vernost So, imagine you are handed a terrific story idea--a 14th century Middle English masterpiece which has stimulated numerous translations into modern English. What would you do next? In this case, the decision was made to completely ignore the original story, to completely ignore the original's aesthetic coherence that continues to invite translation and literary adaptation, and, for that matter, to completely ignore the idea that movie goers generally like to see something movie-like. A thousand chimpanzees with typewriters could have done better in two weeks time than Weeks and crew have done here. This film is a crime against cinema. Absolutely unwatchable. Perhaps actionable.Questions: (1) why is there no Mystery Science Theatre episode based on this film? Too easy? (2) Why, apart from another film by Weeks in the 1970s, have there been no other cinematic adaptations of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Or have there been such films?

MARIO GAUCI Juvenile fantasy/adventure with an impressive cast of old reliables (Sean Connery, Peter Cushing, Trevor Howard, Lila Kedrova, Douglas Wilmer and Wilfrid Brambell) all operating below-par alongside the resistible - indeed wooden - presence of would-be star Miles O'Keefe (fresh from two similarly low-brow Ator films). Bafflingly, Connery went on to the equally unappetizing and silly HIGHLANDER (1986)...even if, I have to say, that one's something of a guilty pleasure for me!The hairstyles designed for the film give new meaning to the phrase "bad hair day"! Besides, the look of the film is pretty cheap (I watched this via MGM's pan-and-scan DVD, which certainly did it no favours); the death-knell is delivered, then, by the inappropriate and ultra-cheesy electronic score! Certainly harmless in itself but overlong and not exactly rewarding in any way; strangely enough, the director had already tackled the story a decade earlier in GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT (1973), which is yet another film that I haven't had the opportunity to catch up with since missing out on it on local TV in my childhood...though I can't say that I'm particularly looking forward to it now!

HaemovoreRex Well, opinion on this movie is universally, shall we say, not very kind (to put it mildly) with numerous critics who have all hastened to point out the many flaws present within that serve to destabilise the films overall structural coherence. As for myself, whilst certainly conceding the films many shortcomings, I have a real fondness for it!Firstly the movie doesn't take itself at all seriously and is played throughout with it's tongue wedged very firmly in it's cheek. The overall look of the film is excellent with some great locations used for the shooting. In addition it boasts some real star casting including the always excellent Sean Connery and Peter Cushing. The costuming department excel here also with some really great suits of armour. OK, so there IS a problem with the way the film has been edited, thus rendering it disjointed and often bizarre, but who cares? It's never boring and is a harmless way to spend an hour and a half of pure escapism. In short, it's great fun!

songbirdie Poor costuming,Bad acting,Some OK sets,and Lame plot.Not representative of the Rennaissance in it's lack of accuracy.The fantasy portion can't even begin to pull you into the story. Bad wig on Gawain. Overall the worst movie I have seen in a very long time.All I can say is Sean Connery must have needed money very badly to act (if you can call it that) in this monstrosity. Don't waste your time!