GurlyIamBeach
Instant Favorite.
Teringer
An Exercise In Nonsense
Odelecol
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
Rainey Dawn
Another good film surrounding the Arthurian Legend. This time the viking Prince Valiant of Scandia is the main focus. The young prince must restore his father back to his rightful throne in order to save his country by overthrowing the evil Pagan tyrant Sligon and restore the Christian faith to his native land. In order to do all that he must become one of the Knights of the Roundtable and uncover who the terrifying Black Knight really is.It's not an Epic film but right up there with the Epics of the time era. The film has a feeling of a grand scale & story. Set designs & costuming are up to standards along with the cinematography, choreography, stunts and acting. The film is vividly colorful with wonderful clear sound. It's a fun fantasy adventure film that lovers of the Arthurian Legend should easily enjoy.8.5/10
mike48128
It's not exactly Errol Flynn's classic "Robin Hood" but it's far better than the critics would have you believe. The sets are wonderful, and a majority of (at least the exteriors) were shot at real English-Scottish castles instead of matte paintings. Good stuntwork and a rousing musical score which even reminds me of "Robin Hood" in the way it punctuates the action scenes. The costume design is pretty good, but oh that bad hair! The "page boy" wigs that Robert Wagner (and the other squires) had to wear! Did they borrow them from Doris Day? The swords look a bit "flimsy" and oversized. The horns on the Vikings are wrong, but the pageantry is still all there. The jousting match is every bit as much fun as the tournament in "Robin Hood". Outstanding cinematography and luscious Technicolor. The story is relatively easy to follow, but as a kid, I couldn't understand the difference between the "bad" and "good" Vikings (which all looked the same). As always, it's the Heathens vs. the Christians, isn't it? The princesses are both gorgeous too. Love those push-up bras and their perfect wigs! Like "Robin Hood", there is a climactic "duel to the death" between good and evil. Some awkward dialog and unintentional accents, but I enjoy this film in spite of it's faults. One of the first films I ever saw on a "Really Big Screen" in the 1950's. It's a lot of fun-to-watch and doesn't drag on forever like most Medieval adventures. If you still don't like this movie, then consider that the lead of "Valiant" was first offered to Tony Curtis, who did "The Black Shield of Falworth" instead. The video transfer is disappointing. Weak colors (especially the blue skies), some replacement footage and "video shimmer". (Due to "MacroVision CP") Practically "blood-free" and therefore suitable for most audiences. Note: There was a bad remake in 1997, which was quickly forgotten.
kirbyskay2012
I watched this movie on the big screen when just 9 years old, a perfect age for the experience. Having avidly read Prince Valiant every Sunday in the newspaper comic section, just the thought of castles, kings, knights, and battles appealed to me very much at that age.Although this movie only follows the newspaper version in name and premise, it was still a nice treatise of the genre. The sets, costumes, hairstyles, props, and pageantry all bespeak the relative glamour of that era in history. The musical score is appropriate for the subject.The acting is a little corny, especially viewed 60 years following its original debut, but it is still a fun and action filled romp through the Medieval age, and is good, clean fun for the entire family.
bkoganbing
The biggest problem that Prince Valiant has is that it takes itself too seriously. It is still entertaining on many levels, but I wish it had been done in a lighter vein. A good example to follow would have been Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy had the studio been able to see into the future.The Arthurian legends place Camelot to be a generation or three after the fall of the Roman Empire. At that point Christianity was unheard of in Scandinavia where the Vikings were from. In fact Christianity was in heavy competition with the Druid religions of the ancient Britons. So the whole film has no basis in fact.I do have to say that the film made oodles of money for 20th Century Fox and gave Robert Wagner a career role that he would be identified with for the period of his bobby sox popularity. Wagner certainly had a good a group of supporting players as you could get to help this film. James Mason is a fabulous villain and his duel with Wagner is a classic. Brian Aherne would get to do King Arthur again in Cornel Wilde's Lancelot and Guinevere and he fits my conception of what the mature Arthur was like.One thing though. I have to believe that with Arthur's Excalibur and Valiant's singing sword sooner or later these guys would have tangled. Two magic swords in one kingdom, unheard of.
