Lee Eisenberg OK, so we understand that "Camelot" is probably not the most accurate depiction of King Arthur (whoever he was). But I'd say that the important thing is that the movie shows how Arthur rejects the idea of might making right - basically a call for peace - and has a round table to treat all as equals. I should admit that while watching it, I kept imagining lines the characters suddenly blurting out lines from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".Vanessa Redgrave and Franco Nero (best known as the original Django; he appeared in "Django Unchained" as the Italian guest who knows that the D is silent) were an item for a number of years before getting married in 2006. Their son later directed Redgrave in a TV adaptation of Wallace Shawn's politically charged play "The Fever", co-starring Michael Moore and Angelina Jolie.Anyway, "Camelot" is worth seeing. I guess that the overall gist is to enjoy what you have, since it might not always be there.So yes, what is the average airspeed velocity of a swallow?

Ken Adlam I fear that nothing will ever be adequate as a remake after having seen the Original Cast on Broadway. The scene where Lancelot (Robert Goulet) rides in to save Guinevere (Julie Andrews) while Arthur (Richard Burton) stands singing on a platform above the stage is one of the most thrilling I have witnessed on the stage...it brings tears to my eye just to remember it! I have nothing against any of the film cast; but compared with the performances of Burton, Andrews, and Goulet...well, they just don't compare. Makes one wish that recordings had been made of certain Broadway performances!

apjtonyjohnson Like the earlier reviewer, the film gets full marks for costumes, sets and photography. The light, the textures, the colours - especially if you see a well-projected version or a restored DVD version - are absolutely ravishing in conjuring a faux-medieval fantasy land. Some moments, such as the candlelit wedding or the early scenes in the snow, will linger long in the memory.I will always remember seeing this film at a young age and being amazed at one of the later scenes when Vanessa Redgrave is so emotional that her nose drips snot. It made the moment raw, real and true - and I followed her career ever afterwards. That deeply-felt acting sometimes feels at odds with the conventions of a film musical - at least in the 1960s - but it is NOT at odds with the source material - TH White's Once and Future King. In that mighty tome the whimsical mingles with the tragic in a very teasing fashion - all the more brilliant for that.I wonder whether this film will not be revered in generations to come and its over-wrought acting (with too many disconcerting closeups) might be seen as psychologically penetrating. There is a later filmed version - a stage version starring Richard Harris which captures the "musical" side of the musical better (more even singing, for example) but nothing beats this 1967 version for DESIGN.

mark.waltz When a show creates as much hype as Lerner and Lowe's "Camelot" did back in 1960, making the movie version of it is going to be a difficult task. Everybody is going to judge whoever is cast, especially if it isn't the original stars. By 1967, Richard Burton was one of the most successful movie actors in the world, yet somehow he was passed up (or passed up himself) the movie version of the hit show. Julie Andrews had gone on to screen success after loosing out on the movie version of "My Fair Lady", and Jack Warner passed her by here, although she too may have been better in the stage version than she could have been in the very darkened film version.If you don't have Richard Burton or Julie Andrews, then who to cast. Richard Harris had achieved a great reputation as a British actor of note, and so he got the role of King Arthur. A new face to American audiences (Vanessa Redgrave) had been tinkering around the British stage, yet had achieved some film success by the time this went in front of the cameras. Still, she was a bit of a novice, if not much of a singer, so the risk was there, yet Jack Warner was willing to take it, as this was going to be his last personal contribution to the world of the movie musical.Watching the movie version of "Camelot" is almost like watching a BBC version of a classic novel. Gone is the American lightheartedness, and in is the actual darkness of the real story. The early Britains lived in a mostly uncivilized world. They weren't quite England yet, and the first Kings ruled territories, not the entire island. So when one King came along that could bring the Britains together, he longed for a world of peace, and with it, the Knights of the Round Table. Where then is his queen? Guenevere comes along to marry the man she has never met, and while there is definite affection between them, is it actually love? That love is tested by the arrival of a French hero named Lancelot (the handsome Frano Nero) who longs to be the man by King Arthur's side. When he slips and ends up in Queen Guenevere's bed, the stage is set for tragedy, but Arthur is determined to keep the round table from cracking, even if his evil nephew Mordred (who seems to be a Caligula clone) is determined to make sure it does.Musically, "Camelot" is just as light and airy as it was on Broadway, but the darkened photography and sinister intentions of various characters remind us that this is not musical comedy. Redgrave and Harris take the roles much more serious than Andrews and Burton did on Broadway, utilizing humor only in a few moments, but being much more solemn than Burton and Andrews seemed to be on the original cast album. This takes "Camelot" into a more realistic mode, and there, the production team made a very wise decision. Stage productions of "Camelot" ever since them have focused more on the darkness of the story, including one I saw on a national tour in the mid 1980's where an aged Harris repeated his role and seemed far removed from the romantic figure he plays here.Of course, a "white elephant" like "Camelot" can loose money easily, and it took a lot of money to make this epic like musical. Every detail going into this movie was made to appear authentic, and this makes for an attractive, if sometimes depressing film, because you know that this situation won't end happily for anybody. So unlike "My Fair Lady" or "The Sound of Music" which have definite conclusions, "Camelot" has to end on a note of "this ain't over 'till it's over", and history shows that the three people here whom the audience empathizes with did not end up with joyous finales either.