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.

Osmosis Iron This is a fantastic adaptation of the King Arthur legends. Being a musical it focuses more on the tragic love between Lancelot and Guenevere/Philosophy of the Knights and isn't heavy on magic. It has gorgeous sets and is overall beautiful. The songs can be sometimes cheesy and even silly like in any musical, but it all kind of fits. It's also funny like the scene where Arthur tries to explain Civil Law to Pellinore, and dramatically powerful when Arthur monologues to Excalibur.. Richard Harris is absolutely fantastic as Arthur!

jc-osms I found this big-budget movie transfer of the Lerner-Louwe musical about the court of King Arthur and the courtship of Lady Guinnivere to be a slightly uneasy mix of the dramatic and the musical. I found myself enjoying both aspects individually but in the final analysis, not together. In the end, the dramatic side of the equation seems to get bigger play, particularly the last half-hour where nary a song is heard, as the climax of the dastard / bastard Mordred's plot against Arthur unfolds using as its fulcrum the ill-fated romance of the Queen with Arthur's champion knight, Sir Lancelot.I'm a big fan of Richard Harris, the singer as well as the actor and felt he carried the film well. I like his emotive singing voice and he acts the King's mood-swings with assured-ness and charisma. He frequently comes across as the boy-king who never quite grew up as witness the irreverent way he almost never sits properly on his throne and his frequent callings out to his childhood mentor Merlin and his eventual commune with his younger self in a dream sequence at the height, or depth, of his marital difficulties. I don't quite see Vanessa Redgrave as being quite beauteous enough to attract the attention of the two great knights she bewitches plus I found her performance somewhat skittish and girlish. Franco Nero as third-wheel Lancelot didn't fit my imagined appearance of the great knight with his mop of curly hair and youthful, clean-shaven appearance but improves as the movie goes on as his beloved king's reluctant love-rival.The sub-plot of Arthur's establishment of the code of chivalry and the introduction of a legal system throughout his kingdom is used and abused by the scheming Mordred, played with conniving cunning by David Hemmings to trap his father between the proverbial rock and a hard place, the film ending inconclusively on that point although the doomed king has the satisfaction of learning, in the character of his youthful fan and protégé, young Tom, that his royal legacy will endure down the ages.Director Joshua Moore certainly allows the stories the time to develop, like many other big musicals of the time, it has a long, probably overlong running time. I did however find the awkward lip-synching to the music by the singers to be off-putting and perhaps through being unfamiliar with the score of this particular musical, wasn't really swept away by the music either. The settings (especially the recreation of the castle and the celebrated Round Table) and costumes are fine and there were some imaginative scenes (Arthur's dream sequence in particular) but as stated earlier, I found the songs tended to hold up and indeed rather let down the drama somewhat.Now considered one of the last of the old-time big-budget musicals, "Camelot" seems to be somewhat anachronistic, released as it was in the late 60's as film-goer tastes changed, "The Sound Of Music" having caught that movement's last wave but it is nevertheless worth watching at the very least for Harris's multi-layered portrayal of King Arthur, even if it won't have you humming many of the tunes after it finishes.

verna-a This was by far my favourite film of my teenage years - ah the romance! On seeing it again, regrettably on a small screen, I still find it engrossing and moving. When you have three acting leads with such wonderful faces as Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Harris, and Franco Nero, how can a film go far wrong? Add to that beautiful settings and costuming and a classic story, and the (mostly) memorable songs are a bonus. Sure the singing is not great, and some of the staging lacks the sophistication of modern films, but it's a truly atmospheric film which frequently reaches the "wow" level. I was rapt in the looks of Redgrave and Nero at the time, but on revisiting it I have to acknowledge the effectiveness of Richard Harris's Irish charm in holding the story together. There is a balance of idealism and fatalism in the story which is quite haunting. Truly unforgettable.