User reviews

I too enjoyed this movie. It isn't flawless, but few movies are. The animation is good, if a little bland in the musical numbers, with exception of the splendid witchcraft scene. As for the songs, they aren't actually that bad. My favourites were "The Prayer", "Looking Through Your Eyes", and "If I didn't have you." The other songs were not as good, but not mind numbingly awful. The biggest problem was the singing voices, they didn't match the voice acting. Celine Dion is a very good singer, but her voice is too powerful for Julianna, but it's good they didn't ask someone like Barbara Streisand, another excellent singer with a too-big voice for the character. Same with Andrea Corr. Another problem was the script, which had its ups and downs. The reasons why some children didn't laugh at the two-headed dragon, which was the best character, is because they wouldn't in a million years have understood the pop culture references, though they were funny. As for the voice talents they were a mixed bag. Jessalyn Gilsig and Cary Elwes started off a little bland, and Gary Oldman relishes his role as the villain, if a little over the top at times. On a positive note, Eric idle and Don Rickles were hilarious, and Jane Seymour made a sincere Julianna. Pierce Brosnan was also an interesting choice, but if I were a director, I wouldn't have picked John Gielgud to voice Merlin, although he would have been good if it was live-action. In conclusion, an above average movie, with a story that started off well, but ran out of steam too early. If I wanted to see it again, I would. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This is a film that I have watched several times now with the kids and find myself enjoying it more each time.

Previous comments have compared it unfavourably to Disney but this seems unfair - it is clearly a separate product, darker and more cynical than the works of that other company. The song by dragons Devon and Cornwall - 'Without You'- stands in stark contrast to, say, the sentiments of 'You and Me Together' in Disney's Oliver and Company. Neither could I imagine Ruber, with his particular vein of sarcastic villainy, appearing in the products of that more family centred studio.

The weakest individual moment, for me at least, is anachronistic. Devon and Cornwall sing about their mutual hostility, and their song is animated with some twentieth century props and in-jokes. This is a jarring note in a film which otherwise tries to maintain some sort of historical integrity. It is funny but creates a disruption that is hard to forget. (More acceptable is the 'Do you feel clucky?' line later on)

There has been some criticism of the animation quality, and it does seem to vary. Some of the movements of animals, in particular, seem jumpy at a distance. However balancing out these weaknesses are such scenes as the evocation of a cold morning, when Kayley hears of her father's death, and Ruber's splendid witchcraft scene.

Overall the film suffers from being underwritten - one wishes more time was taken in filling out character and incident before the final attack on Camelot. Cayley and Garrett fall in love too easily, while Devon and Cornwall (delightfully witty and charming creations) have too little to do. And what happens to Merlin? He's reduced to flying a bird. It's a shame as other supporting characters, like the Gryphon and the axe chicken are very well judged, and completely memorable. More unforgivable is the character of King Arthur, who is just bland.

On the plus side, this is still a good film, utterly free of pretension. Ruber's magical creation of his henchman is a highlight, a demoniac sequence that is quite thrilling, a brilliant musical set piece that moves the plot forward, sparking huge suspense. His creations are delightfully original in themselves, frightening and intriguing in equal measure. Watching it again I was reminded of how little of this quality of real wonder appears in another non-Disney animation, Prince of Egypt - a much more favourably received work, and far more earnest in tone.

This Arthurian adventure can be quite revealing in comparison when taken this as an unofficial sequel to The Sword in The Stone, throwing stereotypical Disney values and methods into greater relief. In its own right it is very enjoyable in any case, although it could have been even better with some extended work on the script.

I am going to agree with the majority of the other posters here. There is a lot of good elements in this movie, but it is all put together as much more of a cliche then it had to be.

It seemed like there were too many singing scenes and they were too abrupt and not integrated into everything. Every time one started, I couldn't wait for it to be over so we could get back to the story. And as others mentioned, the singing voices were too different from that of the characters themselves. Imagine if they had used the time during the songs to actually give more plot and character development.

Everyone seemed too two-dimensional. As someone else pointed out, how did the bad guy even get to the round table in the first place? He was charming in his own way, but too cookie-cutter.

As others mentioned, the animation is very hit-or-miss. The backgrounds and overall mood are very well done, but a lot of the characters were just not animated well, the hawk was frequently deformed, etc. It stood out badly due to the quality of everything around it. Take a look at something like Princess Mononoke to see characters animated on a limited budget that meshes much better with everything else, with a lot more visual style.

It seems like it would have a feminist bent, but then she is still rescued most of the time, and the dress scene at the end seems especially absurd in the context of everything else.

Some of the comedy elements were cute, but I did dislike all of the movie references and everything. Since everything else seems centered in the world, it seems out of place.

Like the Black Cauldron, this was an OK movie that could have been a lot better. But at least BC didn't have all that singing. Sword in the Stone also worked a lot better while being in a similar vein.

If you want an American animated movie that is really consistent with its own world, animated well, has good characters, etc. check out the Secret of Nimh. You can get it really cheap on DVD now. Seeing Quest for Camelot the day after Nimh, there really is no comparison...

Back in the days when there is no such Oscar category as "The Best Animated Feature of the Year" , animations were for family use only. It's obvious that by 2001, adult themed animations began running off readily. Looking at the year 1998, alongside of Antz, Mulan, and Toy Story 2 ; Quest for Camelot was another successful blockbuster hit in the animation genre.

It's an adaptation to Vera Chapman's novel "The King's Damosel", the writer of which is the founder of the J.R.R. Tolkien Society of Great Britain. Though, most fun and joyful parts of the novel are missing in this film. The basic formula of creating a Swashbuckler Adventure out of a heroic journey story has been applied again just like The Mummy, Robin Hood, Indiana Jones, Conan the Barbarian and so on.

What's so good and staying within living memory? 1/First of all, it's very entertaining for everyone who like Swashbucklers. Must be rated "E". 2/A sense of Tim Burton style singing dialogues. 3/All the cruel and bloodthirsty fantasy world creatures are pleasant looking: Dragons, Drakels, Ogres, and the very special Two-Headed Dragon. 4/The Dark Jungle with Necromancer Trees. 5/The lost sword of Excalibur. 6/The legend of the Three Circles. 7/The story is centring on a girl who wants to be a knight! Praise for Hayao Miyazaki 8/The first time when Garrett and Kayley meet the two-headed dragon: -Garrett:What are you? -Dragon:We're the reason cousins shouldn't marry. 9/The back story of a blind farmer, and his success story becoming a knight 10/The blind farmer's silver winged falcon, and all the scenes that it's fighting with either dragons or ogres.

What's not to like and to forget? 1/The overall animation quality is only as good as a computer game except the music. 2/Some scenes and sequences are giving homage to Star Wars, Indiana Jones and even the Taxi Driver; and those homages are stomach aching. 3/King Arthur is very weak, he is half the size of Merlin and shorter than Kayley 4/Merlin is not the Merlin as we know him, he's afraid to cast spells, and not able to protect Arthur's castle 5/The moment when King Arthur grabs the Excalibur from the stone, he seems like a 4-year-old kid pretending that he's He-Man and the people around him are the Masters of Universe 6/The fact that King Arthur is Pierce Brosnan's worst voice acting ever 7/Character development and back stories of the characters are very weak except Garrett's character 8/Visual Effects are awful 9/Over 350 animators have worked to create this animation, but it's still not "animating" what needs to be animated, 'cause the action sequences and the human movements/reflexes are dreadful 10/Sound Effects are not synchronized properly

Give it a shot, this is at least worth watching, catch it on Youtube.

Quest for Camelot is the first attempt to a full animated feature by Warner Bros, and it shows.

This story of a young girl that dreams to become a knight and ends up saving the kingdom is a mixed dish of great and poor animation.

Oddly, the two main characters Kayley and his blind friend Garret are the worst: their animation is unnatural and the character design is unappealing. But the rest of the cast more than make up for them. Ruber, the evil knight and especially his gryphon Griffin are awesome, scary and funny at the same time. Bladebeak, a chicken transformed in a killing machine is hilarious.

But the best of the bunch is the odd couple Devon and Cornwall, a two headed dragon that looks straight out of Warner's Looney Tunes. This wacky character literary steals the scene: the movie really starts flying when we first meet him and keeps getting better.

The plot is original and fast paced, packed with wonderful action sequences and (luckily) few songs, all pretty decent.

The CG is sometime effective and sometimes poorly integrated, (the stone ogre is the worst example).

I heard a lot of bad things about this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised to discover that is not half as bad as they say. Pity that it did poorly at the box office, it deserved much more.

I'm looking forward to the next movie from Warner, if they can fix some of the problem they had with this one, Disney may find another competitor.

This is what results from copying something inspiring and well made, when you don't know what you are doing yourself. It's not smooth in anything it does.. The music just starts instead of having a proper transition (a lesson that could have been learned from Disney's Mermaid, almost 10 years prior). The characters are not well written or developed, and the plot is overwhelmingly simple and uninteresting.

Still, you can see the production value, and quality of what they created. The animations, effects and sound editing are all great. It just needed a project lead with more experience and a better vision, or more time and decent feedback.

I caught this film on video because the trailer wasn't too good. But it did have Eric Idle voicing Devon so I gave it a chance. I loved it. The dragon stole most of the scenes, but the other characters weren't bad either. Kayley & Garrett made a good couple and it was refreshing to see a romance that wasn't based on looks or riches. I wanted them to be together. Bladebeak was amusing and Aydon (voiced by the excellent Frank Welker) was good to watch. Rubere was deliciously villainous. The weakest characters were Arthur & Merlin but the film wasn't really about them so it didn't matter.

The best scenes were set in the Forbidden Forest where we witness all kinds of weird and wonderful flora and fauna. There are good songs (I Stand Alone, Through Your Eyes & On My Father's Wings especially.) I also cried at several points. Ignore the bad press. Watch it. 9/10

I finished watching this cute little title not 10 minutes ago, and I jumped on here to read what others had to say about it. Yeah it was formulaic, yeah you could see the ending coming miles away like every other happy-ending movie out there, but a few things I read struck me as odd. And yes, Feuer und Flamme (Devon and Cornwall in English) were great as an Abbott and Costello-type team. But that's what you get when cousins marry, they said. I was about to laugh my arse off...

Now back to earlier posts. Take the voices, for example. Someone posted that the voices didn't quite match in speaking/singing roles. In the version I saw, it would greatly depend on the language you're viewing it in. The German version had almost identical voices for Kayley speaking (Nana Spier) and singing (Nena). I had to listen twice to see if it actually WAS Nena, because I know her voice the instant I hear it. Sure enough, it was. Garrett's voices weren't too far off the mark either, with Hartmut Engler singing.

what was weird was reading the English script as subtitles while listening in German. I'll try the other way round tomorrow or just stick with straight English for the next viewing. Perhaps then I could judge better the said inaccuracy of the voice match-ups. I still don't think Andrea Corr could do the song justice. Nena sounds so much better.

Genre: Cartoon, Camelot, Adventure with female knight in training.

Main characters: Kayley, Garret, Devon and Cornwall.

Actors: Lots of famous ones here! There is Cary Elwes (Garret), Eric Idle (Devon), Gary Oldman (Ruber), Jane Seymour (Juliana), Don Rickles (Cornwall), Pierce Brosnan (King Arthur), John Gielgud (Merlin).

What happens: Kayley is the daughter of Sir Lionel, one of the knights at the Round Table. The young girl dreams of following in her father's footsteps as a knight. Then, disaster strikes. Lionel is killed :-( and Kayley as well as others mourn for him. Kayley dreams on of becoming a knight...

My thoughts: This film had good potential. It had good animation, good, heartwarming songs, good characters and lots of good actors. They released it and (on IMDb especially) it sort of flopped like a deflated balloon. What happened?

Well, I don't know personally. I suppose a lot of people don't like this film for a number of reasons. Yes, the film isn't perfect, but it's CERTAINLY enjoyable and good to watch! It's also good for the children, they are likely to enjoy at least one aspect of the film and want to watch on (just like me when I was younger). They may enjoy the songs, they may enjoy the actors, they may enjoy the characters or the excitement, or they may enjoy the humour. They are most likely NOT to be disappointed.

Adults are most likely to like the actors. Monty Python fans will hopefully not be disappointed by the performance of Eric Idle. Also here is Jane Seymour (but not Henry the Eighth's wife OBVIOUSLY! :-) )

Why this film has gone down so badly is a mystery to me. I hope those of you who have never watched it before will enjoy it as much as I do.

Recommended to: Families who like cartoon films, people who like any of the actors I mentioned earlier and people who just like the sound of the film in general - enjoy! :-)

I practically wanted to see this movie mainly because The Corrs were in it, I mean The Corrs are featured on its soundtrack, but after seeing it, I really enjoyed it. it's a really great movie I recommend for everybody to watch. Not only that it provides great music and entertainment, it teaches us lessons as well. It also feautures Camelot as a very wonderful place, outlining the story in the original Camelot story but excellently rearranging some things and placing additional characters and somehow revamping the plot but is very enjoyable and amusing, I must say, especially the part when "If I Didn't Have You" was sung by the two very amusing dinosaurs.Also the excellent songs feautured in the soundtrack which really suited the movie very well. An excellent movie for the family, a story with lessons to learn and very enjoyable indeed both for the children, the family, and also for young at hearts as well.

I have DVD's of both 'Sword in the Stone' and 'Quest for Camelot'. They are different films by different producers. Both are decent family films in my opinion.

My 6-six old watched it once it a while and enjoyed it every time. I got to watch glimpses of it over time but finally watched it from start to finish, once. Despite its shortcomings, I find it to be an enjoyable animation film. You either like the sound track or you don't. But the animation is watchable and there are moments of tenderness, sadness, humour and hope.

Ignore the fact it does not come from Disney. Put aside your bias from negative reviews. The 1.5 hours will go pretty fast.

Frankly, I enjoyed this film -- despite the ineffective animation (at times), the feminist spin on the Arthurian legend, the rampant anachronisms, and the occasional intrusion of rather bland musical numbers. The story kept my attention, and I particularly liked the contributions of Cary Elwes, Pierce Brosnan, Jane Seymour, and, as that quirky two-headed dragon, Eric Idle and Don Rickles (an inspired pairing, if there ever was one!). It's no "Beauty and the Beast," but I can think of worse ways to spend an hour or so...

This beautiful animated movie with great characters,music and direction tells a story of Sword and a place called Camelot. The villain is very good along with his henchmen. Leann rimes version of looking through your eyes is amazing!!

When I was growing up, this was my all time favourite animated movie. I just had a love for Cornwall and Devon, and all of the songs.

Today, this movie doesn't hold up as well. I still am fond of the songs, and the overall message they are trying to convey to kids, but this movie is just so bland at times.

The characters are your average cut and paste variety, with a few twists. Kayley (Jessalyn Gilsig) is the main character, who is your average spunky heroine who wants to be a knight. Garrett (Cary Elwes) is an angsty blind hermit, Cornwall and Devon (Eric Idle and Don Rickles) Are actually pretty funny, but sometimes are mildly annoying. Ruber (Gary Oldman) is an over the top, diabolical villain.

See a lot of big names? Yes, because this film had so much potential with it's star cast which is full of talent. It just didn't work out though.

The problem with the movie is that it's just plain bland. Nothing is fresh with this movie, nothing is innovative, nothing raises the bar for other movies. It's one of those movies that you see a commercial of, but no one talks about.

The story is basic, but at times doesn't make sense. Warner Brother needed to realize that they weren't creating their own mythos, they needing to work with what they had, which was the setting of Camelot and the knights of the round table. They added in a bunch of things that were never in the book at all. It becomes so saturated with these kinds of things that it is barely recognizable to the book at all.

The songs, in my opinion are fantastic. The talent of the singing cast really shows, with the voices of Celine Dion, Bryan White, Steve Perry, and Sarah Freeman, you can't go wrong. Sometimes the lyrics of the songs can get a little too syrupy or cheesy, but this film is intended for children. The problem arises when the songs serve no purpose. They just sing and the movie goes on like nothing occurred. It gets to a point where the songs are just in there to copy Disney's style, which I believe is what they were going for.

In the end, Quest For Camelot is a decent movie. The problem is, that's all it will ever be. It tries too hard to be a Disney classic like Aladdin, but falls on it's face. I tried really hard to like this movie as I did when I was younger, but I just couldn't. It isn't torturous to watch this movie, but it isn't too fun either.

I will not waste many words describing this film. With a cast including such silver-screen greats as Jane Seymour, John Gielgud, Cary Elwes, Pierce Brosnan, et al., one would expect this film to have been worth watching.

It isn't.

It's not as bad as, say, The Swan Princess or Thumbelina, but there are better ways you could use your time.

I was shocked, surprised, and flabbergasted by the negative reviews I would see on the web. I thought that this film was a very, very good Arthurian movie, along with Walt Disney's classic "The Sword in the Stone" and the musical "Camelot," starring Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave.

The storyline of this movie is engaging, the music is exceptional, and the voice actors are brilliantly chosen-these elements make for a cinematic experience that I truly appreciate. I love Kayley, and her desire to carry on the tradition of her father in the excellent song On My Father's Wings was a great scene in the film. I also love the song "The Prayer." The song became popular among artists like the Celtic Woman. I don't understand why a popular song would come from a film that people thought was awful.

While reading certain comments for this movie, I've come across a similar theme as with other animated films. It gets picked apart for lack of character depth and so-so animation,etc,etc. However they all come to the same conclusion that kids will probably like it. OK...is that not the point with 90% of ALL animated films whether they be hand drawn or CGI, let's get down to it- they're cartoons!! They ARE for kids.

As for this movie , I have yet to meet a child under 12 who didn't like it. As a parent I thought it was pretty good. Not quite up to speed with most Disney movies, but it didn't drive me from the room or make me want to force my kids to turn it off. For a cartoon I'd give it a 7/10.

This was one of the least satisfying movie-length cartoons I ever saw. Admittedly I am 21, but even as a kid I wouldn't have liked it. The animation is just on the edge of average(at least for this day and age) and the voice talents just went to waste. Cary Elwes never looked and sounded duller or more emotionless. It' was as of his voice was quieter than the others and he just didn't get into his role at all. But the worst thing was his singing voice; from the uninspiring Garret to a show-off singing voice with a distinguishable American accent was simply too much. Or Celine Dion singing for Jane Seymour for that matter. The songs were terrible (and I don't want to sound like the worst anti-modernist, but some of them didn't even rhyme)and some of them were completely misplaced in the movie. You just have to see it to believe it. At on point Kayley is running for her life, trying to escape the baddies while her mother is singing how she has to be strong and not let them capture her. The only person who really put an effort into his character was Gary Oldman(no real surprise there), but his character was as typical as villains get, letting no room for an over the top performance that could have maybe softened the fall of this pathetically unfunny and lifeless movie. Oh yeah, as it had already been mentioned; I was also wondering why his character was a member of the knights of the round table to begin with. The director went with the established Disney formula, which was already getting old over at their studios as it was, so the end result here need not be explained. Don't see it if you're an adult, don't let your kids watch it, stay away and rent "The Iron Giant" instead.3/10