RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

scott-dix Our family loves Sir Lancelot, and are sorry that there was not a season 2 made. We are pleasantly surprised by the color episodes in the 2nd half of the 1st and only season. My 6-yr old daughter loves these episodes. She takes sword and shield and gets her friends and infants to place the Caledon (Lancelot's horse), Brian (Lancelot's squire), King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. The episodes are fast-paced and open with a scene that usually immediately sets up the story. The story- lines are for the most part good for children. The humor is pleasant. When you watch them in close succession, its easy to pick up on the actors who play multiple people during the series, townspeople, villains, and friends. The theme song is wonderful. The main untenable thing in terms of story lines that stands out as totally untenable, is the fact that the other knights of the round table never want to fight. So, the task always falls to Sir Lancelot. A bygone era for TV series for sure. If you like these, you will also like Robin Hood, William Tell, and the Buccaneer.

ldaly-306-338804 The legends this series is based on have had many interpretations in book and film. So I can forgive the anachronisms in clothing styles and liberty taken with story lines – like the creative addition of Brian, which really made the show for me. I was enchanted by this TV series in 1956 when I was eight years old, and it enchanted me again when my husband gifted me the series on DVD for Christmas 2011. The pull of nostalgia on viewing the series from some fifty years distance is extremely compelling. My memories of the characters are sharper than my memories of other shows of this era. Even if other shows are considered better, this is the show struck a strong cord in my psyche. And why it did, I really don't know.What I do know is I now see in the show, 1950's values overlaying a medieval scenario inhabited by charming characters with engaging humor. This show may well have partially sparked the humor I put in my own writing. Also, it may have been the start of my public service ethic (seriously) and the choice of my first real employment as a teenager – swimming pool lifeguard, a protector role. It may be what underlies my twenty year service in the Coast Guard Auxiliary (civilian volunteer component of the Coast Guard) doing search and rescue on Lake Michigan.You see, I bought the ethics of knighthood as an eight year old child despite the show's 1950's attitude that it was a men's club only and my role as a female was to be abducted and then rescued. I ignored the gender issue and identified with Brian and his dream of joining a group of people dedicated to do good in the world. Perhaps his overcoming his own humble background which almost locked him out of the "nobles only club", encouraged me to overcome my "gender handicap" as many girl children of the 1950's eventually did through the women's movement of the 1960's and 1970's.Both Lancelot and Brian, for me, made this show. But they were well backed up with the silliness of Sir Kay whose buffoonery made me laugh, King Arthur who represented authority with dignity, and the Queen who represented how women should behave (except for me, of course). I realized on viewing the DVD episodes that I had accurately remembered the voice tones of both Brian and Lancelot over all these years: Lancelot's wavering laugh and Brian's soft and soothing voice.As an 8 year old, I liked their looks, but as a 64 year old, I realize what eye candy they both really were. If I had been a teenager when I first saw the show, I might have done one of two things: laughed it off as silly and not watched again after the first episode, or I might have developed a crush on either or both of these male actors and avidly mooned over the show each week. But discovering them as an 8 year old –I imprinted on them. That runs much deeper than a fleeting teenage obsession.So I may try to introduce this series to my seven-year-old granddaughter. Perhaps she is of the wrong generation to be enchanted by them. But little does she know that Grandma who pays for and drives her to her taekwon-do lessons, and is proud of her green belt and her 3rd place in a tournament, might be pushing the martial arts because half a century ago an enchanting TV show inspired Grandma and kick-started her imagination.

oxbridgeup There are many things historically wrong with this series; for starters, the longbow (think Robin Hood) didn't come into use until the 13th century or thereabouts, whilst it's generally conceded that if Arthur were a historical person, he lived about the 8th century. The costumes are all wrong --- again more close to those of Robin's time. Knights in armour didn't just "mount up"; they needed a hoist to get on a horse. The writings of Euclid were unknown to the Arthurian age; so Merlin's lever was an anachronism. In several scenes men remained seated when women (even the Queen) were standing -- definitely a no-no until the 20th century. There are other, lesser faults, but, in general, this was a Robin Hood setting with "men in armour" instead of tights.

bkoganbing I'm not sure who it was who said that the most important historical fact in the 20th century is that the UK and the USA spoke the same language, albeit very differently.As in our first full decade of television, in the fifties, the British went back to their past and crafted a nice series of adventure programs for the kids and occasionally the grownups. We in American had westerns, over in the UK I guess you could call them "medievalers."Although The Adventures of Robin Hood was the most popular, probably due to the presence of Richard Greene who had a good list of film credits and was popular here before, other shows got exposure in America at that time.The Sir Lancelot show was one of those. I had a play collection of knights at the time this came out. William Russell was a stalwart Sir Lancelot who did battle with all kinds of villainy for 30 minutes every week. I used to repeat those programs with my knights.It was good to see those shows then, it gave Americans a fine appreciation of British culture.