Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Eric266 I'm an unabashed lover of anything about King Arthur. Even the bad movies (like the recent King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) provide something new to the myth. I'm also a lover of musicals and if the spirit and energy are there, I can excuse most badly acted movie musicals.Camelot left me feeling...meh. Richard Harris was so lifeless as Arthur he looked asleep. Vanessa Redgrave had her moments, as when she sang "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" but she seemed disinterested most of the time as well. Franco Nero gives a rousing performance as Lancelot du Lac. He was the only cast member who seemed to really be trying to earn his pay, although a good director would have reigned him in a bit as he was close to going over the top. The plot meandered and it felt like a highlight film of King Arthur rather than a streamlined story. The musical numbers were badly directed and performed. I also could not get over Arthur calling Guenevere "Ginny". I've never heard or read anywhere that he called her that. It came across a anachronistic and a bit too hippie for my taste (it was 1967 after all). I hope the original Broadway version was better.I still enjoyed the film, but as I'd heard so much about it over the years, I guess I was expecting more.

TownRootGuy Redgrave does a fine job but her character is despicable from start to finish so it's hard to say much good about her performance because she sells it so well. Nero is much the same, Lancelot goes from unlikable to dastardly. Both have great and very telling songs, though. In addition, Lancelot has a scene where he speaks to what it's like to be a fanatic that is incredibly succinct and yet profound. As for Harris, well, he's never been more engaging. You can't help but like and feel for Arthur. But can he sing? I've always thought so and so did many others when his pop song, "MacArthur Park", went to #2 in the US. This has an outstanding cast, fantastic tunes AND the magic is in how funny someone's personal tragedy can be. The music, Harris' charisma and Lancelot's comments on fanaticism make this one of my favorite movies. I've been watching it for four decades and can still watch it every couple of years.

JLRVancouver The 1967 film version of Lerner and Loewe's famous Broadway musical about the legendary love triangle is a sumptuous blend of whimsy, catchy tunes, exuberant acting, and colourful sets. While the songs do not have the same uniform excellence as (IMO) West Side Story or The Sound of Music, most are catchy and infectious, especially 'show-stopper' ("If Ever I Would Leave You", 'sung' by Franco Nero (the original Django!!!)). The cast is very good but will always be overshadowed by a 'what if': what if the movie had included original Broadway leads (Richard Burton and Julie Andrews). Who knows… but Vanessa Redgrave and Richard Harris are fine as the queen and her cuckold and Franco Nero is excellent as Lancelot. David Hemmings was not a great Mordred and unfortunately the 'dark side' of the story had been pared down (Mordred and Morgan Le Fay are amongst the most interesting characters in the legend). Laurence Naismith's Merlyn was also quite good and his silver eyes a great effect. All in all, one of the great musicals of the '60s.

henrikibsen I don't wish to do the usual review of the movie as many do, but would rather then just repeat the story once again. I can not imagine for a moment 2/3's of the Broadway stars being in the role. Richard Burton is so opposite Richard Harris. Burton didn't have the unassuming side that Harris did, thus it is difficult to believe that despite the words he says and sings that he is at all surprised that he is king, where as Harris always seems in awe of all that has happened to him. When Julie Andrews played Guinevere granted she could sing, but not at all an actress I could accept, at that age, as having a physical relationship with Lancelot. And, the director, or she, saw fit not to put on a hair extension to allow her to have long hair. No woman in that day would have hair as short as hers other than Joan of Arc perhaps. Robert Goulet was the only actor that past muster and even his appearance was a bit too perfect, but his voice was amazing.Richard Harris had the vulnerability to be a realistic Arthur. Granted his singing isn't superb, but it also has the same vulnerability. Vanessa Redgrave was an amazing Guinevere and a far superior actress to Julie Andrews. The nuances of her acting are amazing. And, contrary to what most believe, she did sing the role. Finally, what Franco Nero lacked in singing ability, which was dubbed, he made up for in looks. At that age he was truly a beautiful man. He played the arrogant and humble sides of his role with finesse. Even today, in his 70s, he's a very good looking man.I would most certainly take the film actors over the stage ones anytime, but that is just my opinion.