JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Cristi_Ciopron SWORD OF LANCELOT, crafted as Cornel Wilde's gift to himself, shows Guinevere as a strong and determined character—far from an 'etiolated princess …--and her character is also played with brio and charm.From the whole tale, the script picked as characters truly brought out the love triangle—the knight, his queen, and the oldster—and, in fact, only the couple of lovers—the others are too marginal …. Yet this couple of characters who are indeed defined and portrayed are alive and interesting. The score is, on the other hand, conventional and banal.It is not a kids' movie; it's occasionally piquant and playful, a nice French woman at an inn is introduced by her tits. As an adventure flick, it features a tournament and a battle with the pagan invaders, and it ends with the defeat of Mordred.Directed by Wilde, the movie has something sincere and straight and respectable, even a note of originality.

inspectors71 Cornel Wilde should be awarded an "E" for effort in The Sword of Lancelot, a gabby, murkily photographed, and surprisingly bloody King Arthurer from 1962. Wilde as Lancelot sports a dandy little French accent that reminded me of the guy in the tower in Monty Python's The Holy Grail while he fights for the king, until he gets all gushy over the lovely Jean Wallace as Guinevere.There is quite a bit of long-looking and love-talking and smooching between the real-life couple (and a tightly shot post-coital embrace with the two drippy and funky; boy, what did the folks at the Production Code think of that?), but after a good while, you're starting to grumble at the screen to GET ON WITH IT, whatever it might be.The battles swing from the hokey to the excitingly bloody. You don't see many guys get their heads split down the middle in American movies in 1962, and Wilde does stage a couple of well-thought-out sequences, so there is some benefit to sitting through the kiss-kiss to get to the clang-clang.The whole Arthurian legend is such an appealing story that even though Wilde has two strikes against him--a budget equivalent to pocket change (the film quality is so bad, I honestly checked my glasses to see if they needed cleaning) and the fact that most everyone involved looks a good generation too old for the story--he still brings some real love and passion to the screen.Which is why The Sword of Lancelot should be taken at face value, and even though Jean Wallace is pushing forty in the picture (too mature for a maiden), all I can say is, "What a face!"

bkoganbing Cornel Wilde had an interesting career as stand-by leading man for Tyrone Power at Fox. His biggest role there was in Forever Amber, made when Power was doing another big budget spectacle, Captain from Castile and was unavailable. Wilde should have had a bigger career, but never got the breaks.He and Mrs. Wilde (Jean Wallace who played Guinevere)dusted off the Lancelot and Guinevere story for another go. Wilde supposedly sank a lot of his own money in this film and lost a bundle. This kind of film really needs the full backing of a big studio.MGM did this far better with Knights of the Round Table. Although Robert Taylor was a stoic Lancelot in that film, the overall production values were far better with that product. Wilde dusted off the French accent he perfected in The Greatest Show On Earth and played Lancelot properly as a Frenchman. But Ava Gardner was a Guinevere to die for as opposed to what Mrs. Wilde did with the part.Brian Aherne plays a noble Arthur. But Stanley Baker and Anne Crawford as Mordred and Morgan LeFay were light years better than the two who played the parts here.

uds3 WHAT's this? Not a solitary comment on one of the really good medieval flicks of this period?Actually it was one of the last, coming at the end of the cycle that had included KING ARTHUR AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, PRINCE VALIANT, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH, THE BLACK KNIGHT....all big moneyspinners in the 50's. It was also just 4 years shy of Richard Harris' beloved, but overblown musical CAMELOT.The film performed disappointingly at the box office as audiences tastes had changed and biblical spectacle was all the rage by the early 60's. By '63 even THAT had waned, THE LAST DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH having closed the chapter on epics the previous year.But hey, Cornel Wilde was a ragingly in-form Lancelot and pulled out all stops to impress his lady Guinevere. Course, her husband, King Arthur was majorly disgusted with both of them and things were messy there for a while. But you know, simply nothing overcame life's little set- backs in those days of yore, like crushing a few skulls in with a mace or broadsword and Lancelot was the champion after all. Some reviewers at the time took exception to Lancelot's french accent (Ah, my GuineVERE, u know 'ow I love you non?, ees not your coleurs 'anging from my lance-tip cherie?) Well ze franch accent or not, Cornel made as good a Lancelot as anyone ever has. This film rocked.Think A KNIGHT'S TALE handled seriously!