Camelot | 
 enlarge | Director: Joshua Logan
Actors: Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, Franco Nero, David Hemmings, Lionel Jeffries
Studio: Warner
Category: Video
Buy Used: CDN$ 19.50
Used (2) from CDN$ 19.50
Rating:  46 reviews
Sales Rank: 4363
Format: Ntsc, Widescreen
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: G (General Audience)
Media: VHS Tape
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 4.2 x 1.1
ISBN: 630433186X
UPC: 085391223832
EAN: 9786304331866
ASIN: 630433186X
Theatrical Release Date: October 25, 1967
Release Date: May 6, 2003
Availability: Usually ships within 1 - 2 business days
Condition: TWO BUSINESS DAYS FOR DELIVERY OF THIS VIDEO ANYWHERE IN CANADA Warner Bros Classics No reference to widescreen Warner Bros. Classics 30th anniversary remastered version - Two tapes Feature 180 minutes Extras 47 minutes ISBN 0790728885 Added attractions before the movie The story of Camelot Documentary - After the movie theatrical trailers and special premiere Documentary footage Video delivery usually no more than two (2) business days in Canada. Fastest Delivery within Canada because Video and seller located in Canada.
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
From Amazon.com
Joshua Logan's 1967 film of the hit Broadway musical about the love triangle between King Arthur (Richard Harris), Guenevere (Vanessa Redgrave), and Sir Lancelot (Franco Nero) is strong on star emphasis and weak on such fundamentals as story and sets. Except for a handful of solidly dramatic scenes--such as Guenevere grieving, late in the film, for the ruination she and Lancelot have caused--there's not a lot to get excited about. (The story's theme of a lost, great society, however, certainly struck a chord in the 1960s.) The Lerner-Loewe songs ("If Ever I Would Leave You," "Camelot") pretty much sell themselves, even if they are, at best, only proficiently performed in this movie. The special-edition DVD release has a widescreen presentation, two documentaries, Dolby sound, an alternate music-only track, and optional English, French, and Spanish subtitles. --Tom Keogh
|
| Customer Reviews:
 'Twas beauty killed the dream of Camelot June 18, 2006
Daniel Jolley (Shelby, North Carolina USA)
With its lavish sets, beautiful music, and undeniable star quality, Camelot is a wonderful motion picture built upon the successful Lerner-Loewe Broadway musical, which in turn was based on T.H. White's The Once and Future King. It is in no way a definitive account of King Arthur's story, as it concentrates on the fateful lovers' triangle of Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. I probably have a different take on the legendary romance of Arthur's two closest companions than most, for I look upon this story not as a love story at all, but as a true tragedy. Franco Nero is wonderful as Lancelot (despite the fact that Nero is Italian, not French), and Vanessa Redgrave makes for a most enchanting Queen Guinevere, but my opinion of these illicit lovers is set in stone and could hardly be pulled out even by the likes of Arthur. To me, Lancelot is one of the biggest cads in literature. Granted, he had no intention of falling in love with Guinevere, but his actions made a mockery of all his numerous, rather obnoxious claims to purity, nobility, and chivalry. Chivalry does not start by betraying your king and closest friend to engage in an adulterous affair that could not but lead to disastrous consequences on an epic scale. This just goes to show how one lone Frenchman can bring about the ruin of the noblest of kingdoms.
I initially had a little trouble with Richard Harris as King Arthur, as he certainly doesn't conform to my image of the legendary hero (my King Arthur, for example, doesn't wear copious amounts of eye shadow), but his nobility and sense of purpose soon won me over. Still, I'm not overly fond of the film's characterization of the man, for it creates for us the image of a weak, ineffective ruler who shames himself over his unfaithful wife and basically allows his kingdom to fall into ruin all around him. I don't see many glimpses of "the future king" in this movie. It would not be right for me to describe this as a fault with the film, however; it's just part of the filmmakers' designs, as their intention was to show us Arthur the man rather than the mythic Arthur of legend. This version of King Arthur is exceedingly human, and that makes for some powerful scenes, particularly his passionate soliloquies as he ponders the loss of everything he cares about. One cannot help but despair alongside Arthur as Camelot begins to crumble, particularly since, in this version of the tale, Merlin never warned against marrying Guinevere. The one weak character in the film is Mordred (David Hemmings), who - despite his late-arrived scheming - seems almost tangential to the tragedy that unfolds.
While the film runs almost a full three hours, it never really succeeds in revealing the true magic of Camelot. The hopes and dreams of Arthur for his Round Table of noble knights dedicated to pursuing justice and right doesn't get enough emphasis, and his attempt to create a criminal justice system feels like little more than a plot device for Mordred to orchestrate his downfall. The loss of the Arthurian ideal is the true tragedy of this story, but too much of the film's emotion is dedicated to the illicit lovers, ignoring the fact that their sins would have basically pushed England into the Dark Ages.
It's a real shame that the musical has all but disappeared as a cinematic art form these days, as Camelot shows just how much depth and meaning an impassioned score and exquisite songs can add to a story. When you think of Camelot, you think of the characters and the story only after your mind replays such songs as the title theme and the award-winning love song If Ever I Would Leave You.
The DVD's special features are good but not great. Alongside comparably short descriptions of important Arthurian topics, short bios and filmographies of prominent players in the drama, and five different movie trailers, you get a 10-minute contemporary documentary about the filming of Camelot and a thirty-minute look at the movie's opening (with Vanessa Redgrave rather conspicuous in her absence).
 ugh!!!!! July 8, 2004
Nicholas A. Ziinojr (ridge, new york United States)
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
This is the worst movie musical ever made.It's hard to believe
that this piece of junk was made by the same producer who did
the magnificent "My Fair Lady".I've read that Jack Warner spent
$18 million on the production.Yes,it looks good.But the script
is terrible-not that the show was great,anyway.And the entire
cast overacts badly.One critic called it "an appalling film with
only good orchestrations to recommend it".Well,he's right.At
least Alfred Newman and Ken Darby did a great job with the score.
Their work makes the soundtrack listenable.Other than that,a poor
script,atrocious direction(Vincente Minnelli and George Cukor
weren't available???),and SEVERE MISCASTING add up to a complete
misfire.Forget it-listen to the soundtrack CD or the Broadway
cast album and watch "My Fair Lady " or "Gigi" instead.
AWFUL!!!! July 1, 2004
Stacie L. Nellor (California, USA)
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
Awful, awful, awful. Overacting run amok in a silly, unnecessary movie. The worst part was that it looked like a lot of effort went into this film and how horrible was the effort. What a waste of time. AWFUL.
 Legendary Musical Falls Flat June 29, 2004
This is a magnificent musical. It SHOULD HAVE been made with Julie Andrews, Richard Harris and Robert Goulet. Vanessa Redgrave looks wonderful, but her character seems depressed most of the time and the woman can't sing a note to save her life. Franco Nero was handsome, but looks Italian, not English... fortunately they found a very English voice to dub his songs. The other problem with this film, which bothered me when I first saw it was that it has the most cardboard looking stage sets for some scenes I have ever seen, and worse, the cameras move about exposing the painted backdrops even more. I do believe in the late 60s when this movie came out they had cameras that could be transported to real locations. My hope is that this beautiful musical will eventually be re-made with a SINGING cast using real outdoor locations.... please!!
misses by a mile April 29, 2004
Is it that eleven songs are two few for a three-hour movie musical or does this only seem so wordy because Richard Harris as King Arthur, mostly, and Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Guinevere, to a significant extent, talk their songs? Do they talk their songs because neither one can really sing? (Franco Nero, as Sir Lancelot, is dubbed-in.) Is it also because none of the three principals can really sing that they spend all their moments on screen furiously gesticulating, by way of compensation? (I remember thinking, "If Nero nods his head once more, I'm going to slap him." He was not deterred.) Regrave tries so very hard to look cute; Nero tries so very hard to look earnest; Harris seems to think he's acting a Shakespearian tragedy, bellowing banal bits of dialogue that can't bear the strain--as he hops about the stage. (He's wearing far too much eye make-up, by the way. He looks like a man in drag.) The singing is awful, and the acting is obnoxious and smarmy. Alan Jay Lerner's screenplay adaptation is riddled with holes. Director Joshua Logan thinks every other song needs to be adorned with MTV-like relentlessly spliced footage.See the play, listen to the Broadway cast album, or read the score. Just forget this movie.
|
|
|
