uds3 How is it I ask myself, that a Z-grader like this, offering absolutely nothing innovative except maybe John Saxon prostituting his art, special fx from a bunch of six year olds with a slate-board, fully embarrassing fight-scenes, King Arthur running round like one of "The Goodies,' cringe-worthy dialog and bottom of the harbor production values, actually puts many mega-budgeted flicks to shame? I guffawed at the childish antics, shrieked with laughter at the would-be sincerity and just about called the paramedics when Lancelot swapped his trusty steed for a Mustang convertible.....but yet, I kept watching it ...and after a while I felt guilty for mentally trashing the thing, even hoping that Lance and Kate might get to share a pash or so. I was made aware of the child in me and how everything learned during adulthood counts for zilch ultimately.Much of the complete innocence and appeal of this strangely gentle film is due to Singer's awesomely focused role as Lancelot of the Round Table displaced in time but not purpose. Surrounded by Z-grade everything - from actors to props. Singer stands unflinchingly tall and trustworthy....everything in fact that Lancelot ever represented.To it's everlasting credit, the film offers no blood (the fight scenes are played for laughs rather than pain) not a skerrick of bad language and good of course triumphs (gently) over evil. It is a film that could cause no offense to any living person. Watching it, I was reminded very much of Shelly Duvall's "Faerie Tale Theater." If you want to laugh at this - feel free, just make sure though you're not actually laughing at yourself!

georgep-8 This isn't the kind of film that would have had a big theatrical showing, although I did see it several times on HBO. Nor is it the kind of film that will be easy to find in a video store. Which is too bad. This is a little charmer. Not a large budget, so the film relies on character. And in this case the characters are a lot of fun. We have seen the hero pulled from the past into the present before, but Marc Singer plays Lancelot with such seriousness that we really believe him. This is Lancelot the way we want to see him, concerned with righting wrongs and vanquishing evil. Without all that angst about Guenevere.The villain, played by John Saxon, is another great characterization. This just demonstrates again why Mr. Saxon is one of the best "B" movie actors around. I was always a fan of his and it is nice to see him still having fun with a part.If you can find this film for rent it is well worth the time.

Rach T This is truly one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life.For some terrible reason, my friend's parents hired this atrocity from the video store. There is not one thing right with this movie. It is absolutely laughable in every way. Although I must admit, it did contain entertainment value. This included lines such as "I just saw a really hot guy on a horse", and the fact that "Lancelot" had some really weird American accent going on when he was supposedly...well...Lancelot. Who's from medieval England. ... Yeah, exactly.See this movie if you're having a 'Worst movie of all time' night. Laugh at the 'special' effects! I could have made a better film than this on my mobile phone in my backyard with myself cast as Lancelot. I rated it a 1, but if this was the 'bad films awards' i would have given it 10. That is all.

Lessa I am a fan of any legends in literature so I found this movie charming. It isn't that the acting is great or the directing, filming, etc. but it was oddly romantic (chick flick category). Marc Singer,(still handsome and masculine) whom I had not seen since Beastmaster, was still great with a sword. He played the wholesome Lancelot with a lot of focus, it was different. There is nothing indecent or offensive in this piece so anyone can watch it, which is rare. I'm sure it was targeting youth but I don't know why, I just liked it. Where are all the Lancelots anyway?