filmguy450
Anthony Hickox's comic adaptation is surprisingly great. Based on Hal Foster's long running series, this sumptuous tale is sure to tickle the fancy of fantasy-adventure cinephiles.The cinematography by Roger Lanser is stunning. Lots of wide angles to showoff the gorgeous landscape, to great effect. The colors burst off the screen, and are very comic-esquire. The long takes establish the geography well, and it makes for an interesting juxtaposition to the more claustrophobic, indoor scenes.Stephen Moyer stars as the titular character with an unknown past. He makes for a dashing lead, and is easily likable. In the action scenes, he is believable and looks just tough enough to be able to hold his own. Katherine Heigl is Princess Ilene, the female lead/ love interest. Even at 19, her charm is on display. Moyer and her chemistry is strong, making their romance, which starts as a strong, obvious longing to something more substantial as they grow closer during their quest.As Erik The Old, Walter Gotell, in his final role is very good. Anthony Hickox himself has nice role as Sir Gwain, whom Valiant is a squire. I didn't know it was him, and he was noble and daring, just as he should have been. Edward Fox makes a strong, decisive Arthur, even more refined and imposing. Ron Perlman shows up as a giant that knows more than he lets on, and man, I love me some Perlman. He's having lots of fun, and is used well. Warwick Davis shows up near the end, and livens up everything. He's such a joy to watch, and makes an already pulp-comic even more fun.Udo Kier is the main villain, Sligon, whom steals Excalibur to take over the world. Kier is (almost) always fun to watch, and he's uber-creepy here, making for a delicious, slightly over-the-top (in a good way) bad guy. Joanna Lumley, so brilliant on "Absolutely Fabulous", is the witch Morgan Le Fey, Arthur's half-sister. She's a lot of fun, relishing the chance to play such a different character.The action is well done, and exciting. The swordplay is very real, and it doesn't feel choreographed. The larger scale battles are easy to follow and have a nice flow to them. The detail in the armor and costumes are incredible, and it helps to enrich the world and make it much more believable.Hickox's style is in abundance here, and damn, it's some style. Aside from the already mentioned things, like good action and all, he uses comic transitions, using artwork directly out of the comic strip. A year before what many consider the film to usher in this comic saturated movie culture we are now in (Blade), this was doing similar things, and is unjustly overlooked. But aside from the cool transitional sequences, Hickox employs a lot of camera tricks, forced perspective, and playing with what we can't see just off-screen. All that adds a nice layer of fun, and it reinforces the more supernatural elements.This was an amazing surprise, that moves quickly, is rousing, had solid special effects, and good acting. An overlooked gem that helped usher in the current comic craze and deserves better than it's getting.
James Hitchcock
"Prince Valiant" is, apparently, based upon a comic strip, although I must confess that I had never heard of it before seeing the film. The story is set in Arthurian Britain. The king's magic sword Excalibur has been stolen by a gang of Vikings from the kingdom of Thule, so Valiant, a young squire, is sent to recover it. On the way he falls in love with the beautiful Princess Ilene (a name which can be pronounced either as "Eileen" or "Elaine", depending upon which character is speaking) and discovers that he himself is in fact none other than the long-lost heir to the crown of Thule, which has been usurped by the current incumbent, the villainous Thagnar. The Arthurian legends have not always transferred well to the cinema screen. In recent years we have had the decidedly average romance "First Knight" and the decidedly below-average epic "King Arthur". "Prince Valiant", however, falls so far below average that it almost falls off the bottom of the scale. It is not a would-be epic along the lines of "King Arthur", but rather a sword-and-sorcery adventure along the lines of "Conan the Barbarian", "Red Sonja" or (to take a more modern example) "The Scorpion King".Stephen Moyer makes a particularly dull hero, acting as though he were recovering from a serious charisma bypass operation. Katherine Heigl makes a pretty but equally uncharismatic heroine as Eileen/Elaine; on the evidence of this film she may have had the looks to succeed as a Hollywood star, but not the talent, so I was rather surprised that she has gone on to star in successful television series and films like "Gray's Anatomy" and "Knocked Up".Edward Fox, who stars here as Arthur, is a talented actor who should have known better than to sign up for rubbish like this. The one exception to the generally low standard of acting is Joanna Lumley, still splendidly seductive in her fifties as Arthur's evil half-sister Morgan Le Fay, but this only made me wonder why Joanna, who is one of Britain's most popular television actresses, seems to make so many bad choices when she ventures into the cinema. There have been occasional exceptions, such as her cameo in the excellent "Shirley Valentine", but too many of her films have been awful ones- "Don't Just Lie There, Say Something" and "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" are other examples. Even worse than the standards of acting are the action scenes and special effects. The fight scenes were all clumsily handled and those alligators were ludicrously unconvincing. The storyline was often confusing and difficult to follow and the lighting was so gloomy as to make me think that the film-makers were interpreting the phrase "Dark Ages" absolutely literally. "Prince Valiant" is billed as a British/Irish/German co-production, which only goes to show that there is at least one field, the tenth-rate fantasy epic, in which the European film industry can hold its own against American competition. I can only assume that the film's European origins were the reason that it was overlooked for a well-deserved Razzie nomination. 2/10
emm
I can recognize the name PRINCE VALIANT in the Sunday comics, and this is the movie adaptation which is based from. As if I've had enough of these Camelot stories, the swift pacing turns it on for supplementing the royal action, which is interesting to keep you tuned in. This latest version nearly captures the lively HERCULES & XENA look that continues to popularize the culture here in the States. It's a pity that these routine battles lack a solid punch, turning this into a mild consequence. For a new and younger generation of PRINCE VALIANT followers who dismisses the 1954 original film because of its age, this new and improved edition will certainly be it. There is a sacrifice of royalty that made the black-and-white classics sweet and tangy. The best you can really do is keep on reading the comic strip because several movies based on original counterparts (including TV shows and cartoons) fail to recapture a certain essence that was once made to be original.
