This is definitely an adult telling of the Arthurian legend. It is also very serious, dark and gritty, with a great deal of sexual energy. Because the Arthurian legend is so familiar to all of us, I will spare you a detailed telling of this legend in favor of focusing on the movie. Suffice it to say that the reason to see EXCALIBUR is the same reason to see COOL RUNNINGS - to see the moviemakers' interpretation of events, and to take a cinematic journey.
Helen Mirren is well-used as Morgana, the evil Merlin wannabe. Unlike any of the counterpart characters in the movie Camelot, she is well-used because she brings a human side to Morgana. After all, we all tend to feel that our way of doing things is the best way, so her desire to do magic her own way (rashly, without consideration of Merlin's greater experience and judgment) is really not that surprising or unrealistic. I feel strongly, however, that the makers of this film chose to keep Morgana evil for reasons of their own, primarily having to do with what the purists would say if they found out about Morgana being made more sympathetic. This is done despite the fact that as a mere rash youth (or inexperienced older Merlin wannabe, in this instance), she would have been much easier to relate to as a human being. We have all been rash and inexperienced at one point or another in our lives. Therefore, it would have been easier to relate to Morgana were she more human - someone who just made some serious mistakes rather than someone portrayed as 100% evil.
Nicol Williamson's interpretation of Merlin is also brilliant, bringing a human and funny side to the magician, whose character can often become stale because we are all so familiar with the legend. I'm not giving anything away to say that his version of Merlin is killed off using magick maybe midway through the film. However, by supernatural means, he is able to come back and serve as a mentor to Arthur and his men, in scenes that definitely got my attention.
Patrick Stewart, most famous for his role as Capt. Picard in STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, shows up here in a relatively brief role as Guinevere's father Leondegrance. One can safely say that he chews up a great deal of scenery in what is obviously a ham-actor's interpretation of the role.
Finally, Nigel Terry's interpretation of Arthur is understated, but good. The viewer is made aware of his Christianity, but this facet of his personality is not forced down the throats of the viewers. Beware, however - if you are a believer in Christianity, you may not like the way the religion is portrayed in EXCALIBUR: equal to any other religion, without missionary elements. Because Christianity is a missionary religion, adherents tend to get pesty, and are also concerned with seeing it on the movie screen (and in other places) as being superior to other religions. If this is true about you - if you would rather see Christianity portrayed as the dominant religion - this isn't the movie for you.
The worst fault in this movie is the costuming. Yes, this is a minor quibble. I'm not complaining about the historical accuracy of the costumes; that isn't a factor, as there is some doubt as to whether Arthur even existed. What I am complaining about is the costuming of the wedding sequence. Specifically, Guinevere's wedding veil looks as if it were made from those webbed or netted plastic bags we see all the time in the grocery stores which are used to hold grapes in the produce department.
However, I have to emphasize that that's a minor quibble. Viewers might also want to monitor their children's viewing of this movie and keep the wee ones away from it entirely, as some scenes depict frank sexuality and others, overt violence. (One is present to witness the entire act which results in Arthur's conception, and blood spurts all over in appropriate and frighteningly realistic ways.) It's a fine telling of the Arthurian legend for adults and older adolescents, however.
Recommended:
Yes
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
