dp-66183 Having just watched back-to-back two version of Gawain and the Green Knight, that of Stephen Weeks (1973) and that of David Rudkin/John Phillips (1991) it seemed like a good idea to write one review covering both. The difference is basic and simple: Rudkin's is a faithful and highly literate rendering of the text, while Weeks's is more of a fun romp based loosely on the same material. I find both equally enjoyable in their different ways, and can't understand the opprobrium heaped on the 1973 version. It's charming and delightful, with nice music and graphics, and features some great one-off (if over the top) performances from the likes of Nigel Green (who seemed born to play his namesake the Green Knight), Geoffrey Bayldon and Murray Melvin. Both benefit from some marvellous Welsh locations with which I am very familiar. Perhaps one of the greatest advantages I have in appreciating it is the fact that I'm probably the only person in the world who has never seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and has no intention of ever doing so. Rudkin's more earnest and serious screenplay, with its hypnotically alliterative iambs, has made me want to go back and reread the original.

hurst365 I vaguely remember this from being around 7 years old at the time. The combination of time since, my age at the time, seeing it in a strange old-fashioned cinema, having an inter- mission(!), and the weird and dark storyline, have kept me perplexed to this day – with weird flashbacks.I remember little detail I'm afraid, other than a general green tinge to the whole film and the Green Knight's head (I think), played by Nigel Green (born for the role, obviously), being lopped off by a sword in a finalé fight sequence. I think I was completely bamboozled by the whole affair, but not necessarily bored. If anything, I think it encouraged my liking of strange and weird films, and furthered my interest in the appearance of things – ending up as a graphic designer.I do remember Nigel Green though and think I was aware of him at the time, maybe having seen him in Jason and the Argonauts earlier (as Hercules). In spite of his theatrical larger-than- life acting style, I remember him being a gripping person to watch – at least as a kid. A shame it was his last film.I'd love to see again some day...

GatesofDelirium holy boogers... heehee that was good. for those who havent seen this movie yet, you should try your best to try and dig it up if you're in need of a laugh... I cant figure out if the movie was just soooo bad that its funny.. or if it was TRYING to make fun of itself... the movie was awful, the fight scenes are ghastly, the acting is terrible, and its all in all a bad flick, though ive never enjoyed such a bad flick this much. i was laughing my head off at it, I cant get enough of it, my friends and i have a bad movie night every once in awhile, we watched texas chainsaw masacre the next generation and this. we all laughed ourselves silly. you must see this flick!!! Cheers

piechart2000 I was about six when I saw this so forgive the vagueness. It's kind of Monty Python's Holy Grail in look with a Michael "couldn't-direct-traffic-on-the-Orkney-Islands" Winner directorial style. It was so deeply bizarre that it has stuck in the memory ever since. Thinking I perhaps didn't understand it because I was a kid I asked a couple of film boffins I know, they said, "no, mate, it was a genuinely odd film." (I seem to recollect lots of misty forests, dream-like fights and a man who lived in a vat of oil in order that his genitals erode away). Anyway, I think more youngsters should be made to watch this film so that they can grow up confused and slightly warped.