TownRootGuy Redgrave does a fine job but her character is despicable from start to finish so it's hard to say much good about her performance because she sells it so well. Nero is much the same, Lancelot goes from unlikable to dastardly. Both have great and very telling songs, though. In addition, Lancelot has a scene where he speaks to what it's like to be a fanatic that is incredibly succinct and yet profound. As for Harris, well, he's never been more engaging. You can't help but like and feel for Arthur. But can he sing? I've always thought so and so did many others when his pop song, "MacArthur Park", went to #2 in the US. This has an outstanding cast, fantastic tunes AND the magic is in how funny someone's personal tragedy can be. The music, Harris' charisma and Lancelot's comments on fanaticism make this one of my favorite movies. I've been watching it for four decades and can still watch it every couple of years.

Hitchcoc I liked the look of this film. I liked Richard Harris as Arthur because he has the look of a medieval king. Vanessa Redgrave is a more formidable Guinevere, and Franco Nero is quite stunning to look at. But they are right. They are not singers. They are not very good weak singers (does that make sense). Now I never really bought into Julie Andrews as Guinevere in the music from the Original Cast, and I don't see her as a strong woman my mind's eye. But I do agree, it's time to take a big budget crack at this again. Imagine the pageantry that would be possible now and some of the wonderful musical talents to draw from. Back to the story. This is a touching story of a man who liked the battles but not the rule. He is forced into a marriage and then falls in love. However, the magical Lancelot steals her heart and things go sour. Arthur is left alone on the battlefield, and Camelot is only a memory. Great story...poor execution.

Catharina_Sweden I watched this movie first when I was a little girl, and especially the sequences in the magic winter forest in the beginning have been with me all these years. I always think about them when I walk in a wintry forest! I think this production has captured the magic of the Arthur legend better than any other, on screen, stage or in a novel. I love the wonderful photo, the lavish exteriors, interiors, clothes and props, the beautiful people who are all exactly right for their roles, and last but not least the captivating songs and the stirring music!The love triangle is for ever intriguing, because I suppose we all live it at some time of our lives - if not in reality so in imagination. There cannot be many people, who have never had feelings for anyone else than their spouse... and been faced with the horrible understanding of the consequences, if you give in (and if it is mutual of course). Many people, who "do the right thing", still live all the rest of their lives with a longing and a regret: "what might have been"...There are a couple of things I would like to change though. First of all, the movie is much too long. If you watch it all through in one sitting, you cannot concentrate or care anymore when the ending finally comes.Also, it focuses on too many subplots of the Arthurian legend. It would have been enough with only the love triangle, and the things that naturally come with it: such as Arthur's decision to form his round table. Having Mordred, Merlin, Pellinore and King Arthur as a child in it too, makes the movie too long and, in the end, tedious. Also, I think a few of the weaker songs should be cut, first of all "Take me to the fair" and "What do simple folks do".Another thing: it is a pity that all the best songs and scenes should be at the beginning of the movie. After Lancelot's and Guinevere's confession of love to each other, after the tournament, there is nothing much to look forward to.*****Now I have watched the movie again, and I have to add something: my impressions have changed a little this time. Yes it IS a long movie, but this time I did not think that any scenes were superfluous, or should be cut. On the contrary, I found everything worked together very well. I think you need to watch this movie several times before you can really take it in and understand the greatness of it! My tip is: take a break in the middle (when the intermission is), stretch your legs a little, let in some fresh air maybe go for a walk... and then go for the second half!

HomeinIndiana The flaws of this film stem largely from the play, in the form of an uneven tone and mediocre songs ("If Ever I Would Leave You" was the only one that survived). The visual appearance of the opening sequence, meant to evoke the mystical quality of Camelot, merely looks like a stage setting. While Richard Harris fares well as Arthur, whose character remains honorable and consistent from beginning to end, the other two leads are hampered by both characterization and performance. Guinevere, played by Vanessa Redgrave, is introduced to us as a spoiled and silly woman ("The Simple Joys of Maidenhood"). She adds to that a distinct lack of regal behavior (her romps in "It's May") and finally brings down the Round Table and the dream. It is hard not to wish that she had lost her way to Camelot in the first place. Lancelot, played by Franco Nero, is introduced to us in a comic song ("C'est Moi") that presents him as a self-centered and fatuous buffoon. His transition into the tragic, tortured hero that he becomes is unconvincing. Part of the problem with these two characters is in the writing, but not all. Redgrave projects a "hippy" Guinevere that now seems horribly stuck in time. Nero was simply miscast. The film is overlong, at more than 3 hours, and many are unlikely to stick with it.