AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Lollivan 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.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

velvetturd Not knowing anything about this film before viewing, I thought it was a comedy because the opening pillaging sequences and sword play reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.As the film progressed, I realized Bresson was serious. This film is a huge departure from Pick Pocket, A Man Escaped, and Balthazar etc etc. It's far from perfect. This film had the worst sound design and cinematography in any film I've seen and I've sat through Andy Warhol art house.I honestly think people who praise this film do it out of respect for Bresson's reputation. If he had not made those masterpieces, people would more readily scoff at this film like Tommy Wiseau's The Room. From the poorly lit cinematography, to the bad construction of a scene, it does not redeem itself but for a line or two of good dialogue in the whole movie.One example is a sequence where the knights run in one direction, Gawain is killed, and then they run in another direction. We can't really make out what is going on except for the tin-can sound they used to represent the clunking of their armor. This sound is drastically annoying and devastatingly takes you out of every scene.Another example, are the crappy jousting scenes shot from a dwarf's perspective (you can only see the sequence from the horse's chest and below). I got the gag about the "footfalls," but that doesn't mean it makes shooting the jousting sequences badly acceptable. I don't care if Bresson meant it to be a tongue in cheek, it didn't come across very well.Perhaps Bresson didn't know how to shoot action sequences? I remember in the film A Man Escaped, Bresson chose not to show the audience how Fontaine killed the Nazi guard. What stood out was how awkward the character of Fontaine looked right as he was making his attack. It was really fake looking, but because Bresson cut away, I forgave this mistake due to how moving the rest of the film was.As usual Bresson chose actors with no experience. In this case, I think it backfired. One example is the silly scene where Lancelot is in bed and the old woman is trying to convince him not to go. His expression was comical for all the wrong reasons. This isn't the only scene where I'm completely underwhelmed. And it's not because it's supposed to be an art house film that I feel this way. It's because it was a bad film. It was badly acted/structured. The chess pieces Mordred was moving around were more interesting to look at than the actors themselves - I've never seen such tiny pawns on a chess board in my life.All joking aside, I can only assume this film has good standing because people are afraid to admit Bresson made a bad film. Or they can't see how bad the acting is because they don't understand French - I'm only guessing of course.It's OK if it's a bad film. Even Kubrick made Fear and Desire - but in Kubrick's defense, that was his first feature film. I wish I could blame it on Bresson's age, but Akira Kurosawa made great films like Ran and Dreams as he was advancing in years.How did Bresson lose touch and somehow get critical praise and an award at Cannes for this film?Well he doesn't get this reviewers praises. If we call this a masterpiece, we may as well call Argento's Dracula a masterpiece as well. Whereas Python achieved greatness by not taking the Arthurian legend too seriously, I feel Bresson achieved greatness in this film due to his reputation alone. What a lucky guy.

hackberry1 Truly one of the most inadvertently funny movies I have ever seen. Opens with way too many nearly identical scenes of knights in full plate armor galloping toward each other in the forest and knocking each other off their horses.Back at the castle, the knights are shown lounging around, eating, and engaging in conspiratorial whisperings--while still in full armor! Even the love scenes! All dialogue is in that French monotone barely above a whisper, whether declaring passionate love or discussing the weather, that seems to be meant to represent nothing more than the profound sensitivity of French culture.Unlike some Americans, I don't hate the French--their culture and outlook are a bright spot in our lockstep world--but the pomposity and self-importance of this movie are over the top.

MartinHafer I noticed by the other reviews that there are other Monty Python and the Holy Grail fans out there. That's because in the first minutes of the movie, there are three fights that look VERY VERY reminiscent of the Black Knight scene from Monty Python. Considering that Monty Python came out one year later, I wonder if maybe they were inspired by the these incredibly stupid scenes from Lancelot of the Lake. In this opening montage, one obviously fake guy gets his head sliced off--complete with Monty Python-style blood. Then, one guy is stabbed (but it's obvious that the blood is not coming from the wound but pouring out of the trick sword). And finally, a guy has his head smashed in--complete with GALLONS of fake blood. These silly scenes already had me hating the film. In Monty Python, it was comedy and meant to be way over-the-top, but Bresson's film is meant to be a drama and the scenes are just shabby and inappropriate.But, then the movie shifts from lots of action to STATIC scenes where they talked and talked and talked and I became completely bored. Along the way, I noticed that the print on the DVD was very poor--all washed out and cheap looking. Considering this is the DVD, I doubt there is a better version available. But considering how uninspired and dull this is, I really wouldn't bother looking for a different print.

druben2 A director that intentionally drains all the emotion and any interpersonal energies from his characters must have a point, but I can't get it. It does not increase the mythic quality that Pasolini was able to capture, nor does it provide us with abstract ideas and messages that are somehow universal. This movie is just plain silly. The gore at the beginning without faces or personality and the very unrealistic constant clinking of the men never taking off their armor suggests that the whole "message" here is about the ridiculousness of war. It certainly is not a love story. Why then does the plot revolve so much around the dry and empty encounters between Guinevere and Lancelot? Everyone is insignificant and vacant. Why would Bresson possibly believe the audience would want to sit through such pointlessness? This is almost the polar opposite of "Diary of a Country Priest," which was deeply compassionate and expressive.