ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Luecarou What begins as a feel-good-human-interest story turns into a mystery, then a tragedy, and ultimately an outrage.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

vorkapich This film was obviously cobbled together to continue the success of Ivanhoe the previous year. The script has that factitious quality indicative of several hands having worked on it; it is largely a series of loosely linked scenes between the action sequences, with some unintentionally funny effects. Robert Taylor attempting some medieval dancing is one of the awkward moments here. The leads look as if they have been summoned to a costume party, and not entirely comfortable being surrounded by all those capable English actors — Ava Gardner in particular seems unusually bemused.M-G-M had a production unit in England, so the scenery is authentically lovely in Cinemascope (the first Cinemascope feature not made by Twentieth Century-Fox), with the master Freddie Young as DOP.The brief cycle of "when knighthood was in flower" films was parodied in The Court Jester with Danny Kaye a couple of years after this film was released, and it is even funnier, albeit deliberately.

Spikeopath Knights of the Round Table is directed by Richard Thorpe and adapted to screenplay by Talbot Jennings, Noel Langley & Jan Lustig from the novel Le Morte d'Arthur written by Sir Thomas Malory. It stars Robert Taylor, Ava Gardner, Mel Ferrer, Stanley Baker, Anne Crawford and Felix Aylmer. Music is scored by Miklós Rózsa and cinematography by Stephen Dade and Freddie Young.An interesting spin on the Arthurian legend for MGM, who film it in Cinemascope (first time for the studio) and dress it up grandly as the actors have a good old time in the days of yore. Here the romantic angle comes via Lancelot (Taylor) and Guinevere (Gardner) having lusty lustations for one and other that cause a tremble in the stability of Camelot. With Guinevere to marry King Arthur, and both she and the heroic Lancelot loyal to the King and his ideals for Camelot, it's not a real problem until the dastardly Modred (Baker) and the scheming Morgan le Fay (Crawford) start to throw spanners into the works that result in murder, suspicion and war.It's all very fanciful stuff, full of derring-do machismo, but the action is well staged by Thorpe (cracking finale between good and evil), the outer location photography at Tintagel in Cornwall is most pleasing, Rózsa's score sweeps in and out of the well dressed sets and the cast do their director proud by not overdoing the material to hand. Yes it inevitably hasn't aged particularly well, and modern film fans may balk at the many passages of detailed chatter in the well developed script, but this comes from a grand old time in cinema. When production value meant hard graft in front of and behind the camera . Honour and integrity is not only big within the story itself, it's also themes that apply to the film makers as well. Hooray! 7.5/10

Blueghost The scope of this production is classic Hollywood. Large numbers of real life stunt-men and stunt horses crowd the screen for a medieval epic retelling the Arthurian legend. Cinemascope is used to capture large vistas and cleanly handcrafted sets that fill the screen in Technicolor. When Arthur's and Modred's armies clash, it's real human beings riding horses, bearing lances, swinging prop swords and shooting prop arrows from real bows. Very impressive.The dated aspect comes from the thesping of both leads and supporting cast. It's pretty stilted and serious, but really ought not have been this way, for acting in other films of the time (gangster and war films) wasn't so stiff. One gets the sense that the director wanted a "legendary" feel for the picture, and so had the actors convey emotion in a very framed manner to express the regal quality of the story and time.It may have also have been due to Robert Taylor's acting ability, which was fairly inflexible. His stone demeanor gives him solid ground to stand on in his performances, but also holds back a greater character range that, in my opinion, was never fully realized in the epics he was placed in.The action is hit and miss. The large action sequences are a pleasure to look at. The smaller one-on-one fights seem staged and visually blah from a cinematic standpoint, but this was the style of the time. When Lancelot charges with Arthur and his knights there's a real sense of drama, ditto with the other large action sequences.Historically we're given the "classic" image of 14th century knights in full plate armor, set upon chargers donned in cloth barding. Again, visually it's a pleasure to see, but falls wide of the contemporary theory that Arthur was a Roman General, Artorious, who would have dressed in chain mail, and not the advanced form of armor shown in this film as well as in Boorman's "Excalibur".It's an interesting window at another time, when film was moderately less refined and perhaps undeservedly awed in spite of itself, and as such given such a pedestal sheen that only reinforces the detachment of the work from the audience. But even so, it works. It's dated, mildly kampy, but offers a view into the classic image of the Arthurian tales that pervaded much of contemporary 20th Century impressions of Arthurian times for years after.It'd been thirty some odd years since I'd last seen this film, and I'm glad I was able to see it again. But if you're a younger viewer, or are just more into contemporary sword-epic offerings, then this film may disappoint some. Take it for what it is.An impressive production, but dated and, because of this, it's not really for everyone. Give it a shot and see if you like it.

Lars-Toralf Storstrand That is, if you want a good and entertaining story about Arthur... then don't even consider watching this French-style rubbish.I think it is only fair to say that it is "Sickly sweet romanticized", almost gooey.It is artistically out of place with special effects, (and then I am not even considering the lack of CGI.The costumes and historical settings is at least 1000 years to late compared to history; But what is more sad, is that it is totally out of Wac with the really good, Celtic Arthur legends.Please, please, pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top? will somebody make a real effort to dramatize Stephen Lawheads Arthurian legend?