It's such a great film, but I can't help but think the pacing is a little jumpy, especially near the end. Is there any known director's cut out there with additional scenes? If so I would love to get my hands on it.
>England is unified off-screen
>John Boorman's retelling of the Arthurian legends is a serious, R-rated fairy tale. Boorman plunges into the Dark Ages, smiting us with raging battles, balls of flame, mists of dragon's breath, knights with horns and tusks jutting out of their armored heads, and battle-axes that hack off limbs, which seem to ricochet off the armor. The dialogue is pedantic, we hardly have a chance to meet the characters before they're off and running, and the whole film is soaked in Jung, but it has its own crazy integrity. The imagery is impassioned and has a hypnotic quality. The film is like Flaubert's more exotic fantasies-one lush, enraptured scene after another. As Merlin, Nicol Williamson (who affects a touch of the Gaelic and makes wonderful lilting and growling sounds) is the presiding spirit; he stands in for Jung, and he informs us of the meaning of what we're seeing. The film spans three generations-first Uther Pendragon and his feuding with the other Celtic lords, then his son Arthur's reign with the Knights of the Round Table gathered at Camelot, and finally, the challenge to Arthur's power by his son, the demonic Mordred. The characters aren't scaled heroically enough for the myths built on their adventures, so we don't experience the elation that we have come to expect at the end of a heroic story, but the film gives us a different kind of elation. It's as if Boorman were guiding us down a magic corridor and kept parting the curtains in front of us.
>>71862214
I've never seen any version of the film, but apparently the standard version is the 2 hour edited version with less violence and nudity. The full version released in theaters was 2 hours and 20 minutes, but it is hard to find today. Actually the reason I haven't seen it yet is because literally the only version on TPB or KAT is the edited one. Good luck finding the real deal anon
>>71862214
>ywn direct your own daughter in a rape scene
>>71862295
argento directs his daughter in nude scenes all the time
>>71862214
I think I'm going to rewatch this tonight. It's been a long, long time for me.
I love this movie.
Everyone in the movie acts in this strange way that I can't quite put my finger on. Its somewhat stilted, but its great.
If only more films were like this, but alas they are not.
>>71862453
I think they were trying to go for a cheesily dramatic stage play kind of vibe. Very theatrical.
I love Excalibur, it's legit one of my top 10 films in terms of sheer enjoyment.
But holy shit does it have pacing issues.
>>71862453
>Everyone in the movie acts in this strange way that I can't quite put my finger on.
>I must have her.
>ARE YOU MAD? THE ALLIANCE!
Rewatched it recently, the pacing is by no means perfect.
>>71862214
I know nothing about this movie but I bought it a thrift store. My gf keeps not wanting to watch it. Now I'm gonna fucking make her having read this thread
>>71862277
Pretty sure I got mine off Kickass, because I booted up the file and the running time says 2:20:47
>ywn rape someone while you're in full plate armor
>>71862729
It's fucking awesome. At the beginning I told myself "this is King Arthur?" But by the end of the film film I just said "THIS is King Arthur." It has great character progression.
The thing about Excalibur is that it makes up for its issues with the sheer grandness of it all. Like, this is legimately as close we can get to a new Shakespeare play written today (not surprising as Le Morte d'Arthur was one of Shakespeare's biggest inspirations in writing).
Everything just has this grand scale to it. The scenery, the costumes, even the sheer bombastic nature of the acting. It all makes everything seem so much bigger than it really is.
Plus it had the advantage of the fact that it used all British actors who at the time were complete unknowns in the US, so people didn't focus on the actors, they focused on their characters. People like Helen Mirren, Patrick Stewart, Nigel Terry, Liam Neeson. NO ONE had heared of these people in the states.
>>71862453
70's British acting was a weird place. The titans of the golden years like Sir Richard Burton, Lord Olivier, John Guilgood etc were all getting old but they hadn't yet found their younger generation-- so you get interesting weirdos like Brian Blessed and Nicol Williamson who tried to merge method acting with some werid over the top British theatricality. It would be a few years before this weirdness wore off and the true heirs were found with people like Anthony Hopkins and Judy Dench.
I think what I love most about Excalibur is the masterful way it intertwines narrative and tone. As the movie progresses everything becomes more grounded and realistic. Compare the quality of the acting and the art direction in the first 30 minutes, to the middle third, to the ending. It's brilliant. I'm sure it's been done before but I've never seen it done so well. Making the opening intentionally hammy is an immensely ballsy creative decision and puts a lot of trust in the audience.
Boorman is a genius. He's one of the only directors from that era still making good movies today.
>>71862904
Anon please, don't act as though Brian Blessed isn't someone to be treasured.
>>71862936
of course he is, but he's just an oddity.
I'd put Tom Baker in the same category as well. Weird actor who found his niche.
>>71862878
>Like, this is legimately as close we can get to a new Shakespeare play written today
You're a dangerously psychotic and delusional maniac, seek help.
>>71863019
>You're a dangerously psychotic and delusional maniac
Well I've never denied that
>>71862922
Yeah, it's very storybook cheesy fantasy at the beginning, but becomes very psychological and dark in the last half. I LOVE when movies have shift in tone like that. If done well, it really throws you for a loop. A good one.
i've always had a pet theory that Excalibur was only made possible because of a mass of post Star Wars investment money.
That's why I think they put that green light on Excalibur-- to make it more like a light saber.
And the introduction of the "Dragon" was supposed to be like the Force.
Also thought the mirror like armor was a nod to the clean look of the storm troopers.
But it didn't fall into the trap that Krull fell into-- it actually became a great film.
>>71863125
>That's why I think they put that green light on Excalibur-- to make it more like a light saber.
You're forgetting that at that point, we had only seen red and blue lightsabers.
Also the green is because it's a mythical color to the Welsh or something.
>>71862214
This movie is good because when the stupid story gets a bit boring there's a grimy battle scene with men in full plate armor hacking off limbs while blood sprays everywhere. It's very tactile and over the top, especially the last 20 minutes or so.
We should also not forget that is has one of the best endings in fantasy film history.
>that music and cinematography when Percival throws the sword back in the lake and comes back to find Arthur being carried away on the boat to heaven
It always bothered me that in the final battle Arthur has a sword while Mordred wields the legendary spear Rhongomyniad, when in the myth it was the opposite because Arthur had lost Excalibur.
>>71863489
yeah that's always bothered me as well.
>>71863545
I guess it was for the sake of convenience. We know in the film that Mordred's armor can't be pierced by any weapon of man, but Excalibur is a weapon made by the faeries so the armor's protection means nothing.
But in the legend he lost the sword which is why Mordred wears the armor in the first place, because he thinks he's not invincible, only for Arthur to go SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKER and pull out a spear which was also forged not by man. I guess in a film that would kinda come across as a deus ex machina.
How do you folks think it would have turned out if Boorman actually made a Lord of the Rings film as originally intended?
>>71863862
Would've been a much shinier LotR
I loved the 1980 King Arthur. I didn't see any problems with the pacing or acting, but I wasn't trying to measure it when I watched it. I simply enjoyed it as a rather unconventional approach to a conventional story.
But perhaps thats just how it looks now
>>71863862
I'm not sure that they could've done LotR justice back then
Plus I think LotR deserved a fair, authentic shake, as close to the books as was reasonable, and Boorman would have definitely put his own spin on the story.
>>71863874
And there would be green light from offscreen for some reason reflecting off of people's armor in 80% of the scenes
>>71862804
When Arthur drinks from the Grail and gives his speech before riding off to fuck off Mordred, he truly becomes Excalibur. His speech to Guinivere is beautiful as well, literally the perfect breakup line.
>>71866310
>tfw Arthur felt both like the mono-myth and a human man
Probably one of the best aspects of the entire movie, glad to see people appreciate it.It's also an incredibly comfy movie, the landscapes fell lush and mysterious throughout
>>71866465
There are very few movies that are both really shiny and extremely dirty.
>IT'S LANCELOT!
>LANCELOT IS WITH US!
>That momentary pause by Arthur because he can't process how shocked and happy he is in the middle of a battle
Has there been any word on how Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie is coming along?
>>71866652
>Lancelot is back
>he looks like a fat sack of shit now
>still kicks ass anyway
>>71866702
It just hit me thatwonder woman in bvshas a similar headband to merlin.
>>71867565
I can see the similarity, but Merlin's was a full-on skullcap.
