dp-66183
Having just watched back-to-back two version of Gawain and the Green Knight, that of Stephen Weeks (1973) and that of David Rudkin/John Phillips (1991) it seemed like a good idea to write one review covering both. The difference is basic and simple: Rudkin's is a faithful and highly literate rendering of the text, while Weeks's is more of a fun romp based loosely on the same material. I find both equally enjoyable in their different ways, and can't understand the opprobrium heaped on the 1973 version. It's charming and delightful, with nice music and graphics, and features some great one-off (if over the top) performances from the likes of Nigel Green (who seemed born to play his namesake the Green Knight), Geoffrey Bayldon and Murray Melvin. Both benefit from some marvellous Welsh locations with which I am very familiar. Perhaps one of the greatest advantages I have in appreciating it is the fact that I'm probably the only person in the world who has never seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and has no intention of ever doing so. Rudkin's more earnest and serious screenplay, with its hypnotically alliterative iambs, has made me want to go back and reread the original.
Chromium_5
This movie is so mediocre, it's depressing. It's not so bad that it's unwatchable, but it's not good enough to be even remotely interesting. It's a long, dull movie with nothing to recommend it... except for one thing that is worth noting:Almost every other review points out that this movie seems to be the inspiration for "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." However, I am surprised to see that no one else noticed something very interesting: Ronald Lacey plays a guy who gets his hand burned to a crisp by a hot medallion. Strange that the EXACT SAME THING happened to him eight years later when he played a Nazi in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."Other than that fun bit of trivia, the rest of the movie contains unnerving landscapes that look like something Dr. Suess would draw if he was on LSD, ridiculous costumes, dull fight scenes, creepy characters, and the overall feel of a fever dream. It's definitely weird, but not in a so-weird-you-have-to-watch-it way, just a so-weird-you-better-just-skip-it way. 3/10 stars.
biker45
A bored and listless viewer sat through a boring and listless movie today. As others before me have said, I waited in vain for the Monty Python troupe to come charging out of the bushes and breathe a little life into the proceedings. GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT is, I suppose, an honest attempt to portray the legendary exploits of a Knight of the Round Table, however it fails to generate any excitement or even any interest in the characters. Badly acted and unconvincing combat scenes, dreary scenery and a vastly overblown musical score become tedious rather quickly. Overall, this is a real yawner by any standard one cares to apply.
leloo dallas
This film version of one of the Arthurian legends is badly done, with cheesy special affects, stagey acting and a green knight with an enormous green-tinted wig and false beard that must be seen to be believed. All I can say is that the members of Monty Python MUST have seen this before they sat down to write The Holy Grail (Gawain was released in England 2 years prior), and decided to make fun of it.
AD
