and over again.

The film editing is bad enough that it makes it hard to follow the story at spots. And the stunts and special effects kept blowing up the suspension of disbelief.

There is plenty of no-brainer action, though, and high production values on the sets and costumes. This could have been fun if it was better made.

After seeing the somewhat visually overwhelming Lord of the Rings trilogy, this was a pretty decent fantasy film to watch. Whilst most of the characters were pretty generic, some were good to watch, especially Prince Valiant. The violence was pretty tame, although this is not really a problem, as most of it looks realistic for the times that the story is set in, as does the armour and weapons, aside from maybe Excalibur. The special effects are slightly cheesy, but all the same they didn't really damage the story. You could kind of tell what the ending was going to be, but the story flowed well. Overall, a good movie to watch.

I liked the panoramic artwork which is very like the painstakingly done quarter of a quarter broadsheet spread frames of the syndicated Sunday comics supplements of the '50s. The special effect used to make those artworks seem to melt into reality is awesome. This is rarely, if ever, done now because of economies of print production and advertising. That, by the way is one of the reasons, the cartoonist responsible for the hugely popular Calvin and Hobbes, quit making the offbeat funny series.

The Valiant here is a very competent knight unlike the one portrayed by Robert Wagner in the 1954 film who was nothing short of a bumbling fool who managed to have accidents just when he seemed to be getting the upper hand (e.g. losing his hold on a cliff as he was espying the traitorous transactions of the Black Knight with Norse marauders). Only the superb acting of James Mason as the villainous Black Knight made that older version interesting.

The fight scenes in this Prince Valiant were well executed. Kudos to the arms master for the handsome suits of armor and weapons.

The actress who portrayed Princess Ilene is stunning.

With a so impressive cast, the story just matters ? It is the simple question after its final. Because its gift, after almost three decades, it is to represent the answer to inner children , nostalgics and lover of fairz tales and their not pretentious adaptations.

Sure, a king Arthur remindind Charles I Stuart, a young Stephen Moyer in a role not so comfortable ( not only for him ) but behind Prouix or Bill Compton , a young and nice Katherine Heigl behind Izzie Stevens and chain of romantic comedies and Warwick Davis more than seductive. And, sure, excalibur , near the impressive crocodiles. So, what expect more ?

The result, a sort of gratitude and nice veil of nostalgia, near some good smiles.