User Reviews

In his novel "The Lyre of Orpheus" the Canadian writer Robertson Davies made the point that although the Arthurian legend had played an immensely influential role in the history of English literature, there had never been a particularly distinguished dramatic treatment of the story, either in the theatre or in the cinema. (Davies discounts Purcell's opera on the grounds that its plot differs radically from what we have come to think of as the Arthurian story). And yet the story seems to offer great dramatic possibilities, both in its adventure elements and in the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle.

"Knights of the Round Table" was the second in an unofficial trilogy of films on a mediaeval theme made by producer Pandro S. Berman and director Richard Thorpe, all of which starred Robert Taylor. (The others in the trilogy, both based on the novels of Sir Walter Scott, were Ivanhoe and The Adventures of Quentin Durward). It is based upon Thomas Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur", although it makes some changes. The Quest for the Holy Grail plays a less important role in the film than in the book,   Elaine is Lancelot's wife rather than his lover, and their son Galahad, who plays a key role in the book, only appears as a baby. Apart from Lancelot and the villain Mordred (here referred to as "Modred"), the most prominent of the knights is Sir Percival, in this version Elaine's brother.

The film is ostensibly set in the Britain of the 5th or 6th century, after the end of the Roman occupation, but as is usual in films on this theme (the recent "King Arthur" being an exception) the costumes, armour and buildings are all based upon those of the High Middle Ages, that is to say of Malory's day rather than of Arthur's. Arthur's kingdom is always referred to as "England", even though the historic Arthur (assuming that he was a real person) would never have used this term. The Celts would always have referred to "Britain", the name "England" ("Land of the Angles") being used only by their Anglo-Saxon enemies.

The story begins with Britain in turmoil, divided among various warring overlords. Arthur, the illegitimate son of the former ruler Uther Pendragon, is able to unite the kingdom and, with the help of Lancelot and the wizard Merlin, to defeat his main challengers, his half-sister Morgan Le Fay and her son Modred. (Anne Crawford who plays Morgan was only eight years older than Stanley Baker, who plays her son. Presumably the explanation is that Morgan's enchantments have been able to preserve her youthful looks, and things could have been worse. The original choice for Modred was George Sanders, fourteen years older than Crawford). After his victory Arthur pardons Morgan and Modred, against Lancelot's advice, but they continue to plot against him, and see the growing attraction between Lancelot and Arthur's wife Guinevere as their chance to make trouble.

One of the problems with Arthurian films and plays is that the love- triangle is so central to the plot that it requires three high-quality performances if it is to succeed. Taylor here makes an attractively dashing Lancelot, although the film misses one of the key themes of Malory's work. In Malory Lancelot, an otherwise ideal knight, is morally compromised by his adulterous affair with Guinevere, but in this version their love is not physically consummated, possibly in order to keep the censors happy, and the result is that he seems a much less morally ambiguous figure. The film tries to contrast the "flawed" Lancelot with the idealised Percival, but Lancelot's flaws seemed to me very minor ones.

Arthur is another complex character, difficult to realise on screen, because he is on the one hand a powerful, heroic monarch and on the other someone compromised by his status as a cuckold. In mediaeval literature cuckolds were generally seen as weak, pitiable or ridiculous, like Alison's husband in Chaucer's "Miller's Tale". Probably the best screen Arthur I have seen was Sean Connery in "First Knight", but that film subtly altered the traditional tale by making Arthur much older than Guinevere or Lancelot. Here Arthur comes across as a forgettable nonentity when he should be at the film's centre, and this is due partly to the wooden acting of Mel Ferrer and partly to the sanitising of the Lancelot/Guinevere relationship which also removes much of the interest from Arthur's character. As for Ava Gardner, she certainly makes a lovely Guinevere, but she was capable of much better acting than this. (As, for example, in "The Barefoot Contessa" the following year). Baker is not bad as Modred, but I think that Sanders, who had been so effective as Brian de Bois-Guilbert in "Ivanhoe", would have been better.

The film is visually attractive, with much emphasis on pageantry and spectacle, but I did not enjoy it as much as "Ivanhoe". (I have never seen "Quentin Durward"). It is certainly better than the dull and turgid "King Arthur", but the problems with characterisation made me aware just why it can be so difficult to make an effective Arthurian drama and to understand what Robertson Davies may have meant by his dictum. 6/10

The Arthur legend gets a grand production here, good photography and rousing battle scenes. The leads kind of go through the motions in their roles though, some of the supporting players really carry this film.

Robert Taylor was never comfortable in those 'iron jockstrap' movies as he called them. But he was the most dutiful employee MGM had and like Errol Flynn with westerns, Taylor just went with the flow. Funny thing is Taylor much preferred doing westerns as he reached his forties.

Was there ever a more beautiful Guinevere than Ava Gardner? I sincerely doubt it. If she never spoke a line in the film, you know this is a woman for whom you toss convention out for. Ava was in the middle of her tempestuous marriage to Frank Sinatra at the time, so I'm sure she was preoccupied.

And next to Richard Burton on stage and Richard Harris on the screen Mel Ferrer looks positively colorless. Not the guy to command the loyalty the legendary king was supposed to do.

But I did like the performances of Felix Aylmer as Merlin, Anne Crawford as Morgan Le Fay and Stanley Baker as Mordred. Felix Aylmer was never bad in anything he ever did, always a figure of wisdom and dignity in any role. Morgan Le Fay is quite the schemer here and Anne Crawford brings her to life. Sadly Ms. Crawford died only two years later of leukemia at age 36. American audiences probably only know her for this film, but she's fantastic.

But the best performance in the film has to be Stanley Baker. He was a rugged tough man in every film he did, good guy or bad guy. His Mordred has depth and passion and he's unrelenting in his plans to topple Arthur and the Round Table.

If they gave Oscars out for performances by animals than Robert Taylor's horse Varick would have won it that year. Except for Roy Rogers's Trigger, I don't think we've ever had a smarter movie horse. He's obedient and well trained and knight's horse certainly had to be back in the day. And he saves Taylor's bacon on one occasion.

It's a good film, not the best from either of the stars, but I think you'll like it overall.

This MGM's first Cinemascope production from the company and producers (Pandro S Berman)that gave you ¨Quo Vadis¨ , ¨Ivanhoe¨ among others and only MGM could bring it so magnificently to the screen . The classic story of romantic adventure come to life enriched by Technicolor and with such great stars as Robert Taylor (Lanzarote) , Ava Gardner (Guinevere) , Mel Ferrer(Arthur) in the classic love triangle . Adding apparition the ¨Knights of the Round Table¨ as Percival (Woof) looking for the Holy Grail , Gaiwan( Robert Urqhuart) , the evil Modred (Stanley Baker) and Merlin (Felix Aylmer) and Morgana LeFay (Crawford) . This is an overwhelming tale with adventures , villainy , romance and heroism in the grandeur of Cinemascope although in television set loses splendor .

In spite of there aren't real documents about legendary feats of King Arthur , allegedly in VI century King of Bretons , were created on XII century some writings by French notorious authors who romanticized the legend as Chretien of Troyes and Thomas Malory that wrote the Bretons series with their knights looking for the Holy Grail . Besides , Godofredo of Mormouth publicized in 1136 the ¨History Regnum Britanniae¨ and in XX century John Steinbeck wrote about the events of King Arthur . The story concerns when the Romans had withdrawn Britain and the Roman Empire dissolved into chaos , then rules the king Arthur , he achieved to maintain the Christianity and civilization in the west of England , though no exactly congruent with the VI century , time was presumed to have lived but the film is developed in a high medieval panoply .

The movie displays breathtaking battles and epic confrontation with a terrific final climax for a mortal duel . The magnificent battle scenes are obviously copied from Henry V at Agincourt , brought to life a decade earlier by Laurence Olivier . Excellent production design , the castles , outdoors and tournaments or jousts are well staged . Luscious costumes and gowns specially suited by Ava Gardner . Colorful wide-screen cinematography by Freddie Young( David Lean's usual cameraman) . Spectacular , sensational musical score by the classic Miklos Rózsa . However this epic film never takes off as it should despite of pomp and circumstance showed . The motion picture is professionally directed by Richard Thorpe . Later on , other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur resulted to be : the musical ¨Camelot¨ (Joshua Logan), the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨ (John Boorman) and recently ¨King Arthur¨(Antoine Fuqua). The picture will appeal to aficionados with chivalric ideals and historic movies fans .

A movie filled with beautiful scenery, knights in armor, the clashing of swords, lovely damsels, and chivalry at its finest. Remind you of Camelot? It should. Adventure and romance are blended deftly in this fine retelling of Sir Thomas Malory's "Le Morte D'Arthur." Taylor (well-cast as Lancelot) also played the title role in "Ivanhoe", which was released a year earlier and also directed by Thorpe and scored by Rozsa. Thorpe does another excellent job as director here, and Rozsa contributes another nonpareil score that has forever marked him for the esteemed composer he is. Interestingly enough, Aylmer (who played Merlin) also played Issac of York opposite Taylor's "Ivanhoe." Not to be overlooked either are Gardner (never lovelier as Guinevere); Baker's perfect portrayal of the diabolical Mordred; and Crawford, whose chilling Morgan le Fay is very reminiscent of Milady de Winter of The Three Musketeers saga. Ferrer deserves kudos as well for bringing nobility and sensitivity to the role of Arthur. As mentioned before, the scenery is a real treat; when coupled with the music and the action, one may get the urge to strap on their armor and grab their sword! Everyone, from medieval history buffs to those who just love a good movie, should see this one. It has intrigue, adventure, and romance, but above all, it forever proves that chivalry is a virtue worth abiding by.

The legend of King Arthur has been told, and retold, by movie makers several times. This may have been one of the first tellings, using Technicolor coupled with Cinemascope and drawing heavily upon the pageantry of the days of chivalry and knighthood in England. The story is simple, relating the coming of the throne of his country by Arthur Pendragon, and his attempts to establish justice and peace in the war-torn, divided land he called England. His efforts are to no avail, as there is simply too much greed and distrust among the small kingdoms of the country to allow the rule of one person, but this film has some fun in the citing of the Arthurian legend.

The cast members for 1953 read like a star-studded list from MGM. Mel Ferrer portrays King Arthur, with the lovely Ava Gardner as his queen, Guinevere. Stanley Baker plays the villain in the piece, Mordred, a knight sworn to capture the throne for himself, even if it destroys the unity of England. Playing the role of the greatest knight member of the Round Table, Lancelot, was Robert Taylor, who seemed to relish the sense of justice, decency, and moral standards as no one else of the time seemed willing to do.

"Knights of the Round Table" is meant to be viewed as an enjoyable touch with the past and the days gone by. Worth a view or two.

This is another one of those lavish 1950s historical epics that achieves visual beauty and grand action but cannot muster up a bit of audience involvement. The tragedies of the Lancelot and Guinevere affair and Arthur's kingdom are lost in this bland re imagining.

The characters are thinly drawn and none of the actors emote even once. They all just read through the script flatly, not a shred of feeling to be found, Robert Taylor and Mel Ferrer being the worst offenders. The supporting actors steal the show.

Once again, the music, costumes, and sets are nice, but good production values cannot save a mediocre movie.

Sir Thomas Malory's traditional tales of King Arthur and Lancelot are made even more commercially palatable with this costumed version from the British arm of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The narrative has become so basic (and dull), presumably for mass consumption, that all we have left to respond to is the ornate production. Robert Taylor's Lancelot devotes himself to being Guinevere's champion (not that her husband--Mel Ferrer's vacuous King Arthur--would notice!), but Taylor seems to have wandered in from another picture; his diction is thudding and his hangdog face never brightens, not even in the presence of a ravishing Ava Gardner as Guinevere (who doesn't so much flirt with Lancelot as she does beam and glow with silent affection). The overlong film is a sumptuous spread, and there's plenty of action, but the episodes fail to come together as a whole and the sound recording (Oscar nominated!) is barely adequate. Consequently, the legendary characters rarely come to life. ** from ****

The setting and costumes are utterly ridiculous for the 5th century. Shields and other weaponry are so obviously out of time, they are laughable. Also, no England existed until hundreds of years later. Even in the early 50s they knew all of this, yet were giving the audience what popular culture required. Just accept this for what it is, try not to think about it too much, and enjoy it.

When I used to teach world history, I invariably got questions such as "When are we going to learn about King Arthur?"...and invariably I had to explain to my students that there was no Arthur...at least when it comes to history. And, because there are many different fictional accounts of Arthur and his reign, the studio had lots of room to craft whatever sort of story they wanted...provided, of course, they included the familiar Arthurian characters.

I have an odd confession. Although I love history and have enjoyed such films as "Ivanhoe", "The Vikings" and "Robin Hood", I am not a huge fan of medieval costume dramas. I find, generally, they are pretty dull affairs...with too much emphasis on costuming and stilted dialog. Heck, my favorite Arthurian film is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"! Keep this in mind as you read the rest of my review.

The film is the story of Sir Lancelot (Robert Taylor) and his career from joining King Arthur to saving Guinevere from captivity to marriage to betraying the king. It's all very familiar stuff if you are acquainted with the legends.

So is it any good? Yes and no. The costumes are nice and one of the horse battles is really nice. But it's also very cold and the dialog very dull and stilted....as I pretty much expected. I give it five stars simply because it looks nice....period.

Swordfighting and battle-scenes galore! This was the first armored knight movie that I saw as a child. Loved it and never forgot it. Great cast, very colorful and lots of action. Robert Taylor at his swashbuckling best all dressed in bright red as Sir Lancelot. Stanley Baker as the treacherous and dark villain, Modred. And of course, Mel Ferrer as noble King Arthur, with Ava Gardner as the beautiful and vunerable Queen Guinevere. What more could a kid want?

Knights of the Round Table is directed by Richard Thorpe and adapted to screenplay by Talbot Jennings, Noel Langley & Jan Lustig from the novel Le Morte d'Arthur written by Sir Thomas Malory. It stars Robert Taylor, Ava Gardner, Mel Ferrer, Stanley Baker, Anne Crawford and Felix Aylmer. Music is scored by Miklós Rózsa and cinematography by Stephen Dade and Freddie Young.

An interesting spin on the Arthurian legend for MGM, who film it in Cinemascope (first time for the studio) and dress it up grandly as the actors have a good old time in the days of yore. Here the romantic angle comes via Lancelot (Taylor) and Guinevere (Gardner) having lusty lustations for one and other that cause a tremble in the stability of Camelot. With Guinevere to marry King Arthur, and both she and the heroic Lancelot loyal to the King and his ideals for Camelot, it's not a real problem until the dastardly Modred (Baker) and the scheming Morgan le Fay (Crawford) start to throw spanners into the works that result in murder, suspicion and war.

It's all very fanciful stuff, full of derring-do machismo, but the action is well staged by Thorpe (cracking finale between good and evil), the outer location photography at Tintagel in Cornwall is most pleasing, Rózsa's score sweeps in and out of the well dressed sets and the cast do their director proud by not overdoing the material to hand. Yes it inevitably hasn't aged particularly well, and modern film fans may balk at the many passages of detailed chatter in the well developed script, but this comes from a grand old time in cinema. When production value meant hard graft in front of and behind the camera . Honour and integrity is not only big within the story itself, it's also themes that apply to the film makers as well. Hooray! 7.5/10

Hollywood takes a lot of liberties with science and history.

But come on.

Robert Taylor helps Arthur escape some adversaries by pushing over one of the pillars at Stonehenge (average weight 25 tonnes).

They all prance around in heavily plated knight's armor, which wasn't invented until several hundred years after the Legend of Arthur was birthed.

And on it goes, making American moviegoers dumber by the minute.

The photography is entirely inept. Half the time the lens captures more sky than men and horses, as if the camera operators were lying on the ground.

Not that there was much action to capture. The battle scenes are as lame as the medieval recreations they stage at your local country fair. I don't even know if this movie would excite your average D&D n3rdo.

Although Robert Taylor is top-lined alongside Ava Gardner in this MGM historical romp, he plays Lancelot, not Arthur. The King himself is played by Mel Ferrer with utmost seriousness. Despite a lot of bad reviews over the years, this movie from Richard Thorpe is actually quite enjoyable.

Taylor and Gardner (playing Guinevere, of course, and looking every inch the part) are particularly watchable, but there is sterling support from icy Brit Anne Crawford as Morgan Le Fay; Stanley Baker as Mo(r)dred; Felix Aylmer as Merlin; Maureen Swanson as Elaine (whose midsummer wish brings Lancelot into her life and into his first meeting with Arthur); and Niall McGinnis as the argumentative Green Knight.

Sumptuous colour and some exciting swordplay keep this film bumping along - just short of two hours and, if it veers away from the legend a bit, well, it is all in the spirit of 1950s cinema.

This movie is a camp classic: so appallingly written and acted that one is transfixed with ridiculousness. I'm sure it was great fun to parade around in these ludicrous clothes and say these lines. Complete with cartoon sets -- check out the Styrofoam Stonehenge! Even the horses are funny.

People think Monty Python was satire, but it was really straight documentary. The speaking parts artfully combine John Wayne swagger with cod-Shakespearean silliness. "That, Sir Knight, shall be mah playsher." Ava Gardner is radiant but talentless, and Robert Taylor, well, he's just talentless. I give it a six for entertainment value, but believe me, this is a terrible, terrible movie.

This approach to King Arthur's legend is pure adventure and color. It has good battle scenes, interesting sword duels, a good cast, acceptable settings and wide open outdoor shootings, elaborated costumes and armors (if you don't look for historical accuracy, since those full metal armors appeared about five centuries later), intrigue, romance and the classical final duel hero-villain; but some flaws too.

I think the picture is too long; in fact its start and ending have rhythm and are entertaining but it sort of bumps in the middle part and becomes kind of slow (a 10/15 minutes cut would have probably made it better). Lancelot's horse "Berick" is too smart even for a legend and somehow he saves the day at the end which is not very believable.

The cast is alright. Robert Taylor (Sir Lancelot) renders an acceptable performance as the loyal knight pretty much as he had done recently in "Ivanhoe" (1952). Mel Ferrer, if not brilliant, gives some dignity to his role as king Arthur. Ava Gardner shows her undeniable beauty as Queen Gwinevere who falls in love with the wrong man. Stanley Baker (Sir Mordred) plays a credible and treacherous villain. Felix Aylmer is there too as Merlin.

You could even say that "Knights of the Round Table" has aged rather well, but perhaps it has because later and even recent films on the same subject didn't come out well such us "First Knight" and "King Arthur" among others.

A quite theatrical rendering of the Camelot story, that grips over too much in just a normal-length feature film: The love triangle Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot of course, Mordred's upheaval, Merlin, Elaine and Galahad, the Holy Grail and even God's own voice (that sounded suspiciously American, to that! :-D ) One can also say a lot about other actors' pronounced American accents, and the masking is not very convincing at times (King Arthur and his beard is the worst).

There are also some discrepancies here from the original story, or maybe one should say - the most common story. For instance, in this movie Lancelot and Elaine were married, but in the common story they were not. They had Galahad together, but this was because Elaine tricked Lancelot to sleep with her - when he thought she was Guinevere. Also, Merlin was murdered in the movie, while in reality this was not possible - he was living "backwards", and had at the time of the love triangle become too young to be a court magician and counsellor anymore.

There is some fine dialogue, though, and something of Camelot is there in the spirit and adventure. If you like beautiful ladies in wonderful (stage) medieval dresses, handsome knights in shining armour, hearty sword fights, courtly behaviour, wonderful landscapes with mysterious old castles, etc. etc., everything in bright colouring - you will like this movie!

England is racked with war. Arthur Pendragon (Mel Ferrer) and his half-sister rival Morgan LeFay (Anne Crawford) are led by sorcerer Merlin to Excalibur, a sword stuck in a pedestal. Morgan's champion Modred (Stanley Baker) fails to pull it out but Arthur does it without effort. Morgan and his men stalk Arthur who is traveling to the Circle of Stones to claim his kingship and unite the warring tribes. French Knight Lancelot (Robert Taylor) is traveling to offer his services to Arthur. After defeating Modred, Arthur claims the kingdom. Later, Lancelot rescues Guinevere (Ava Gardner) who marries Arthur.

It's a marriage of the Arthurian legend with an old English production. The bright colors and the haughty acting reminds me of an even older era of cinema. The production is grand. This story skips along but moves along at a snail's pace. It is a grinding costume drama adventure where the great ingredients add up to less than the total.

Without a doubt, Richard Thorpe's "Knights of the Round Table is a fine movie. Well acted, impressive sets, and the perfect type of music.

Nonetheless, I did have to throw out lines from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" while watching it. I also referenced Disney's "Sword in the Stone", the musical "Camelot" and the Bugs Bunny short "Knighty Knight Bugs". During the dance when Lancelot requested gay music, I blurted out "YMCA or Macho Man?" I am definitely the sort of person who feels the need to riff historical epics MST3K-style.

Anyway, you're sure to enjoy it if you're into these kinds of movies. Among the uncredited cast members were Desmond Llewellyn (Q in the original James Bond movies) as a herald and Patricia Owens (the wife in "The Fly") as Lady Vivien.

Reasonably enjoyable swashbuckler which however fails to hit the heights of the genre, due, if anything, to a lack of real star-power in the lead roles. An attempt to cash in on Robert Taylor's previous success in "Ivanhoe" and shot on location in and around Britain, it never feels large-scale enough to convince that it's dealing with something as important as the power-struggle to rule a country.

The location work is impressive enough and provides variety in avoiding the more usual back-projections or set-bound stagings of similar films, but too often the big fight scenes just look like a modern-day recreation of battle, with lots of ardent amateurs dressed up in period clothes hitting each other with fake weaponry. In addition, there just aren't enough of them either, the fate of the nation apparently being contested by armies in the dozens rather than what should have been a more realistically pitched hundreds or thousands.

The episodic story is engaging, taking in the requisite aspects of chivalry, courage and romance, although despite figuring prominently in the first half of the feature, the character of Merlin displays precisely no powers of magic or even intrigue, instead being reduced to a sort of elderly statesman and adviser to the king, lessening his impact considerably.

As King Arthur, Mel Ferrer is pretty wooden and Robert Taylor, in the central role of Launcelot, does appear too old for the part and acts pretty one-dimensionally throughout, likewise Ava Gardner as the weakening Queen Guinnivere. Better is Staney Baker as the treacherous Mordred but his character could have been given more prominence, I felt.

On the whole, the film was entertaining enough but fails to achieve the top rank of Hollywood period action-romances, for which it too strenuously strives.

This is a fine example of '50's style epics. Big name cast, colorful costumes,flashy swordplay, beautiful damsels and wild inaccuracies. The great Robert Taylor, who starred in several historical movies, is the honorable Sir Lancelot, a far more noble and pure portrayal than was recorded in all the legends, Ava Gardner is the stunningly beautiful Queen Guinevere, the ever dependable Felix Aylmer is the mysterious Merlin, Mel Ferer is a somewhat subdued and less than charismatic King Arthur. See it for the spectacle, costumes, word-play filled dialog and over the top Stanley Baker as Sir Mordred. Lancelot's joust with Niall Mac Ginnis is very well done. 8 stars for pure eye filling entertainment value.

I am not a big fan of Robert Taylor, but I am a big aficionado of the Arthurian legend. So I just had to satisfy my curiosity about this film. Well, my feelings about Robert Taylor should have prevailed.

I find it difficult to believe that the producers and director of this film were not unaware of the quality of film that they were creating as they created it. It's as if all the actors' queues were edited into the film. Perhaps I'm used to more modern techniques in choreography of sword play. The battle scenes were just one big melee of chaos.

Mel Ferrer, Stanley Baker and Ava Gardner are all great actors. It must of torn their hearts out to do this abomination. Fortunately for Ms. Gardner, she was in Italy filming "Barefoot Contessa" when this catastrophe was released.

One wonders "Does the director actually review the filming before it is edited?" How could Thorpe let something like this get by? He was a veteran director of over 160 previous films. Perhaps he never adjusted to modern filming technology. It seems like this film was shot in the days of silent films and then colorized and sound added. There has to be some explanation.

Very weak, populist, adaptation of the famous tale. Plot is full of holes and doesn't follow King Arthur legend very closely. Not at all gritty, concentrating more on contrived, unconvincing sword- fight sequences and flowery, empty language than on any substance. So devoid of any substance, if it was made in the 2000s it would have been directed by Michael Bay!

Acting is incredibly unconvincing. Think John Wayne trying to do Shakespeare. Shallow, hammy, machismo actors reciting lines they hardly understand.

Even the presence of the stunningly beautiful Ava Gardner can't save this.

If want to see a good adaptation of the King Arthur legend, see Excalibur (1981) instead.