WOW! - Camelot (1967) Discussion

[–] Doctor_Mabuse 19 years ago

I agree; it's glorious. Along with My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music, Camelot is one of my favorite film versions of a Broadway musical from its era, and forever my favorite Arthurian movie. I love the cast and everything about it. I think a certain evil little paperback book is accountable for too much of the film's negative reputation.

Doctor_Mabuse

reply

[–] moviebuf-11 19 years ago

Camelot is one of my favorites, too. What is the "certain evil little paperback book" that you refer to?

reply

[–] tlavs 19 years ago

I believe the reference is to "The once and future king" by TH White (which, btw, is by no means 'little'). I don't agree though that it is responsible for any negative reputation. It is wickedly charming.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2374) 2 years ago

A great book which should be filmed in its four parts.

reply

[–] viggolicious_x 19 years ago

I totally agree. This movie was horrible!! I couldn't stand it at all!

reply

[–] littlelotte25 19 years ago

uh, viggolicious x, who are you agreeing with that this movie is horrible? So far, it looks like everybody on this post loved this movie. I know that I certainly did. Although, I must say that I prefer Richard Burtons Arthur slightly to Richard Harris (although R.H. was simply brilliant as well) And I prefer Julie Andrews as Guenivere about 100 times to Vanessa Redgraves. But again, that is just my opinion. I would love to see a broadway revival of this great musical!

"Dare you trust the music of the night?"

reply

[–] matthew101junk 19 years ago

I think the "evil little paperback book" that was referred to for the film's bad reputation is Leonard Maltin's book of capsule film reviews, in which CAMELOT gets a one-and-a-half star rating (out of four) and is called an "appalling adaptation" of the Broadway play. Personally, I think that rating is completely unfair.

reply

[–] kaitieeve85 18 years ago

this movie is hands down one of my favorites. I get so wrapped up in the story. IMO it's a great film adaptation, I don't understand the ratings...

white, snow, a ghost!!!

But why is the rum gone?

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Julie andrews was terrible. Vanessa Redgrave is and will always be the best Guenevere. Julie andrews is not a great actress. She won the Oscar for Mary Poppins because she wasn't in My Fair Lady. The only one she deserved was The Sound Of Music. Also, she can't get past the musical and the cutsy Disney movies. She'll never be able to take on a dramatic role and be successful. Also, she was a fad. If you notice, she had three good years then flops. She's bounced back with the Princess Diaries, but how many people without children can honestly say, "I love that movie" or "I've seen that movie" Julie only had three good years and then the world tired of seeing her until Victor/Victoria, then it once again grew tired of her. Vanessa is the best and no one can dispute that statement. Also, Lenorad Maltin (I don't care if I spelled his name right. He doesn't deserve it) said that Vanessa was a charming Guenevere in another book. It's also on this website in VR's bio. He obviously can't make up his mind on the film. Plus, Vanessa saved the movie from its boredom and the album is one of the top 100 best selling albums of the 60's. Julie's camelot didn't even make it. Also, VR'S Camelot sold more than The Sound Of Music and Mary Poppins (Which are Julie Andrews only records. She has My Fair Lady for the 50's). So, the public does favor the film version more than the stage. Also, this site has had numerous postings on who was better and Ms. Redgrave beats Ms. Andrews every time. Now singing everyone says that Julie is better, in voice, but with the material most of them say that Vanessa did better.

reply

[–] littlelotte25 18 years ago

Vanessa is the best and no one can dispute that statement.

I can and will.
It may be your opinion that Vanessa is better than Julie but I know many people who would disagree, myself included. First off have you seen Julie Andrews perform the role? I'm guessing not she was actually quite a charming Guinivere and in act II when the show took a dramatic turn, it was clear that she could act dramaticly as well. Second of all, like it or not, Camelot is a musical and thus requires actors that can sing their way out of a cardboard box (Redgrave cannot) I'm not putting down Redgrave as an actress. By in large she is a wonderful actress and I've enjoyed alot of her work but she simply wasn't convincing as Guinevere for me. Anyway, lets just leave it at we disagree, we both have differing opinions and thats perfectly fine.

"Hard as lightning, soft as candle light...dare you trust the music of the night?"

reply

[–] joe40291 18 years ago

I'll go one step futher. Vanessa is THE BEST! Why I respect your opinion, I have facts that back up mine. More reviewers and viewers have commented that Redgrave is the Best and also I did see Julie. I liked her, but thought she was too sweet to have an affair. Also, she sings the songs so plainly that I can't really enjoy them. Vanessa, who has a lovely singing voice, isn't the worlds greatest singer, but she does well with what she has. Also, Julie's record of Camelot was not a success. Vanessa's was. It stayed on the Billboard charts for 87 weeks and is one of the top bestselling albums of the sixties, beating out Julie's The Sound Of Music and Mary Poppins.

reply

[–] tms1983 18 years ago

Now that I never knew!

"Snozberries? Who ever heard of a snozberry?"

reply

[–] BoomShakaLocke 18 years ago

It stayed on the Billboard charts for 87 weeks and is one of the top bestselling albums of the sixties, beating out Julie's The Sound Of Music and Mary Poppins.

Maybe the reason you don't know it is because it isn't true.

From "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Albums" (1995 ed):

Date Released: 12/23/1967
Highest Position on the charts: 11
Weeks on the chart: 23

The Original Broadway Soundtrack (Andrews)--listed under "Original Casts", faired much better:

Date Released: 1/23/1961
Highest Position on the charts: 1 (it spent 6 weeks there)
Weeks on the chart: 151

Under the "Top Albums By Decade" (1960's) Section neither "Camelot" is listed. "The Sound of Music" (4) and "Mary Poppins" (7) are. "West Side Story" was #1.

"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise!" (Sophocles)

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Maybe is you stopped trying to beat me with an outdated book and look at the latest edition, you'd see that Camelot did do as I say. Honestly, I don't have to make up information. Top albums of the 60's 2003 edition is what you need to find. They did list the albums that just missed the cut and the OBC was one of them.

reply

[–] BoomShakaLocke 18 years ago

Outdated? Hmmm...

How does staying on the Top 40 charts for 151 weeks in the 1960's change from edition to edition? Do they deduct a few weeks each year?

Tell me (since I was a DJ), what happened to those 151 weeks? Is someone playing with time?

Regardless of what edition I quote, if it's time on the Top 40 has passed, its passed. It's 151 vs. 11. That's it. If the film soundtrack languished around after that for a total of 87 weeks, that is nothing to squawk about compared to 151 in the Top 40 (six of weeks, again, in the #1 slot). ALL of this cannot be changed since it happened in the 60's. One-time #1 albums that have spent weeks and months on the charts do not lose that time between 1995 and 2003.

"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise!" (Sophocles)

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Don't blaim me, blaim the charts. I'm just stating what is fact. I happen to own the OBC so I'm not putting it down. It just didn't last. Get the book and see for yourself.

reply

[–] BoomShakaLocke 18 years ago

You've repeatedly banged the drum over the the soundtrack's 87 weeks (not on the Top 40--there is a difference, you know), vs OBC's 151 weeks on the Top 40. You cannot change what happened back in the 1960's.

Randomly flipping through the same book, are you going to tell me that Journey's "Infinity", released 3/25/78, staying on the Top 40 charts for 13 weeks, with the highest position of #21, is not not true anymore because...? We deduct weeks over the years? Because someone likes Rush better?

None of these albums--OBC, the film soundtrack, or "Infinity", ever found their way back onto the Top 40 since their respective releases. Their positions on this chart remains unchanged. They earned them, that is it, for better or worse.

"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise!" (Sophocles)

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

My book listed the records that MADE the most money. Not the ones that stayed on the billboards. Just get my book. I found a copy at Barnes and Noble.

reply

[–] littlelotte25 18 years ago

I too have facts to back my opinion. By the by, where and when did you see Andrew's perform? First of all (and most obviously)is that although I will restate that Vanessa is a wonderful actress, she can't sing to save her life. The part of Guinivere was clearly written for a soprano and Vanessa... well...isn't, if we dared to categorize her voice she would most cetainly be considored an alto. That fact alone, to me totally blows away any hope that she had of playing the role with any amount of charm. Part of the charm of Camelot is the wonderful sweeping melodies and she just couldn't carry off any of the songs. Julie, like it or not, is one of the most beloved musical personalities of all times and one cannot deney that she CAN sing. And as for this:
"Julie's record of Camelot was not a successVanessa's was. It stayed on the Billboard charts for 87 weeks and is one of the top bestselling albums of the sixties."
Source please??? I have never heard that and frankly I find it a little hard to believe because I can find the Original Broadway cast at any major CD store in my area but can't for the life of me find the movie soundtrack. Anyway, just my two cents, please don't get offended.

"Hard as lightning, soft as candle light...dare you trust the music of the night?"

reply

[–] tms1983 18 years ago

Really? I always come across both when browsing through the show CD's.

"Snozberries? Who ever heard of a snozberry?"

reply

[–] littlelotte25 18 years ago

I live in the Seattle area and for the life of me can't find the movie soundtrack but the OBC is everywhere.

"Hard as lightning, soft as candle light...dare you trust the music of the night?"

reply

[–] vanilla-ice 18 years ago

Really. Every Cd rack I go to has either both or just the film. If you went to a bookstore and looked in the music section, you'd find some books that read "Best selling albums of" and they go through the 50's to the 90's. Also, what you gave was not a fact. Other than the one that Julie is a great singer. Vanessa has a beautiful voice and frankly Julie would have ruined the dramatic feel and simplicity of the film. Who wants to see Guenevere bursting out the songs as if she were Mary Poppins or Maria? Frankly, Julie would not have been a good choice and many of the critics said that Vanessa was the better improvement over the stage musical. Also, Vanessa is a better actress than Julie. Julie has only won her awards (and been nominated) for musicals. While Vanessa has accomplished every genere (Except Western. Although Cowboys for Christ sounds like it would be one). Also, I was 12 when I saw Julie
and it was in 1961 in New York. When did you see her? Look, you can say Vanessa can't sing to save her life all you want, but the truth of the matter is that the critics loved her and Camelot was a success because of her and Julie lost out to it because Joshua Logan said she was ugly. That's true as well. Also, Vanessa's Camelot was the 9th top grossing film of 1967. And Vanessa has six top 10 grossing films. Julie has four. Also Vanessa has won 1 oscar (out of 6) 2 emmy's (out of 6) 2 Golden Globes (out of 13) 1 Venice Film festival, 1 Screen Actors Guild, 2 London Evening Standard Awards, 2 Laurence Olivier awards, 3 London Critics Circle awards, 2 Cannes, and 1 Tony. Vanessa is also one of 12 actors to have won the triple crown (Oscar, Tony, Emmy) Julie isn't on that list. Also, I'm going to say something really cruel but it is true, Vanessa can sing better than Julie now! I'm sorry Julie if you read this, but I just have to say that.

reply

[–] mit800 18 years ago

The fact is CAMELOT was a bomb. It never made back it`s costs. It also helped to kill the musical film (along with Dr. Doolittle and Hello Dolly) There is no way that the soundtrack album sold more than The Sound of Music or Mary Poppins. Those two albums were the biggest selling soundtracks of the sixties. The sound of Music was still in theatres when Camelot came and went. Josh Logan was one of the worst musical film directors of all time. Evidenced by this numbing bore and the near ruin of South Pacific.

Redgrave is a great actress and I too have enjoyed her in several films (JULIA being one of my favorites) but even she couldn`t save this mess of a production.

Awards are, for the most part, meaningless to the general public. Oh, there fun to watch on tv but forgotten soon after. Julie Andrews is and has remained a star for 50 years where most of the public wouldn`t know Vanessa Redgrave from Lynn Redgrave. THE SOUND OF MUSIC and MARY POPPINS are still huge sellers on DVD (MARY POPPINS having the record of being the only DVD never to be out of print)Both having just had their 40th anniversarry double discs released.
Where`s Camelot? Who Cares!! It was too dull to stand the test of time.

reply

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

With the way this thread is going, apparently a lot of people still care about Camelot. The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins are more popular because they are family movies. Camelot is more adult (it's about an adulterous queen, for heaven sakes!), which is why Julie Andrews was never right for it. I have seen her perform a few of the songs from the old clips of the Ed Sullivan show and she seemed to be in another musical, singing "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" as if she were doing "Just a Spoonful of Sugar."

I always enjoy watching Julie in her films, even in the out and out bombs Darling Lili and Star! Camelot was never in that category (nor was Hello, Dolly!). Everyone just expected every musical to make as much as The Sound of Music did just in the same way everyone now expects every disaster flick to make as much as Titanic.

Had Julie starred in Camelot, it would have been a bomb as she would have looked just as ridiculous as she did in Darling Lili.

reply

[–] tms1983 18 years ago

Agreed!

TMS (who enjoys the film version of CAMELOT, but can never find enough time to watch all of it!)

"Snozberries? Who ever heard of a snozberry?"

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

aS i PREVIOUSLY STATED ABOUT THE RECORDS, THEY ARE ALL TRUE. THE TOP THREE SOUNDTRACKS OF THE SIXTIES WERE WEST SIDE STORY, ROMEO AND JULIET (1968) AND CAMELOT. Also Mary Poppins is not the only movie to not be out of print. Actually, Camelot came out on DVD in 1997 for its 30 anniversary while Mary has just come out for its 40th. Also, I do enjoy Julie, but Vanessa did a better job with the songs. I'm not saying Julie can't sing, I'm just saying that Vanessa gave the songs life and feeling whereas Julie's were just songs to be sung.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tms1983 18 years ago

I have to agree with vanessaredgraveever on this one. Although I enjoy Julie's performances on the original Broadway cast recording, I have a hard time picturing Julie as Queen Guenevere. Her performance is just too sweet and sugary--too "Julie Andrews," if you will. Although not a great singer, I find Redgrave's peformance to fit the character better dramatically. And, 9 times out of 10, I usually find myself listening to the film soundtrack versus the OBC album.

"Snozberries? Who ever heard of a snozberry?"

reply

[–] BachOmega 14 years ago

I wish someone had recorded more than just video of the musical numbers in the Broadway version of "Camelot." Then we could've seen how Julie Andrews pulled off the "adultery" aspect. Perhaps seeing that might shut up the more ardent Julie Andrews haters on this site. How can anyone hate Julie Andrews?! (unless they're so ignorant to judge someone's ENTIRE career on just two movies- "Mary Poppins" and "The Sound of Music.")

Look, the lady CAN sing, dance, and ACT. Ever seen "Hawaii" (1966) where she's the internally-conflicted wife of a mentally abusive missionary? "The Americanization of Emily" (1964)? Perhaps the bitchy Gertrude Lawrence in "Star!" (1968)? These were even before the 1970s-1980s conscious push away from the "musical comedy" image, such as "S.O.B." and "10."

I'm not going to bash Vanessa Redgrave. She's a wonderful actress. And I don't feel the need to bash someone in order to praise somebody else.

reply

[–] starline 14 years ago

But Julie Andrews was NOT in this movie...and Vanessa Redgrave was. So why would Camelot film fans wanna talk about Julie? Maybe the Julie fans would be happy talking about her on a movie page that she was actually In.

reply

[–] BachOmega 14 years ago

I suppose because IMDB has become "the place to go" for discussing things in specific settings, and there's no page here to talk about the OBC. There is an Internet Broadway Database, but there's no discussion boards there for each play. Just a theory.

reply

[–] lardurrell 18 years ago

I'm not agree with you. While I love both actress and Vanessa is perfect for the role, I think Julie is a gret actress too. See her in "Hawaii", "Star!" and "Victor/Victoria". She's superb in three!!!

reply

[–] ROXPURPLE 18 years ago

Not to knock anyone's opinion here, but who's seen the actual play? Not the revival version, but the one with the original book? Because a lot of it is not really like this movie. I would just like to know who has and who has not, so you can try to make a better judgement. I have seen this movie, a revival of the play with the original book, and have been in my school production, so I think I have the right to say the following, for just myself:

This movie got rid of a lot of good things, like the fantasy element of the piece. It looks great though.

This work, in any form, is too long. And Act 2 is better.

I think if you combined attributes of the stage leads with the film leads, THEN you would get a defintive feel their characters, but only then.

Franco Nero has some CRAPASS dubbing. I can't watch him in this movie.

Even the original stage book could use some changes.

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

I'm so glad that you've come around. I've been posting this same comment over and over and people just can't face it! It's usually the fans of Julie Andrews that can't face the fact. They think, "Oh she can sing and got praise, therefore should have been in the film." Without thinking, "Oh, wait! The film is a drama which Ms. Andrews was never accepted with and Vanessa Redgrave was praised and nominated as well. In fact, the reviewers said she was the best change from the Broadway play! Go figure." My grandmother saw the original production and said that she didn't like it as much as the movie. She said it was a good play, but she preferred the film. And Yes, Franco was terrible! I've also been in and produced the stage version of this play so I know how long it is. I also know a friend who teaches theater at another school and after they had finished, all the students were commenting on how the film was much better than their play. They said, and I quote, "The movie was awesome!" This is a group of children between the ages of 16-18. Also, not every musical will be liked. There are the favorites: West Side Story, The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady and Camelot (I know I left out alot), and then there are people who can't stand the favorites and love the lesser sung plays: Guys and Dolls, Sweet Charity, The Music Man. My theater teacher, back in the day, hated all the popular musicals listed above, except My Fair Lady, and she loved The Music Man. She wouldn't do a production of any of those plays. So it's basically a matter of opinion.

reply

[–] WorkingTiles 18 years ago

Julie Andrews is Mary Poppins, end of! yea she was gd in other things but Vanessa kicked her ass in Camelot.

reply

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Really? Did you see Julie Andrews in "Camelot" or are you just popping off?

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Julie's was comedy. in Look magazine, Logan said that he wanted people who weren't known for singing. He didn't want some broadway star belting out the songs. He said that he did see Julie Andrew's Guenevere several times and she was just to fake for his taste. After watching Morgan! he knew who to get.

reply

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Great casting decision. Almost as brilliant as Franco Nero.

reply

[–] mit800 18 years ago

What a smart man. Making a musical with non-singers. That must be why this was such a HUGE hit with audiences.

Jack Warner should have been tipped off right there. He should have fired Logan before he made this mess. Richard Burton was one of the biggest stars in the world at the time. Julie Andrews was THE biggest star in the world at the time. They had made the show a tremendous hit on B`way and still Logan turned to Harris and Redgrave. It took all three of them to make a hit into a turkey. Another bad choice for Redgrave. Harris only well known role until finally getting Harry Potter (although he had TARZAN and ORCA for a more dubious claim to fame)

I know, I know, it was a comedy on stage and a drama on film. Well, that`s Lerner and Loewes mistake. It worked on stage and they tried to change it for film and it became a disaster. Logan, Regrave, Harris, Lerner and Loewe. All that talent and this is what they came up with. Slow as molasses and tone deaf to boot. Sad.

PS: please don`t bring up the phoney numbers and try to make it into a hit.

"It made money worldwide and that made it a hit"

"The soundtrack was one of the biggest seller of the 60`s bigger than Sound of Music and the Beatles".

"critics said Regrave was a great improvement over Julie Andrews"

Those claims have been proven bogus time and time again. This was a FAILURE financially and artistically. Deal with it.

reply

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Warner should have been tipped off after what Logan did to R & H's "South Pacific" nine years earlier. First Mitzi Gaynor, John Kerr, and color filters; then Vanessa Redgrave, Franco Nero, Richard Harris prancing about in his eye makeup, and a dark, brooding "Camelot."

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louis-king 18 years ago

One of my pet peeves is Hollywood casting non-singers in musicals. Logan cast that Italian acting powerhouse Rosanno Brazzi to play Frenchman Emile Debeque in "South Pacific". Since Brazzi singing voice had to be dubbed, I assume he was cast either for his acting ability or his marqee value.

Franco Nero (the Italian Marlon Brando) was cast as the french Lancelot in "Camelot". Since his singing voice was dubbed as well, Logan must have been impressed by Nero's acting.

It's stupid to cast non-singers in a musical, particularly where the songs are melodic and well-known. Why on earth would you cast non-singers in the movie when the stage version had been done with magnificent singers? Robert Goulet's stage version of "If Ever I Would Leave You" is the gold standard and has never been done better. Why wasn't he cast as Lancelot?

Julie Andrew's had already proved herself on stage in "Camelot" and "My Fair Lady" and in the movies in "Mary Poppins" and "Sound of Music". Vanessa Redgrave played the part well, but she just can't sing.

Would you cast a fat man to play an athlete? Would you cast stutterers in a Shakespeare play? With so many people on Broadway and Hollywood who can sing, why hire someone who can't, and then go to the trouble of dubbing the singing?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

It all depends.

Generally, I would prefer that quality singers AND actors be given the singing parts in musicals ("Oklahoma!" and "Carousel," e.g.). But I cannot fault the casting of Deborah Kerr in "The King and I," Nancy Kwan in "Flower Drum Song," and Natalie Wood in "West Side Story," all of whose voices were dubbed. And sometimes a fine singer is just not a very good actor (Mitzi Gaynor in "South Pacific," e.g.). But it makes no sense to cast someone who can NEITHER sing nor act (Franco Nero in "Camelot," John Kerr in "South Pacific").

reply

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

I was watching a program on TMC about Angela Lansbury and she said that Logan was a brilliant musical director. I was like, "Angela, have you seen what he's done to great musicals?" Oh, well. That's her opinion.

reply

[–] LionHearted99 18 years ago

The more I watch this movie the more I love it. True, Vanessa is not a singer...but she is more multi-dimensional than Julie. It's hard to not like Burton's Arthur...but somehow Richard Harris is more human...if not humane. The sets and costumes are very indicative of the northern Medieval/Renaissance styles...and don't forget...this movie was made during the 60's counter culture "revolution"...and I think some of it spilled over into this movie. About the only role casting disaster I can see is Lancelot. Franco just does not pull it off.

LionHearted

reply

[–] analog16 18 years ago

The movie would have been boring with Julie. Burton is a great actor, but he could have also bored me to death as Arthur. His singing was dull. As for Franco, he had chemistry with his leading lady. Enough said.

reply

[–] mit800 17 years ago

Oh yes! Julie Andrews and Richard Burton would have been soooo boring. What with being able to act AND sing that would have put audiences to sleep so much faster than Harris and Redgraves over emoting and tone deafness (that only caused audiences to stay away in droves). You know just like they stayed away from THE SOUND OF MUSIC or WHO`S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLFE.

Franco may have had chemistry with Redgrave but-unfortunately- it all took place off screen.

reply

[–] Louisville88 17 years ago

I'm not trying to start up the flames of who would ahve done better, but Julie did turn down Camelot.

Second, Richard would have been boring IMHO, Julie would have been miscast since Guenevere was changed in personality. Yes, JULIE would have brought in more people raising it's 15 million U.S. gross to possibly 10 million plus. Burton was never really a box office star until Liz came into his life and they made history.

Yeah, Franco was DULL! Also, we're dealing with Logan who said he likes to make musicals that focus on a story, not on songs. Go figure.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chris-inobsession 17 years ago

Completely agree, just the right balence of good times and bad, with harris portraying the betrayed king to utter perfection. May this film and its performances live on

Pefection in darkness

reply

[–] LeiaKat 17 years ago

I'm wondering if others saw the same movie I did, this version was AWFUL! Redgrave is a wonderful actress, but was very flat in this role. Harris was ridiculous, only Nero seemed to understand singing. They also cut out Nimue completely and Mordred's song, which are some of the best parts. Good singers are needed, because....it is a musical. I have the original album (record) from the show, and it really made me sad to see this version. Now I know why many of my fellow musical people have never insisted I watch this version. A beautiful musical made dull.

Stop Genocide NOW

reply

[–] chris-inobsession 17 years ago

Harris cirtainly sung better than burton if thats what you're trying to say, at least there was emotion in it. Nero was dubbed as well btw

Perfection in darkness

reply

[–] LeiaKat 17 years ago

Have you heard Burton sing? He certainly is the more talented of the two. Harris's talking style just fell flat. Musical's are about singing, so when you cast people with little musical talent you ruin the flow of the movie.

Stop Genocide NOW

reply

[–] chris-inobsession 17 years ago

Well thats fine, but i personally see harris as far better. He also played the more insecure king who wasn't born to greatness but had it thrust upon him like in the tales. Burton just played it very big and kingly, very hard to feel sorry for his character in comparison

Perfection in darkness

reply

[–] LeiaKat 17 years ago

I saw Harris myself as too insecure...not an Arthur that men would want to follow. I thought Burton had more of a balance. But, it is all opinion.

Stop Genocide NOW

reply

[–] Louisville88 17 years ago

Redgrave was perfect, even if her singing isn't. Which I felt she owned the songs more than Julie who sang them as if she were randomly asked one day. No feeling. Redgrave made me laugh and cry by the honesty of her voice.

reply

[–] chris-inobsession 17 years ago

Leiakat

Perhaps, yea it is of course all opinion. I just liked the way that harris's arthur really didnt want to be king, until he realised that he could do good for the country staying so, Burtons was just a bit too macho etc for me, didnt seem like this business would phase such a man, when half the story is the emotional impact that leaves arthur devistated and without a clue what to do

Perfection in darkness

reply

[–] starline 14 years ago

I agree... :)

I think it's Great too! I love the cast ...the set...the costumes...and the music. It's perfect!

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 8 years ago

classic tunes, indeed. 🎶

The food I've liked in my time is American country cookin'-Colonel Sanders 🇺🇸

reply