jc-osms Who do you think of when you consider the great Hollywood swashbuckling male leads? Tyrone Power, certainly, Errol Flynn, definitely and Stewart Grainger, probably...but Robert Wagner, surely not. I like Wagner in some of his much later TV roles in "It Takes A Thief" and "Colditz" but he's more wrong here in this part than 2 + 2 = 5. He's too young, too thin, speaks in a broad American accent throughout, for most of the film he's wearing a worse wig than Terry Wogan and moreover has to act all masculine and energetic garbed in what looks like a midi-dress.I'm not familiar with the American comic strip on which this movie was based but Wagner's acting barely transcends its paper-thin origins plus it's only in the last half-hour that he gets to even act up to his character's name. Before he finally mans up and sword-fights the arch villain of the piece for his honour, we see him bested in a river-fight and in a jousting competition, plus it doesn't help that for most of the film his name is shortened to the less-than-intimidating Val.The plot improbably mixing Arthurian knights and Viking villains is nonetheless predictable as are most of the characterisations so you won't need your deer-stalker to work out who the baddie is. James Mason as the designing Lord Brack brings some weight to proceedings and handles a sword far better than I thought he ever could but a young Janet Leigh and Debra Pagett are reduced to simpering decoration if I'm being truthful.There is however an energetic score by Franz Waxman, although why the music during the climactic duel at the end changes to that befitting a Sci-fi movie I've no idea. There's some unsubtle use of back projections and miniatures too but things buck up a bit by the end when the good Vikings storm the castle and Valiant finally steps up to the plate to save the day. Pleasant hokum I guess you'd call it but could have been a lot better with a better-cast lead. Stewart Grainger, where were you?

De_Sam Even in the fifties Hollywood was adapting comic books? Thankfully the film was unsuccessful, otherwise the comic book film craze Hollywood has institutionalised now would have originated in those times. According to Aubrey Solomon and the Variety weekly it did not break even at the box office, with a budget of 2,970,000$ and an estimated total earnings of 2.6 million dollars. Hollywood was still protective of their films, so it did not earn anything outside of the theatres.Henry Hathaway did not lose his love for fast cutting he displayed in Rawhide, even in the early CinemaScope era. This is further proved by the aspect ratio of 2.55 instead of 2:35:1; the time before the put magnetic sound and optic sound on each film version, reducing the space for the picture itself. You could say the fast cutting style was determined by Robert L. Simpson, the film editor for both films. However Robert L. Simpson has shown to be willing to have long takes, as is shown in As Young as You Feel, Call Me Madam and The Best of Everything. So I think it is fair to credit the fast pace, especially for an early CinemaScope film, to Henry Hathaway. He did conform to the early CinemaScope standard consisting of heavy use of long shots and very long shots.You can really tell this was adapted from a comic book for kids, I had my suspicions, which were later fulfilled by the acknowledgment of my nostalgia-filled parents. There are many scenes that look like they were picked out of a random 'adventures of Valiant'. In my opinion they did not translate well to the big screen, especially for the epic spectacle it fruitlessly tries to be.Another problem was the combination of the early Bausch and Lomb anamorphic lenses and Technicolor, this required enormous amounts of light for the camera to capture the film. Quite a problem then, when the apotheosis of the film occurs in the dead of night; maybe it was better on the big screens in those times, but I could barely follow the action.Robert Wagner is a very limited actor in his role, he reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger in Hercules in New York (yes, that bad). It is evident he was casted for his physical feats and not his acting chops. I am also not fond of the performances of Janet Leigh and Debra Paget, both overacted horribly.To conclude, I do not recommend this film, even if you happen to be a fan of the old comic books.

wes-connors In Medieval times, handsome young Robert Wagner (as Prince Valiant) battles fellow Vikings and goes to join the court of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, in Camelot. After meeting the legendary Black Knight, Mr. Wagner befriends sponsor Sterling Hayden (as Sir Gawain). In a very pointed bra, fetching Janet Leigh (as Princess Aleta) draws your attention. Wagner may want to watch out for points from James Mason (as Sir Brack). Mr. Hayden will want to watch out for Debra Paget (as Ilene)… You've got to wonder what happened here. Nothing about "Prince Valiant" looks right on Wagner, and his performance doesn't fit, either. This film came along after Wagner had been increasingly impressive in featured roles for a couple of years; but, the star of "Prince Valiant" must have seen his name removed from consideration as a serious actor. Others herein had reputations to fall back on. The best director Henry Hathaway and Fox Studios offer is a very blazing fire sequence, in Technicolor and CinemaScope.***** Prince Valiant (4/5/54) Henry Hathaway ~ Robert Wagner, Janet Leigh, James Mason, Sterling Hayden

MovieKen Robert Wagner is Prince Valiant, who is on a quest to restore his father to his rightful throne. He travels to Camelot in an attempt to become one of the Knights of the Round Table, serving under King Arthur. While doing this, he discovers a Black Knight who has his own evil quest.I usually love films like this, so I thought I'd check it out. I'm sorry to say that though it took place in one of my favorite time periods, I wasn't very impressed with the film overall.The script was pretty much what you'd expect from films of this kind, and the scenery and costumes seemed pretty authentic. The plot was fine, though it was a bit disjointed in places, and at times, it was a bit boring. But once everyone stopped talking and the action started, it became pretty enjoyable. The attack on the castle and the last sword fight were by far the best parts, and both of those take place in the last 30 minutes of the film. The rest of it was rather forgettable.I don't need constant action to be entertained. In fact, one of my favorite films of all time is the Henry Fonda version of 12 Angry Men, which is all talk and no action. But the difference is that 12 Angry Men had an intelligent script, detailed characters and excellent acting.Prince Valiant had none of these things. In fact, I never thought I'd say this about any film starring James Mason, but the acting here is just terrible. Mason's performance is OK, though anyone could have played his part just as well, because it wasn't a very demanding role. There are no other memorable performances, and in all honesty, most of them were just awful. Robert Wagner has never impressed me with his acting skill, but in this picture, he's completely wooden. Just listen to the way he recites his lines. It's as if he put no attempt whatsoever into becoming the character. Actually, the same goes for just about everyone, except Mason. The actor playing Gawain was especially bad.I guess what plagues this film the most is the director. Judging by how the film turned out, it seems he mostly cared about the action sequences and nothing else. As I said before, the action in this movie is by far the best thing about the entire film. If this film's director were working today, he'd be just like George Lucas, who creates films with all style and no substance.The bottom line: 1 point for costumes/scenery, 3 points for action, 1 point for entertainment value, 0 points for acting, 0 points for directing. Total 5/10.