Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Jonathon Dabell Merlin and the Sword (a.k.a Arthur The King) is a genuinely terrible sword and sorcery opus which features a cast full of seasoned old pros and young stars of the future. Quite how these talented actors and actresses were persuaded to lend their faces to this ridiculous production is anybody's guess, but after a while it becomes embarrassing to watch so many gifted thespians sinking in the quicksand of such a foolish script. Director Clive Donner has made some good films too, so one has to wonder what was going through his mind when he agreed to direct this turkey. Perhaps everyone involved had some overdue bills to pay! An American tourist, Katharine (Dyan Cannon), is on a day-trip at the ancient monument of Stonehenge when she inadvertently falls down a hole. When she lands at the bottom, she finds herself in a cave - no normal cave, mind you, but a cave which which houses the famous wizard Merlin (Edward Woodward) and his lover Niniane (Lucy Gutteridge). Merlin has apparently been imprisoned with his lover in this cave for a thousand years. The arrival of Katharine gives him an excuse to tell a story, and pretty soon he is narrating a tale about his old companion King Arthur (Malcolm McDowell). Merlin tells of Arthur's marriage to the lovely Queen Guinevere (Rosalyn Landor); the poisonous plotting of Arthur's treacherous half-sister Morgan Le Fay (Candice Bergen); and the forbidden love affair between Guinevere and the trusted knight Sir Lancelot (Rupert Everett). This cheapjack fantasy never really works in spite of the strong cast. There's something fundamentally stupid about the plot, which could have been serviceable if dealt with in a more tongue-in-cheek manner, but here comes across as merely risible. There's also something terribly wrong with the general atmosphere of the film.... maybe it's the hopelessly '80s music score which is as cheesy as a lump of mature cheddar; maybe it's the over-modernised dialogue which doesn't ring true amid the Middle Ages period trappings; maybe it's the atrocious special effects; or maybe it's just the all-round air of indifference which affects the film both infront of and behind the cameras. It's hard to believe that Rupert Everett and Liam Neeson (here guilty of lacklustre performances) ever went on to become big stars. It's equaly hard to believe that the likes of Woodward, McDowell, Bergen and Michael Gough (who has a bit-part as a forgetful archbishop) ever were big stars in their own right. On the whole, this is definitely one to skip!

artzau I guess Dyan Cannon, Macolm McDowell, Edward Woodward, Candy Bergen, Liam Neeson and Rupert Everett must have been in it just for the paycheck. This film is bad-- even for TV. I rented it because I was desperate for a bit of romance for my wife who was ill. Well, it was a stinker. The low budget special effects were out of the three stooges era. The fight scene with King Arthur and the "Undead knight" was a high point, reminding me of Monty Python's Holy Grail. I could go on and on about the abuses to the Arthurian legend but this film is a parody of itself and little more can be said on that account. My biggest disappointment was Candace Bergen who has been a long time fav. Another reviewer here has already noted the shortcoming in her role and we can leave it at that. Neeson was absolutely comical; Everett was ghastly; Woodward was his hambone usual delightful self and Dyan Cannon, (born the same year as myself) was great because she was playing herself. Unless, you're really bored and looking for a lampoon of a costume drama, I might not recommend this one.

juliesteph This movie is, as the previous comment tells, pretty bad. However, the one redeeming quality of it is that it covers some ground that no other Arthurian movies (to my knowledge) cover: characters such as Gawain, Agravain, and Mordred have more than bit parts and the famous "rape of Guinevere" story is also dealt with. It is a very 80's film, though; the makeup and costumes capture that anachronism rather glaringly.

BrianV Unbelievable. This movie is without a doubt one of the poorest excuses for wasting celluloid I have ever seen. I like the whole King Arthur/Knights of the Round Table genre, so I was prepared to give it a little latitude when I started watching it and saw in what direction it was going (downhill), but this movie's stupefying ineptness is mind-boggling. Candace Bergen in a red Bozo the Clown wig, cackling maniacally as she spouts gibberish that is supposed to be magic spells, Liam Neeson playing a Pictish barbarian talking like an Indian in a 1930s western ("Me have many babies with this woman! Me go now!"), poorly staged "battles" that looked more like a crowd of drunks lurching into each other, cheesy special effects, and some of the most brainless dialogue this side of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" combine to make this movie a laugh riot. The "acting" is at a junior-high school level, the photography is washed out, it appears to have been edited with a chainsaw--and they are just its =good= qualities. All in all, an experience to remember--if you can stay awake (I couldn't; I missed the last 20 minutes because this thing put me to sleep...).