I think a lot of people will hate this movie, because there is no a boy-loves-girl-marry-have children-happy ending story... When I saw this movie, I thought it was an European movie, I couldn't believe it's an American one...

I remembered "American Psycho".

I think there's no "easy" movie to watch...

I was horrified because the violence is very real, I live in a country with a lot of drug problems, with about 16 dead people every day (men and women and children), so everything is possible... and even me was impressed!!

I think it's a great movie... a piece of art... fine art... a psycho-thriller...

In 50 or 60 years, when many of us were dead, someone will watch this movie and he will say: "IT'S WONDERFUL... WHY PEOPLE DIDN'T APPRECIATE IT?"


DO NOT READ this comment IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE>>>>>IT will spoil it for you

This Movie was very good for about the first hour and then the end was like OMG! It just went off and she was the bum that she had been seeing the entire movie , I absolutely hated the movie! How was the doctor the same nanny her husband was sleeping with? What was up with this Foreign Exchange Student with AIDS? Crazy MOVIE...

It was too many psychotic episodes! This lady had a serious mental condition that leaves you just as confused as she is. Not Scary Not Worth Your time

Next.......


WARNING! This comment may give away what happens in the film!! I might be a little confused right now. I didn't get this movie i guess. What was Danika's problem? Did she not have that family at all or did she simple kill them all to protect them from everything? Is the shrink the nanny or is it a new affair? Is she the one who killed their neighbors dog and the schoolteacher of just a freak of nature? Is Danika a victim of her own imagination or is she really mad? I couldn't move from the DVD the entire movie, i was so sucked into the story and wanted to get it but i realize now that i didn't so now there is a hundred thoughts in my head. But don't get me wrong now! I really liked the movie, it was made good but i hope someone can explain it to me more so i can really get it in my head! I gave it 8/10.


Marisa and Regina turn is great performances and the the writing itself makes this movie a winner. I was also impressed with Arials direction.

This movie is more of a Psycho thriller then a Hooror movie and I cant wait to see what Blue Omega has lined up in the future.

I would recommend this movie to anyone You will not be disappointed as it is a very good production and overall I give this Movie a 10 considering the budget was not that much and to pull off a masterpiece like this show you what good writing and directing can do for a film like this.

I cant say enough about how wild and mind teasing it truly is. I have already bought copies for all my family and friends.


After seeing the trailer for this, I was really excited to watch it. I got about 45 minutes into it when I realized that I had to go to work. I work at Blockbuster so I was telling everybody about this great movie coming out on Tuesday saying, "I'm only 45 minutes in but so far, it's really great!" Well, I finished it just now and I have to say, the ending wasn't all that great. I'm kind of upset because I really, REALLY liked the first hour but by the end, it was kind of mixed up and left me going, "I REALLY hope this isn't the end of the movie" and it was. Don't get me wrong, it's a "think about it after the movie is over" ending and I did but I really wish they would have ended it a bit better.

Great Story - Great Beginning - Great Middle - Okay End


This was one of the worst and stupidest movies I have ever watched. And completely sans any type of ending. Was not even worth $1 theater price or a free rental. Don't waste your time or money on it. This is sure to take Tomei's career right to the dumper. The special effects were atrocious. The plotlessness was magnificent, something a high school kid might have written. The only bright spot: Craig Bierko, who did a fine job on Boston Legal as Jeffrey Koho...don't blame HIM for this one. And what was the point of this anyway?? Real crazy people are far more interesting...and at least their lives are real. Who wrote this screenplay? And who paid to make this movie? Really sorry we bothered with it.


In the opening of the movie the main character thought she was in the middle of a bank robbery and her boss was murdered. All Danika could do was crawl on the floor in a separate room. While thought the robbery was really happening, the robbery was part of her imagination. It took quite a while for me to realize she had mental problem. How did the shrink turn out be be the person her husband was having an affair with? The ending of the movie did not make sense to me. What happen to her family? I noticed throughout the movie she would see the bag lady, but it turned out she was the bag lady. Was her husband really having an affair? Did her kids die in a car accident?


I've seen some bad movies. I've seen some great movies. This movie is neither. It's barely even a movie.

Maybe I should explain what I mean: Most films have a general sense of coherence. By that I mean, scene A points to scene B, scene C explains some aspect of scene A, and in one way or another most of the scenes relate to Theme X. In THIS film, however, the whole thing is all over the place. It's more like an algebra problem with seven unresolved variables.

The plot revolves around a character with obvious mental issues. I say issues because the whole film does nothing to explain exactly what is wrong with her. It simply goes to great lengths to let you know something is wrong with her head.

Apparently the filmmakers felt this gave them license to produce scene after scene of random, unrelated material with twisting camera angles and the characters moving from a somewhat solid, real atmosphere to a whirling dream world where everything spells disaster.

This happens for an hour and thirty-five minutes, roughly.

I would say it all culminates in a lackluster ending, but "culminate" is too strong a word. Really what happens is some crap happens, some people walk around, and the film reveals what the creators obviously thought to be some brilliant revelation about the main character. Unfortunately, Hitchcock these people are not.

I don't mind films that leave some material open to interpretation. What I do mind is a film that ends up being more like a Rorschach test than any kind of intelligent, coherent item of media.

Seriously. This sucks. I'm incredibly angry at my waste of money, and I only spent a dollar at Redbox.


Bad, acting, irritating neurotic and annoying main character, no redeeming features. This plot has no originality or purpose. It would make absolutely no difference whether the scenes were in any order, it would make the same amount of sense, being none whatsoever. The film is a meaningless void that will hopefully soon be forgotten. I find it had to believe that any positive comment is placed by a legitimate user. The high rating for this movie shows a problem with studios creating accounts to inflate the rating of movies. Even the lead is embarrassed about this string of seemingly random scenes and wanted nothing to do with the finished product. I want my money back.


I really liked it, scary and violent at the same time. But I have some goofs I would like to report, in the scene where she is putting her groceries away in the fridge, we see her pull out 1,2,3 vitamin waters and stick them all in the same place but when the camera backs up, there is only 2 vitamin waters. Another goof is when in her vision when she is the only one alive, she is driving home but in the background you see a gold car parked in the street. I recommend this movie to the people out there with an obsession to scary movies. It's one of those movies where, at the moment, it seems like a scary part, but it turns out being alright. It is rated R for drug use and language. It would definitely would not be smart to let any child under the age of 12 see this movie.


Before I saw this show, I was completely against anime. That's because most of the stuff that's popular is the wide-eyed mindless "I fell on you and accidentally touched your boob hehehe" or "Haha the stupid chick found porn under his bed" drama type stuff. However, this was completely different.

The greatest thing about Lupin is you get so much Lupin. You get this series, the first and third series if you can get ahold of them, a lot of movies (Though I only like a few), 2 manga series (One hasn't completely been out yet though, and there are others that haven't been released in English) as well as Lupin the first stuff (Novels from Maurice LeBlanc that Lupin III is based on, as well as movies based off those books, most being hard to get ahold of though), some people don't make their Lupin stuff very Lupin-ish though, so even if you don't really like what Lupin is, there still is probably something with the Lupin name you'll like.

Lupin III is about the greatest thief in the world and his two friends and partners, as well as a woman who he's gaga for that milks him for all he's worth. However, he also maintains a heart (and no, this isn't one of those drama-ey shows either) and does end up saving lives.

His main partner is Daisuke Jigen. He's the gunman. He never misses, and nobody drawns faster then him. He has a strong dislike for women, most likely because the women he falls in love with die or betray him.. Or both.

Then there's Goemon Ishikawa The Thirteenth. He's based off a real person of the same name. His sword can cut ANYTHING (except devil's tongue jelly, as I've heard), literally. The second he pushes up his sword, it's already over. He often complains on having to waste his sword cutting useless things.

Then there's Fujiko Mine, who's said to be based off various models from Playboy. She uses her sex appeal to get anything she wants from men, often betraying Lupin in the process. Of course, Lupin always forgives her, because he's crazy for her, but Jigen and Goemon knows she's more trouble then she's worth.

Lastly, Koichi Zenigata. Based off Heiji Zenigata, a fictional officer that defeated people just by flinging coins. Although, Zenigata isn't quite as skilled as him. Well, not with Lupin anyway. He's sharp, but often is the comedy relief character when it comes to Lupin. His whole life is chasing Lupin, and if Lupin died, his life would be worthless in his opinion.

However, Lupin's not your average thief. He's a gentleman thief. He always leaves notes saying when and what he's going to steal. He does this all with the understanding that he doesn't kill anyone, and the cop who's always after him doesn't kill him either. Lupin is so huge, that many, many, many things have also been made after him, and don't be surprised if you find many references to him in other shows, movies, etc.


More people telling me their favourite film, have named Excalibur, than have chosen any other film. People tend to feel strongly about this film. I can remember that when it came out, a film magazine reviewed it twice, feeling that it had to do so, since its two reviewers had such contrasting opinions. In short, people who don't adore it, tend to hate it.

Those who hate it have failed to understand something very important: that it is set in the land of dreams. Excalibur makes no attempt to be realistic. It is the film of a legend, and it tries to create a world of legend, and it succeeds. Once one has realised that this is not the real world, then the film is internally consistent and works splendidly. Merlin, towards the end of the film, even says the line "Your love brought me back to where you are: in the land of dreams." If anything, this makes the film even more tragic, because all of Arthur's sufferings have been not for his world, but for ours.

The Arthurian legend is probably the world's best legend. It has been told a thousand different ways, but is so strong, that no retelling can harm it. The story is familiar, but this telling of it is not. The screen starts blank, with the distant drums of Seigfried's Funeral March playing, and after a few captions, the curtain lifts to reveal a stunning opening sequence with horses breathing fire-lit breath into the night air, as Uther's men do battle with those of the Duke of Cornwall. The armour is dark, and greenish, and the movements slow, making this seem like a scene of battling dinosaurs. It is brutal and bloody. These are the dark ages. This is the time of chaos from which Arthur's kingdom must come. Into the scene, in a cloud of swirling fog, comes a figure who will be present throughout the film, ageless and mysterious, Nicol Williamson's Merlin, whose voice carries over the din.

I remember how suddenly I found myself immersed in this world when I first saw the film, and even now the hairs stand up on the back of my neck thinking about it. Allow yourself to become involved with the film, and you will be rewarded.

The costumes are magnificent. Special mention must go to the shining armour, and Morgana's (Helen Mirren) ever-increasingly impressive series of outfits. The music is stirring (it uses "O Fortuna" from Carima Burana before this had become a cliche). The acting is theatrical and good. Each of these characters is on a stage, to be examined. This is not a film of quiet intimate moments. It is a legend, and legends are public.

Excalibur distills the Arthurian legends into one film of watchable length very cleverly. At several points during it, a clever cut tells the viewer that several years have passed. Single characters represent many things. At one point Sir Percival represents all the questknights, at another Morgana is all that is evil. In telling the story quickly, the film uses simple direct speeches. In one scene, Arthur visits Guinevere, the woman he loved deeply, whom he hasn't seen for many years. He spends just a minute in her company and leaves, and yet the speech he delivers to her is so complete and so moving, that you do not feel robbed. He says his piece and leaves, needing to say no more.

It is true that the film has dated a little. Some of the hair-styles and special effects are not quite what they would be today, and the quality of the dubbing is not first-rate, but this is still stunning. Everything seems to have come together to help this film look and sound good. The skies over the castles are spectacular, the Irish landscape (it was shot there) looks the part. The visual imagination and daring to have Camelot as a castle literally made from silver, and to have Arthur's final battle fought in fog with a huge blood red sunset behind it, makes this a feast for the eye.

I am writing about one of my all-time favourite films. I cry every time I see the land burst into blossom as a reborn Arthur gallops through it, and I feel the heavy warmth of tragedy as he is carried off towards the sunset to the Isle of Avalon. I am spoiling nothing by telling you that Arthur dies in the end. Everyone knows that he dies in the end. The whole film is leading to that moment. When you reach the end of the film, ask yourself this: where did he go wrong? What was it he did to lose his wife, his son, his sister, his best friend, all his questknights, Merlin, his kingdom, his life - everything he held dear?

"The one god of the many comes to drive out the many gods. The spirits of wood and stone grow silent. It is a time for men and their ways." That's it.


At different times in his illustrious career, John Boorman has announced that his intention to make film versions of both The Lord Of The Rings, and Wagners "Ring" cycle.Like Scorsese's plans to do film biographies of Gershwin and Robert Johnson, or Coppola's plans to make versions of Faust and Pinocchio, these grandiose projects have come to nothing. Fortunately, in Excalibur, we have something that comes close..VERY close. Boorman retells the Arthur legend in a way that evokes both the mythic power of Tolkien and the operatic splendor of Wagner.. ( Indeed, the sound track makes frequent use of Wagner.)Some have criticized Boorman for making the story of King Arthur too sexy and violent. Well, in their original , unexpurgated form, the Arthurian legends were just that. Boorman also looks at the Druidic and pagan roots of the arthur story, (" The Land is the King."), and examines the inner conflict between Paganism and Christianity that gave the myth its original power. A great film, and one of my personal favorites. I have not seen Robert Bresson's version of the Arthur myth, Lancelot Du Lac, but I suspect that it may be the only other one by a major film-maker that comes close to the eerie, mythic, glorious heart of Arthurian legend.


This is certainly the best version of the Arthur legend there is. The worst thing about new versions of old British legends are the fact they are often made by and starring Americans, and they often don't even make an attempt at a English accent (First Knight, Prince of Thieves etc) and these make them seem really stupid.

Merlin was a decent enough series, but a little too kiddy and straying from the works of Mallory.

The acting is rock solid, the effects although poor (it's 1981, let's be fair) don't really matter since they aren't integral to the story. This is about a quest and magic and swords and knights, not about special effects.

I own it on video and watch it now and again, and I hope that if Boorman ever makes Knight's Castle that he brings back Nicol Williamson as Merlin, because he's just too good in that role (despite the fact he must be really getting on by now).

Watch the movie, enjoy the legend!


Along with Ken Russell, John Boorman can be seen as a key figure in the modern British cinema... His interest in myth, dream, landscape and memory may be compared with that of Resnais, Leone, and Roeg...

Boorman's 'Excalibur' is characterized by his use of jealousy and adultery, sex and sorcery... It is also characterized by fire and fog, shadow and moonlight, creating an air of mystery that is essential element in the Arthurian legend...

Boorman's 'Excalibur' is a mythical presentation leading the viewers to travel with the flow of the legend... It is a magical story with wonderful exotic sets, and interesting camera-work in the lush green scenery of Ireland... (The Cinematography won an Academy Award Nomination).

Boorman's "Excalibur" is both fantasy and philosophy... Love seems to be a destructive force, lyrically beautiful and bravely realistic...

The film brings to life the fateful story of a solitary hero, his ascension to the throne, the love triangle of Camelot, the quest for the Holy Grail, the decline and eventual fall of Arthur and Camelot... Along for the ride are his indispensable Knights of the Round Table, particularly Sir Lancelot...

The characters in Boorman's "Excalibur" are extremely well developed... Arthur is seen as a naive squire, who develops into an idealistic king... Arthur tries to use Might for the establishment of Right, and according to his own laws, he puts reason over love...

A prominent figure in the film is Merlin... He lives backwards, which makes him "a dream to some, a nightmare to others." He defines the cave of the dragon as a place where all things meet their opposite: "The future and the past, desire and regret, knowledge and oblivion". But when Morgana pronounces "love", one would expect Merlin to answer "hate", but he just says: "O yes."

Morgana knows that Uther and Merlin are responsible for the death of her father... She dedicates her life to revenge.. Her scenes with Merlin are full of fire and poison... When she steals the "charm of making" from Merlin, Morgana gets stronger... We feared her lines when she affirmed: "I can ease your loneliness."

Lancelot looks at himself as a sinful person who has betrayed a friend... He stays lonely in the forest, haunted by sorrow and pain... He dreams of a fight with himself... And when he wakes up naked, he sees his own sword stuck in his side... The film endures and inspires because it embodies mankind's deepest yearnings...

Among the many elements that make the movie work is the cast: Nigel Terry, the rightful King who, accidentally, removes the sword of power easily, not once, but twice; Helen Mirren, the enchantress Morgana, Merlin's nemesis and Arthur's treacherous half-sister, who seduces Merlin, and then encircles him in a stream of vengeance; Nicholas Clay, persuasively ardent and athletic as the First Knight; Cherie Lunghi, the damsel in distress who loves her husband with her mind and Lancelot with her heart; Nicol Williamson, the wily Merlin who would see that the young Arthur receive the necessary training and guidance to fulfill his unlikely destiny; Gabriel Byrne, the hot-blooded Uther Pendragon, who plunges 'Excalibur' deep into a stone rock in one last act of defiance; Katrine Boorman, the woman taken as by a fully armored King; Liam Neeson, the knight who dares to accuse the Queen; and Robert Addie, the 'unholy child' who comes to Camelot to demand the throne of his father...

One of the more fascinating aspects of the film (and there are many...) are the differences between Uther and Arthur... King Uther is unable to master his instincts... His world is confusion, disorder, and unlimited passion... The characteristic developments of Arthur occur as he faces the trials of his life... The knowledge of the affair yet his love for his beautiful wife and best friend wage war inside of his mind... When he sees Guinevere in the arms of Lancelot, he stuck 'Excalibur' between them loosing his connection to the extraordinary powers of Merlin and the Lady of the Lake...

John Boorman's films frequently concern contradictions and polarities, tensions between nature and civilization, dream and reality... Equally, his career as a whole swings violently between success and failure, intelligent ambition and pretentiousness...


Late in the film, King Arthur is about to fight his last battle against his estranged son Mordred. His kingdom of Camelot is falling. The knights of the Round Table are disbanding. Guinevere has entered a convent. In short, Arthur's world is collapsing. He rides to the nunnery to see Guinevere for the last time. And there, she produces the ancient timeless object hidden beneath some linen: the sword Excalibur, still gleaming, still magical, still potent to fight in the battle that Arthur cannot win. He sheathes Excalibur, and, in full knightly regalia rides with his remaining loyal knights through the English countryside, their pennants and banners flying in the wind. The fortissimo chorus of Carmina Burana accompanies their ride in perfect harmony, chanting the lyrics from the medieval poem "O Fortuna". This is the stuff of legend...

Artistic treatments of the Arthurian legends date back to illuminated codices from the Middle Ages. Thereafter the first, and one of the greatest, attempts to bring the stories into a novelistic form was written in the late 1400's by a knight, Sir Thomas Malory, entitled La Morte d'Arthur ("The Death of Arthur") which is probably the most famous work of English letters proceeding Chaucer but before Shakespeare. Even later renditions include T.H. White's "The Once and Future King". By the 20th century, theatrical adaptations began appearing as well, including "Knights of the Round Table" (1953), Disney's "The Sword in the Stone" (1963), and the musical "Camelot" by Lerner and Lowe which was possibly the most popular rendition of the story before "Excalibur". These last renditions, although they have their appeal, cannot measure up to the movie "Excalibur" which was largely based upon Malory's original tome.

Many here have detailed very well the merits of the film, and since most people know the story, I will keep this short. The reason why this is the best of the Arthurian-based films is its imagery and its dedication to the original Arthurian myths. The entire look of the film, which I have not seen in a movie since, reeks of Medieval Legend. The lush forests, the huge castles, and the glittering swords give a visual and dream-like reality. This is NOT how it was in the Middle Ages. This is how people in the Middle Ages would have liked it to have been, which is the entire point of the Arthurian myths. The filmmakers of Excalibur understood that myth is about dreams.

Several moments in the film are inspired directly from Malory and earlier Medieval codices. For example, several Medieval illuminated manuscripts feature the hand of the Lady of the Lake bestowing the sword Excalibur to Arthur. Strangely this episode, which becomes an important theme throughout Excalibur, is lacking from other theatrical versions and yet it is central to the original myth. Another is the strange rhetoric that Arthur and the land are one, and when Arthur becomes ill, the land of his kingdom becomes barren. This concept was a widely held belief in the Middle Ages: that the sovereign was essentially married to the kingdom.

Another aspect that makes this film outstanding is the portrayal of Merlin by Nicol Williamson. This was possibly the best Merlin ever to come to the large screen. Some of the most humorous moments of the film occur with Merlin. Instead of being the absent-minded wizard of "The Sword in the Stone", he is the last of the Druids, a race giving way to Medieval Christians. Worth the price of admission. It is sad that he obtained very little recognition for this portrayal.

The fact is, a viewer either experiences "aesthetic arrest" with Excalibur, or he or she doesn't. If the scenes when the knights go riding through countryside with their pennants flying behind them doesn't give you the shivers, this is not and will never be your kind of movie. If Malory had lived to see this film, he would have been awed and proud. Malory gave Arthur to the world, and Excalibur gave Arthur back to Malory.


Excalibur is a truly atmospheric film. It has the ability to take you back to the time it depicts, without using sentimentality or rose tinted spectacles. Having seen the film numerous times, I still get more out of it with every viewing. It certainly seemed to start many careers on the right path and many of the actors are very well known now. My only sadness is that Paul Geoffrey and Nigel Terry, two of the main character actors, seem not to have become such household names. They both stand out in the film and to my mind have made it what it is, brilliant. Great direction, production, photography and music. King Arthur himself would have been proud of it.


I have seen the movie Excalibur many times, and I believe it is an excellant movie. Many people say that it was cheezy looking (Yes, Excalibur the sword does get a tad flexible at points.) However, was not The Day the Earth Stood Still cheezy too, yet it is one of the greatest movies of all times, most people agree. And if anyone tries to down the movie by claiming it was not true to the legends, I have read many Arthurian texts, and the legend is not true to the legends. John Boorman picked through the haystack, and found his needle. Another excellant thing about this movie is for the most part, the acting is underscored. Not like in many modern movies, I believe Nicol Williamson, Helen Mirren, all the actors from the round table, and Mrs. Boorman did excellant jobs. The only complaints I had were so minor they practically do not exist. So go, see the movie, and be swept away.


John Boorman's semi-adaptation of La Morte D'Arthur may come as something of a surprise, albeit a pleasant one, as the usually glamorised and fanciful tale is furnished in grimly realistic fashion. The armour, weapons and castles all look very authentic, and indeed it is in the battle sequences that the film excels, especially due to the stirring music selected to accompany each pivotal scene.

Purists will doubtless find plenty to frown and tut' about, but doing justice to the Arthurian legends in film is a monumental task and Boorman delivers a true classic. Acting is fine, although dialogue is shouted more than spoke, and delivered with all the subtlety of a flanged mace. Nicol Williamson stands out in particular as the creepy Merlin, but it's fun to see Helen Mirren, Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson paving their ways to future stardom.

Of course, if the film has any reputation at all it is with its vicious battle scenes, which are still gory even today. They are, it has to be said, very welcome, because without the depictions of desperate, hand-to-hand battle, you might start comparing it with First Knight  which would be something close to sacrilege.

My older DVD copy looks fine but sounds a bit tinny, so it's with some annoyance I see there's a special edition out now, which presumably has had the full restoration work done on it. If you haven't seen Excalibur but have an interest in the subject (and hated First Knight), you should certainly give it a try.


Excalibur, Starring Nigel Terry, Nicol Williamson, Helen Mirren, Cheri Lunghi, Nicholas Clay, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Robert Addie, Katrine Boorman, Paul Geoffrey, Clive Swift Director John Boorman, 1981 Director John Boorman and screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg worked on adapting the centuries old Thomas Malory epic "Le Morte D'Arthur" into a stunning, intensely dramatic movie masterpiece the likes of which had never been seen before. This is, for me, the most definitive version of the Arthurian saga. There is so much to admire about this film and so much to analyze but for lack of time on IMDb I can only offer portions of my praise. Boorman masterfully captures the grandiosity as well as the humanity of the fantasy legend about a young innocent who draws a sword from a stone and inherits the right of kingship, establishes the beautiful city of Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table, who protect the innocent and rid the world of evil, and search endlessly for that most elusive religious artifact - the Holy Grail. First of all, we must look beyond the fantasy elements and the special effects which everyone enjoys - the magic sword Excalibur, itself a symbol of strength and kingship (in the film the Lady of the Lake who gives the sword to Arthur and who receives it again in the finale is played by one of Boorman's daughter Telsche Boorman), the elaborate details of the medieval, Celtic-Christian England from the clothing, to the fortresses, to the armor and weapons, and we must see into the heart of the long epic. First off, Nigel Terry and Nicol Williamson as Arthur and Merlin carry the movie. Their relationship as mentor and protégé has never been most wonderfully portrayed, their friendship as two men who try desperately to fulfill the ideals of brotherhood and who fail has never been more poignantly captured. The most moving part for me is still the climatic finale, in which, after the death of Arthur, and the world seems to have ended, Excalibur is brought back to the Lake and Three mysterious queens take Arthur away on a barge, all this while the dramatic music to Wagner's Siegfried's Funeral March blares triumphantly. Boorman used the music of Wagner's operas most effectively in the relevant spots in the film- the sensual Prelude to Tristan and Isolde plays as Lancelot and Guenevere have their tryst in the forest, the spiritual, ethereal strains of the Good Friday/Holy Grail music from Parsifal plays as Parsifal himself encounters the Holy Grail and Siegfried's Funeral March from Gotterdammerung opens and closes the film as both the Sword Theme and the tragic motif of Arthur's heroic death. The relationship between King Arthur, Queen Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) and Lancelot (Nick Clay) is also well-developed. For once, we realize how the Queen loved her husband as a king, but because he was so consumed by his duties, she could not love him as a husband. Instead, she finds romantic-sexual gratification in an affair with Lancelot. The Quest for the Holy Grail could have been further elaborated but this is a minor quibble. The film builds up to a fiery finale. The character of the wicked sorceress Morgana (Helen Mirren) is also a strong point, and one everyone misses. She was only a small child (played by Barbara Byrne) when she witnessed the rape of her mother Igrayne (played by Boormans' daughter Katrine) by Uther. This single moment of deception and witchcraft triggered her mistrust of all men and ruins her innocence. She becomes a corrupt, greedy, power-hungry witch who even manages to trap Merlin in an icy cave. Her vengeance against Arthur brings about the final destruction as her evil son Mordred and Arthur fight to their own deaths. Well-known British actors live up to their own possible Arthurian/Brittanic heritage. Patrick Stewart (Captain of the Enterprise on Star Trek) is doing a superb performance as is Liam Neeson even though their roles are minor as knights of the Table. Clive Swift, Sir Kay, is better known as a comic actor in the British series "Keeping Up Appearances" he plays Hyancinth's husband Richard. The look of the film is a tapestry of moods. Green is magic, silver-metallic is mankind's power, the forest is a place where Lancelo and Guenvere revel in their primitive essence. It's a world of dark and light, spring and winter, happiness and despair, illusion, but other than its good versus evil themes there are many layers. Humanity is flawed, the end of the world is coming, but the world may still be renewed again. There is no greater truth than this.


This is the only movie I know of to make the attempt to take the events of the Arthurian legend as seriously as possible, portraying them as realistically as possible, thereby making this the best film version of the legend to date. That's what is captivating about this movie. The events are approached with total emotional reality. The film creates a world in which these events really happen, there's no jarring pull back to reality while watching it. The special effects hold up fairly well because there isn't an over-reliance on them to begin with. Knowing that CGI techniques are so prevalent tends to make me hyper aware of them in movies that use them, creating friction that makes it harder to suspend my disbelief. I don't want to sit there spotting the special effects, I want to live in the film for the time I am watching it. Excalibur achieves this in spades. Excellent casting. Excellent acting, really appropriate and gorgeous costume design. One of my all time very best movies ever, especially viewed through the lens of Jungian psychology.


Most certainly among the best tellings of the timeless legend. It's visually stunning, with an undeniably grandiose and epic quality, no doubt fueled by the superb performances.

In fact, this is among the finest fantasy adventures created, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Conan the Barbarian and the Lord of the Rings (which was ironically what John Boorman initially intended to make). Some early and even a few debut performances grace the film, such as Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne, and Helen Mirren.

Some have argued that the full plate armor donned by the knights is not "historically accurate." Seeing as King Arthur is a legendary and/or mythical figure who may not have existed at all, this is not a terribly valid criticism. Furthermore, much of the myth surrounding King Arthur that many are familiar with comes from a work published in 1485 (Thomas Mallory's Le Mort D'Arthur), a time when armor design was at its zenith and plate armor was common amongst those who could afford it, i.e. knights and other nobility.

I really don't have much criticism. I was not in the least bothered by the depiction of Arthur and his knights in full plate armor when engaged in battle. But it was more than a bit silly to see everything else from feasting to sex also portrayed in full armor.

Such small issues did not detract from the splendor of the film. It is passionate, violent, with a mystical aura that enhanced the settings. Highly recommended.


Have seen this film quite a few times and never tire of it as it is a brilliant depiction of the Arthurian legend and Camelot. The sets were fantastic and WHAT a cast! I've seen a lot of films that involve knights on horseback and guys fighting each other with swords dressed in armor but this is the only one with hugely over the top acting and way too out of this world grossly exaggerated dialog. Merlin, played by Nichol Williamson is incredible in this and put in one hell of a performance, much to the surprise of the directors who, as rumor had it, wanted to recast him!! Patrick Stewart puts that booming voice of his to good use too on more than one occasion!! This is by far the best film made in Ireland in the '80s. It also covered the story of King Arthur better than any other film before or since.


This must be one of the best movies ever made. Boorman shows with this movie what a great director he is, and I can't wait to see his new movie with Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voigt. Boorman has an excelent eye for how to make art-work of a movie and Excalibur is no exception. He has put together some not-so-famous actors, and yet he managed to make them more trustworthy than most of the more famous actors. It is just sad that it doesn't seem to be Boorman who will be making the saga "Lord of the Rings" into an epic movie. My recommendation to all is: watch this movie and forget about the newly shot mini-tele movie with Sam Neill.


Having read "the knights of the round table" as a child, and "Le Morte D'Artur" in old English as an adult, I have always been profoundly touched by this story of rise, fall, love, hate, betrayal and hope. As a result, I have developed an intense dislike for most pathetic attempts to put this story on film.

Excalibur is the first, and so far, the only film, in my opinion, to come very close to the brass ring.

First some ranting.

The early film with Cornel Wilde was a swashbuckling story, no more.

The Disney cartoon "sword in the stone" was one of the first in a long series of extremely offensive attempts to take inspirational and tragic stories and turn them into something banal.(Anastasia, The hunch Back of Notre Dame to name a couple)

First knight was perfect for displaying Richard Geere's lack of talent, and wasting a perfectly good actor (Connery). This ranks up there with "Plan nine from outer space"

Excalibur has put faces to the characters I read about. It infused them with personalities, and gave them life beyond the pages.

I was transposed by Merlin's magic on the mountain top, awakening the dragon. I felt a strange elation when Arthur drew the sword, one of the most meaningful and defining moments in literary, and now movie, history. I trembled and rejoiced when Arthur handed Excalibur to Uriens and was knighted. And my eyes welled up with tears when the ship took his body away to Avalon

And the music... That glorious music, never intrusive, but always suggestive and underlining the drama subtly.

After seeing this movie, anyone hearing Carl Orff Carmina Burana's Deres Luna will forever associate it with courage, rebirth sacrifice and redemption.

Anyone seeing this movie will be moved to believing that one day Arthur may indeed return to redeem us all. It tells us that hope never dies.


There have been quite a number of comments here which either praise this movie to the heights (making it sound like the second coming of "Citizen Kane"), or note that it really, really sucks (making it the resurrected corpse of "Howard the Duck"). Variety, Extremes: Isn't that one of the things that makes us humans great?

I tend to take a more moderate position on this film, though far closer to the sugar end than the fuzzy end of the lolly-pop. This film has some wonderful things going for it: Some brilliant casting (Nicol Williamson is incredible--Helen Mirren terrific), great use of music (I don't care for Wagner, but his bombast is perfect for this movie. Carl Orff was a good choice as well), some beautiful cinematography and sets (some scenes almost take my breath away, like when The Sword is thrown into the water), imagination (I've never seen intercourse in full armor before), and a great story.

Unfortunately, it also has some bad casting (who in the world picked Cherie Lunghi to play Guenevere?--flower child as mythological queen? They could have done better by Lancelot as well), a few not so great lines, and, worst of all, the pacing is often too frenetic. If one is going to film the entire Arthurian legend, there is no way you can squeeze it into 2 hours and 20 minutes--not and have coherence. Some have said it was too LONG, and I can understand why they might come to that conclusion--so many scenes, so much plot thrown at us, that for some it must have had a dulling effect. The mind can only absorb so much in 2 & 1/3 hours. So cut it down so there isn't SO much to take in. Understandable, but the wrong remedy. It should have been extended by at least an hour, giving us more time to appreciate all the beauty, all the personalities (Merlin could have used more screen time, and some of the Knights could have stood further development), all the carnage, all the story in this film. Still, the good out weighs the bad by a considerable amount, imho. I can't help feeling disappointed, though. Just a few changes and we would be talking about the film in the same breath as "Casablanca," "Vertigo," or "The Third Man." Too bad. We could always use another masterpiece. [8.5 out of 10]


Patrick Stewart had a bit part in this movie, and Liam Neeson played Sir Gawain. I wondered while I was watching it if either of them ever regretted being in such a bad movie. Besides the acting, one of the worst things about this one was that all of the knights wore headbands (as if we didn't know it was made in the eighties), and were always wearing full plate armor! If they had also worn spandex, the headbands would have been understandable, but wearing the armor all day, every day as opposed to normal clothing, was a bit trying on a person's common sense.

It was pretty ridiculous from a factual and realistic point-of-view, and pretty much worth missing.


The time around 500 A.D. truly represented the Dark Ages in England. The Romans had left Britannia, and the native Britons were dealing with an invasion of Angles and Saxons from mainland Europe. While the origins of the Arthur legend are obscure, the story is well known. Arthur, Merlin the Magician, Sir Lancelot, and Guinevere are familiar characters to most people, who know the story of the Knights of the Round Table. Arthur is generally thought to be a real person of this era, but no one really knows for sure.

Of course, while there's no concrete, verifiable record of Arthur or the other characters in this film, that doesn't matter; director John Boorman has created a movie that is magnificent in its scope, and vividly tells the Arthurian legend in entertaining style. The film pulls no punches in its portrayal of the brutal, difficult time of the late 5th and early 6th centuries. During battles, men didn't hide and shoot weapons at one another from cover, instead they clubbed and stabbed each other to death in hand-to-hand combat, resulting in bloody carnage on a massive scale. Boorman also has included some pretty steamy sex scenes, showing us that life during these times was not all bloodshed and battle.

The movie gives us colorful portrayals of Merlin, the sword Excalibur, the Lady in the Lake, and the ascent of the young Arthur. Eventually the Knights of the Round Table fall into disorganization and decay, only to be acquitted on the battlefield by an older Arthur and Lancelot, who find glory one final time. Long but never boring, bloody but realistic, "Excalibur" is simply enchanting and enthralling. Try to catch the widescreen versionyou're cheating yourself otherwise.


Basically Excalibur is a contemporary retelling of Arthurian legend. The cast is an exceptionally strong ensemble of Anglo-Irish talent like Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson and Nicol Williamson. It's also got an epic feel to it (not surprising given the source material) with a lengthy running time and a plot that spans decades.

I don't think it's that outlandish to say that this film was Boorman's labour of love, it's very well crafted; sumptuous cinematography, lavish sets, lean dialogue, brilliant music (various Wagner efforts performed by the London Philharmonic) and a range of interesting characters that each has an arc that develops in tandem with the story.

Tonally the film (purposefully) wanders wildly from darkness to light; the acts are very clearly defined; first the Kingdom is established and flourishes; which leads to betray and the emergence of evil in the second, then in a blistering third act there is a muted sense of forgiveness and resolution. The first act is very entertaining and full of familiar stories (the Sword in the Stone & the Knights of the Round Table) the second act where Lancelot and Guinevere get their rocks off is all about the melodrama and the third act is a searing blend of startling imagery, fierce battles, sorcery and redemption that really does mark out Excalibur as an extraordinary piece of cinema.

There are some amazing moments that stick in the mind; the opening "teaser" (for want of a better word) in which Merlin counjours up the dragons breath so Uther Pendgragon can ride across a great expanse of nothingness to bed his rivals wife and play his part in creating the future King. Perceval's search for the grail through a nightmarish vision of medieval Britain, the bright red sun setting over the body strewn ground as Arthur and Mordred face off against each other in a brutal and bloody embrace....

Overall, all the ingredients of a great film are present and accounted for, and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have never seen or heard of this movie but who, should they ever see it, may actually end up loving it almost as much as I do.


This is the best epic movie of all times until now.Great actors,beautiful music and very good work from the director.I have seen this movie almost 50 times and i never get bored to watch it.It takes away from this world.It takes you to other places that only in our fantasy we can see.This movie is not just a fantastic story about King Arthur,it also contains very good messages for those who can see them.The higher you go - the farther you'll fall!The only thing that i can not understand is why all of the actors(expect Helen Mirren)did not continue with great movies after that and they just move aside making movies(BAD movies),that no one knows.


John Boorman's Excalibur is a brilliant re-telling of the grand legend of the Western European world, the once and future king, Arthur of Britain. It pares the Malory epic down to its basic core and recreates an entire fantastic world--the myth of Arthur, not the historical reality of Arthur. It suceeds magnificently. If you love fantasy you will love Excalibur. Furthermore, the music is divine: Siegfried's Funeral March (the sword's motif), more Wagner (Lohengrin and Parzival), plus the Carmina Burana. Highly recommended--all other Arthurian films fade to black and vanish in one's mind once you have seen Excalibur.


Way back in 1981 I saw this film at the cinema for the first time. It was an incredible experience, in the cinema the mixture of Wagner and powerful (if somewhat violent) images were almost overwhelming. This is not a film that translated so well to television. Much like "Saving Private Ryan" the power of the movie is lost on the small screen. None the less this was a firm favourite amongst young British lads for the next 10 years or so. The film is steeped in dark age pagan mysticism and offers an almost "other worldly" experience to the viewer. This movie was far more impressive then it's contemporary rival the rather silly (though still enjoyed) Conan the Barbarian. I believe that Excalibur remained easily the best sword and sorcery flick until the 2001 release of Lord of the Rings.


Ok. I haven't seen any others so, maybe that is faint praise. However, it is in my top 20 of all-time and I have seen thousands of movies. I would like to comment on some of the other comments I have read here about Excalibur as much as the movie itself. Someone mentioned the music was "ok". It's freakin Wagner!!! It is fabulous for this movie. I don't think a composer alive or at the time of the movie's release (1981) could have created a better original score for the movie. I think Wagner is used better here than in the chopper scene in Apocolypse Now and that is high praise indeed, because that is one of the most magnificent scenes in all of film. You like action? You like fantasy, sex, or blood? Well this is the movie for you. I don't understand what all the fuss is about the sex. It is integral to the plot. Uther's lust destroyed the peace and provided the seed that became Arthur. Arthur' betrayal by Guinevere and Lancelot leads him to be seduced by his half-sister Morgana and impregnate her with Mordred his eventual death sentence. Thankfully, the scenes are erotic and beautifully filmed in stark contrast to the dark and grim life these people lead when not killing. The acting is pretty good as far as I am concerned. I loved Nicol Williamson's Merlin, he is hilarious and eccentric. Helen Mirren's Morgana is sexy and evil. Paul Geoffrey's Perceval ages like 20 years in about 25 minutes and is quite believable. The Boorman family is quite good especially Katrine Boorman as Igrayne (she dances and heaves very well). Her sister Telsche Boorman was the Lady of the Lake and her brother was young Mordred who taunts Perceval. The movie is beautifully lit and has many powerful scenes and images that other better known movies cannot match. I am amazed at the power Boorman was able to capture in many scenes especially the Lady of the Lake, the Last battle, and sunrise boat farewell. Maybe the most amazing thing is how Boorman got so much action and story into so little time (around 2hrs and 15 minutes). He tells the stories of Uther, Merlin, Arthur, Mordred, Morgana, Perceval, Lancelot, and Guenevere, when a single story about any one of them could make up a 90 minute movie. Some in this forum have bitched about the short strokes he makes in characterizations, but he is very deft at telling you enough to push the story along. If you want to know more about a specific character, go read a book about that character. Don't expect to find it all here. Especially a secondary character like Morgana (who is important, but the name of the movie is excalibur, woman will take a backseat in this phallic world, thank you very much). I cry at the end of this movie everytime I see it and part of the reason is because I am sad at the death of Arthur who legend or not was a great man. The other reason is because this is almost perfection in film and it is rarely achieved and it deserves to be appreciated. This is what movies are all about loss, power and redemption, all filmed in breathtaking beauty.


I believe that Excalibur is the very best Arthurian film. It is a brilliant retelling of the Arthurian legend and it gets the story right--he is the once and future king, a messianic figure. Boorman beautifully captures the myth. Spoilers: Furthermore, a line that Sean Connery delivered in Zardoz dully and ineffectively is delivered by Helen Mirren to great effect in this film--you really believe that Morgana wants Merlin's knowledge so badly that she will sacrifice herself. And the ending works so well, you believe in Arthur. The ship heads toward Avalon, somewhere toward the setting sun, to the West. And I love the music, Wagner works so well in this film. A grand film.


...and is finished with the blood of men. Boorman's view of a tragic tale of lust and deception and magic and steel is presented without a message. The message is that which you see in the story.

Stand Back, Be Silent, Be Still, and remember.

For it is the doom of men that they forget.

The merlin steals the movie and it doesn't get any better until the end.


I love Arthuiran Ledgends, and this movie does a great job of translating the best of the Arthurian ledgends. I'm pround to call this one of my favorite movies. Now, if you consider yourself a buff on legend then see this movie, and never see 'First Knight' which was just terrible. I enjoy mostly p***ing on people who claim 'First Knight' is remotely a good movie. Make yourself happy and watch Excalibur, have some dignity.


I saw this movie on opening day,1981.It enthralled and depressed me a little at the same time,and I could never figure out why....till now.I am an Arthurian buff without being a fanatic.I have "Knights of the Round Table","Sword of Lancelot","Excalibur",even the obscure"Young Arthur,Warlord"[from british TV.] I've read Tennyson,Mallory,and Steinbeck.I've read historians who have pursued the authentic Arthur. After reading the many comments on this site,I slapped it on again today.Those remarks praising the use of Wagner's music as used in the film were just a little off the mark.This whole film is Wagner minus the arias.Richard would have loved this!There is a near cultish devotion to the nobility of barbarism in it's purest form.Lancelot was heroic ,literally till the armor came off.If Boorman hadn't thrown in the occasional reference to justice for everyone I believe Hitler himself would have financed this film.This is close to Aryan mysticism [without the Aryans].I'm surprised Boorman mellowed to the point he could make "Hope and Glory".Aside from the Wagnerian fatalism,I still love this film! Forget the 14th century plate armor,17th century saddles,and polo ponies with polo bridles.This is still the best Arthur to date!![And if you think this film is long and covers too much ;read Mallory.]


The Casting was great, especially Merlin. The settings are beautiful and believable which is not the case for most "knight" and dragon movies. The vision of the movie is fluid and only gets slow at certain points, which is totally understandable when considering the task of trying to fit in the whole Authorian legend into one movie. Heart pounding music accompanies exhilarating battle scenes. A must see for any fan of med-evil chivalry.


Try to tell your average moviegoer what makes this a great film and you might have to describe the art direction and larger than life power of the props, sets and fighting. Tell an "authenticity Nazi" about the liberties that Boorman takes with the historic details, and they will roundly criticize it. Tell a student of Arthurian legends of the differences between "L'Morte D"Artur" and "Excalibur" and they might suspect the story is a dumbing-down of the Arthurian legend for the masses.

And that's simply not the point of "Excalibur".

"Excalibur" is filmed with great care and attention to detail in showing the transition that is symbolic of the Dark Ages making way for the new ideas and Christianity taking root. It's about what the king is all about, and why a king has power in our imaginations. It's about vicious wars giving way to hope, and the danger of complacency and comfort. It's about more than it seems.

John Boorman went through incredible pains to make this movie as exacting as he did, and you can see it. He didn't want to merely retell the well known legend of Arthur and his world. He wanted to illustrate the meaning behind Arthur himself. The sword was merely a connection and metaphor for that power and purpose. In the end, the story was about the myth of the king and how his condition was once believed to be the extension and direct representation of the state of the kingdom he actually ruled.

But forgetting all of that, the movie is cool. It's look and feel is something you never forget. The film has the distinction of showing Liam Neeson and Gabriel Byrne in their first movie roles. Nicol Williamson's Merlin is perfect and left me wanting more of him. And for a high school student just researching the realm of mythical and fantastic literature, this movie was addictive when it first came out. I loved it so much.


This movie is animated fantasy. It shows the mythical aspects of the arthurian legend, a world of wonder, wizards, violence - and Wagner. His music (especially from "Tristan und Isolde" and "Parsifal") appoints to the film its tragic and melancholy atmosphere. The characters are a little flat, ok, but its not a plot written by Dostojewski or Proust. Its a heroic fairy tale, remembered and told for centuries, and this film gives it a depth till the beginning of our world. SEE IT!!!


In my opinion this film is unique. It follows Thomas Mallory's "Le Morte D'Arthur" fairly accurately. This is something rarely achieved by other films focused on the genre. The casting is excellent, Nigel Terry portrays both the naive boyish Arthur and the elder statesman with great panaché. Helen Mirren makes for a convincingly evil Morgan Le Faye whilst the gorgeous Cheri Lunghi shines as Arthur's bride. Lancelot is convincing as he struggles with divided loyalties but the main credit for the film's success must surely go to Nicol Williamson as Merlin. The film attempts to portray a dark period of English history and this is convincingly portrayed in the atmosphere, costume and make up of the actors but by adopting a light hearted portrayal of a serious character, he manages to balance just the right amount of comic relief. Towards the film's conclusion the charge of the knights through the orchard to the sound of a choir singing the "Carmina Birana" has to be one of the high points of British cinema.


A hundred million years ago, I thought He-Man was cool, but She-Ra was even cooler. I don't even know why I thought so.. maybe because I also dug Wonder Woman, The Bionic Woman, and Batgirl.. but I digress. When the movie came out, pre-multiplex, kids of all ages rejoiced when Adora 'held aloft her magic sword and said, "For The Honor of Greyskull!" Yeah, that was cool. She-Ra had a more upbeat theme than her brother, He-Man, and quite honestly, her special effects were better too. I coulda done with Cowl, the owl, and "Swift Wind", the lame-ass talking horse, but the rest of it was decent. Bo had a rockin' bod, Castaspella (don't you just love the name?!) could kick Shadow Weaver's butt, and Queen Angella, with her wannabe English accent, defended Castle Bright Moon till the cows came home. Mixing the original He-Man series with She-Ra was done effectively, meaning it was a buyable story-line... and when all was said and done, and Adora, nay She-Ra, realized her true identity, she decided to stay and "defend Etheria against the evil forces of Hordak." Pure cheese, but when you're a kid, who cares?!


I remember seeing this movie when I was about 4 years old and let me tell you that it was great. I was always renting this movie and I was always watching the TV show. It was one of the most fantastic animated adventure made when I was a child. I will always remember the thrill of seing Adora transform herself into She-Ra to save Etheria. It is so sad that it had to end. I really hope that one day a network will show it again to the next generation of children.


In a world far away lives a prince called Adam who can transform into He-man, a fighter for good and justice. One day his friend, the sorceress, sends him and his talking tiger Cringer on a mission to find the owner of a magic sword in a different world, Etheria. But once there, Adam finds the evil army of Hordak is controlling everyone. And he soon meets Adora, who just might be the owner of the magic sword...

Back then, when I was a kid, I was very fond of the "He-man and the masters of the universe" show and it's "sequel" "She-ra". When I grew up I decided to do a little research. You know, to go on a hunt for your childhood memories. Soon I discovered my old "He-man" tapes and watched them again. And this time I was very disappointed. They simply seemed like a cliché with every episode looking the same. After that I saw "She-ra" again too, and although this show was a little better, I still found that it lost a lot of it's magic during my growing up. The only great episode was "Sweet Bee's home".

-------------

I then went to watch "The secret of the sword". Before I did that I was in massive fear that this film will too break my heart and that I should maybe avoid it just to keep it a part of my nostalgia. But was I pleasantly surprised! The minute that song "For the honor of love" started to play in the intro all my respect, joy and enthusiasm got back in a flash again. The movie is just simply excellent, the best thing the "He-man" crew ever made. It's much more darker and has a sharp edge, making it superior to the naive TV show's. The best sequence for me was the one where He-man is captured by the evil Horde while Adora can't sleep and wakes up in the middle of the night. She then goes to the chamber where He-man is being held in a special booth. She wants to help him, but also wants to stay loyal to the Horde. Her struggle with herself is a real drama with great emotions. And then, finally, she takes her sword, transforms herself into She-ra and free's He-man. Simply amazing piece of writing that combined her transformation with her change of character.

Truth be told, the story does have flaws. Mostly when it plays back in He-man's world( why in the world would He-man and She-ra just leave Skeletor in Snake mountain after they defeated him?! They could have brought him to jail! )but the film is still a mighty good piece of nostalgia and melancholy. And I'm glad it's quality stayed.

Grade: 8/10


I was seven when I first watched this movie and am still captivated by it as a 26 year-old. This may sound corny, but I really love the movie's theme song, "I Have the Power". "He-Man" and "She-Ra" were likely THE defining cartoons of the 1980s, yet I have heard of no plans to release the film on DVD. I taped the movie from the USA cable network in 1989, and - as one might imagine - the quality of the tape has deteriorated. It's still watchable, but not quite up to my standards. Oh how I wish I could find even a decent second-hand VHS copy, to replace my failing one! I tried watching the new He-Man series on the Cartoon Network, but it simply does not compare to the original.


By Phil Villarreal Arizona Daily Star

One of the resounding proofs of my mother's love was seared into my brain on Saturday, March 23, 1985, when she took me to see "The Secret of the Sword," succumbing to my relentless begging the day after the film opened. This was the unmissable event in which Master of the Universe He-Man would team up with his long-lost twin sister, She-Ra, battling against not only He-Man's sworn enemy, Skeletor, but also the evil Hordak, Skeletor's cruel mentor. The animated film hooked me from the opening frame, when the monster ballad theme song "I Have the Power" blared over the speakers. It was the best movie I'd ever seen at that point in my life, and a true sacrifice for my mom, who had no appreciation of swords of power, interdimensional portals or the unyielding resourcefulness of Castle Greyskull. I'm sure she didn't receive an ounce of enjoyment from watching the film, save for the vicarious pleasure of watching her giddy 6-year-old soaking in the might, wonder and magic from the screen in the way only a kid that age can. Now "The Secret of the Sword"  long forgotten by the studios, but never by me  has finally been released on DVD, as part of a set titled "The Best of She-Ra: Princess of Power." I popped it into the player to watch the film for the first time in more than 21 years, prayerful in my hopes that it would live up to my fuzzy memories. I thought back to March of 1985, did the math and realized I am the same age now as my mom was then. I was surprised to see that the movie was even better than I remembered. And though it's no longer my favorite, it endures as an affecting cinematic experience. It's true that my enjoyment of the movie is colored by nostalgia, but the same must be so for the legions of folks who adored the film in their youth. It's doubtless that many of those kids  now parents themselves  will sit their children in front of the TV and play the DVD, and it will enrapture parent and child alike. Adults who first marveled at "The Secret of the Sword" as kids can now enjoy it on multiple levels. The cheap animation effects and stiff dialogue are funny enough to merit a viewing simply for their entertaining cornball factor  they certainly don't make 'em like this anymore. But there's also an unmistakable magic in the storytelling and characters. The movie makes it easy to slip back into the mind-set of a 6-year-old, appreciating the action, the subplots and the tenderness on their intended levels. A compilation of five cartoon episodes meant as a bridge between the animated series "He- Man and the Masters of the Universe" (1983-85) and its spin-off, "She-Ra: Princess of Power" (1985-87), the drama is primed by four cliffhangers interspersed at equal intervals throughout the running time. The story follows Prince Adam (voiced by John Erwin), the timid crown prince of Eternia, who uses his Sword of Power to transform into the muscular, sword-wielding hero He-Man. Adam travels through a portal to the realm of Etheria in hopes of finding the owner of a secret sword entrusted to him by his guide, the Sorceress. Once in Etheria, Adam/He-Man discovers a Hordak-oppressed world and joins the Great Rebellion. To his surprise, the sword leads him to Force Captain Adora (Melendy Britt), one of Hordak's stern generals. Adora captures He-Man, placing him in a contraption that sucks his will, to power Hordak's magna beam transporter, which he plans to use to obliterate the Rebellion's hangout. Just as He-Man is about to die, the sword he brought to Adora speaks to her and reveals her true destiny as She-Ra, a champion of good. What's more, she is Adam's twin, separated at birth by a kidnapping Hordak. "I never knew I had a brother, but when a woman in a sword told me so, I knew it was true," She-Ra deadpans. Hordak, as you could imagine, is not at all happy with this development, and he recruits his former pupil, Skeletor, to aid his cause. "The dawn of the new day shall yield the final end of the rebellion!" cackles Hordak, who is nothing if not redundant. Such lines are amusing to an adult but serious to a child  and that fact makes it even funnier to an adult. I don't remember my mom laughing at those lines in 1985, though. Maybe because she was in misery as the movie played. Or maybe because she didn't want to break the mood for her little boy.


It was an excellent way to start of the She-Ra series and end the Masters of the Universe. He-Man (Prince Adam) discovers he has a sister She-Ra (Princess Adora)and that Hordak, Skeletor's former mentor kidnapped her as a baby, and raised almost as his own daughter. He-Man's task is to travel to Etheria (the world that Hordak took her to) and give her her own magic sword (called the Sword of Protection) and reveal to her her true identity, the Princess of Eternia, and She-Ra. If you liked either series, it is a must see.


Jarred from her sleep by dark memories of the past, the Sorceress of Castle Grayskull is guided by a magical sword, a sword fashioned much like He-Man's, to a room whose doors have been closed for as long as she can remember. It is at that moment the sword reveals its purpose and the Sorceress realizes it is time for the true heir to the sword to emerge. But she cannot accomplish her goal alone, for she cannot leave the vicinity of Grayskull and retain her powers. So she calls on Prince Adam/He-Man to assist her. And there is where the adventure begins. . . .

It's easy to tell this movie was made in the 80's because of it's animation. But that aside, this is a cool movie about faith, hope, and love. It's a somewhat difficult movie to find, both in the stores and online, but if you can find it, it's worth watching.


The Secret of the Sword movie first introduced us to She Ra. I have not seen this movie for years, but I can still remember it. He Man and She Ra have and will always be my favorite cartoons ever. The best part about this movie is how He Man must battle the forces of Hordak, in order to save his sister Adora from beign one of Hordak's puppets. My favorite part is when He Man gets captured by Hordak and is chained up in Hordak's castle. Adora comes into the room and is confronted by the Sorceress. I recommend this movie to anyone who wants to enjoy the magic of the cartoons they remember from when they were kids. Todays kids would not even now who He Man and She Ra. Lets hope they one day return to TV so kids can see what a real cartoon is.


I adore this movie. I'm glad I was fortunate enough to get this video! Because you won't find many around anymore. There were two versions of this movie: The Tv 5 part episodes and the movie itself Secret of the Sword. I was however disappointed because the movie had many cut outs of interesting dialog that are in the tv 5 part episodes. But other than that I was astounded by SOTS. Action packed, filled with humor, and the finding of a long lost twin sister, made it some what emotional for me. The voice actors of He-Man and She-Ra (John Erwin and Melendy Britt)did an incredible job! And where ever they may be out there I wish I could tell them how immensely I enjoyed the He-Man and She-Ra series! How it impacted my life as a kid and as an adult! There is a huge community of the He and She fans out here and there is nothing more we want but to bring He-Man and She-Ra back to TV. Many fans, including myself have written enough fanfics to have a whole new season of episodes!! These series have surpassed your average kid's cartoon show! It was a shame that they were taken off the air, we are hoping and striving to get them on the Cartoon Network or Nickleodeon. If you don't believe me check out the episode "The Problem with Power." This episode is why we love He-Man so much. Be on the lookout for their videos will be re-released in 2000!!


This is the 80's greatest cartoon movie, one of the best of all time.

As a big fan of a good cinema, I want to watch every type of movies, including cartoons. Since 85, when I was only 11 years old, i have been watched every type of movies. The secret of the sword is unforgettable to me for 2 reasons : Beside to be the first movie I have ever watched on a big screen, until Ratatouille, i wasn't found no one other cartoon like this one. You'll find everything that you looking for in a cartoon in here. Family entertainment with comedy, action, even drama, without forget some values that the digitalized cartoons that fulfill the lives of nowadays kid's forget with extreme facility : friendship, union and family values.

This cartoon still have the power and I believe that will have forever -

10/10


Secret of The Sword with He-Man and She-ra is one of my favorite children's movies when I was a kid! In fact I still remember when I saw it and where I saw it! This movie is one of my many prime posessions, as well as the other original episodes I have. Even though the animation wasn't the greatest, well it was in '85! Still amazes me how they did He-Man and She-Ra's transformation scenes. I would jump at the chance to re-do this movie over again, I did find some bloopers and they used a lot of stock footage and yes they had new footage too but the story lacked some emotion. I wish HallMark Entertainment would re-consider re-releasing the series on TV because I believe it will be great again! If not all the He-Man and She-Ra fans around the world will fight to keep them alive!


This is a great animated feature film.It was so cool to see He-Man and She-Ra and Skeletor and Hordak together!I loved it when He-Man and She-Ra did their transformation after each other near then! That was wonderful!I loved that!Most of the characters from both series' were in the film and the music was great as always!If you like He-Man and She-Ra then watch this masterpiece.In My opinion this was one of the greatest animated features ever!Just like the series' its a classic and I think it'll be hard for something to top this!I really love this movie and I don't think you'll be disappointed!


An eco-friendly cash-in that recycles music and chunks of animation from the TV series in order to introduce She-Ra, He-Man's twin sister from another dimension and an attempt to target the silly girls in the audience. For us boys there's little to get us jumping up and down in our seats: the regular characters don't make an appearance until halfway through, the movie instead setting up a near-identical premise on the other side of the dimensional gateway. Eventually Skeletor turns up and starts causing havoc, armed with a few funny lines, and things pick up a bit, but on the whole this is ropey stuff. Hordak's slime pit toy was a corker though, wasn't it?


The Secret of the Sword introduces She Ra to the viewing audience. She Ra is a pretty cool character, and this episode is pretty good.

At birth Adam had a twin sister named Adora. However the Hoard invaded Eternia, led by an evil guy named Hordak, and took Adora away from her family and to the planet of Etheria. Hordak turns Adora into a member of his troops who is an important leader. Many years later, the sorceress informs He-Man that he is to go to the planet Etheria and give a special sword to someone. By this time, a rebellion is going on in Etheria.

I must say that there are tons of similarities to Star Wars. Twins that are composed of one boy and one girl being separated at birth, spaceships attacking, and a rebellion going on. Yep, definitely very similar to Star Wars.

I think that the idea of He-Man having a sister is interesting. However, this is the first time that it is ever mentioned. I think it works out though. I guess that the fact that only Man at Arms, The King and QUeen, and Skeletor were the only characters that knew about Adora makes the fact that it never came up work.

The story of this episode is good. THere is a lot of build up and action along the way. It really takes a while for She-Ra to emerge using the sword.

She-Ra is pretty cool. Strong, intelligent, and (for a character in a cartoon series) very hot. She has unique abilities in that she can turn her sword into anything she wants.

New Villains are introduced in the Hoard and Hordak. Hordak is pretty evil and it is cool how he can turn into a jet. Hordak also has a great army composed of mechanical soldiers and a bunch of weird creatures. This includes Manteena, Leach, Catra, and some Scorpion Lady. Catra is cool and so is Mantena, but I think Hordaks warriors are not nearly as cool as Skeletors.

I have one major complaint. I always thought that Skeletor was always an evil leader who only answered to himself. However in this episode it is revealed that he was once Hordak's padawan(star wars term). It just does not look like Skeletor belongs to the Hoard and it made more sense for him to not be involved with the Hoard. Skeletor answers to Skeletor, not the Hoard. So, kind of a lame way to connect Skeletor and Hordak. Should have left them separate.

Having three sisters, I can relate to this episode and how He-Man is happy to see his sister. Kind of touches close to home for me.

Great episode and introduction of She-Ra. Recommended cartoon.


While surfing through the IMDB, I stumbled upon the page for The Secret of the Sword. I hadn't seen it in years, and, based on the glowing comments posted on the page, I had to see it for myself. And, in all honesty, this movie is awful. The plot was paper-thin, the characterization non-existent, and the direction was muddled. The animation was truly horrible, even by TV standards (and to think this was released theatrically!). Sure the characters look good, but they move badly. Plus the same stock footage gets used over and over and over. The voice characterization was terrible, and the evil was pretty cartoony. This movie is a sad reminder of just how far animation had fallen in the 80's.


Now, watching this movie is like tasting a bottle of fine wine (or beer :)). You may not be satisfied at the beginning, but later... If it weren't for 'Midnight Cowboy' who knows..., then maybe 1969 would be the year of 'The Royal Hunt of the Sun'. Sensational film which depicts brutality, hypocrisy, greed. This awesome picture shows how one peaceful (in comparison with the spanish) world falls apart, shows how reality strikes and hits You real hard (e.g. - Young Martin). Robert Shaw and Christopher Plummer... well... They're absolutely fabulous!!! Christopher Plummer with his attitude and ... c'mon watch Him walking, dancing..., even asking about 'art of writing' ! His unbelievable way of acting goes strictly together as one with the way of thinking, moving, ranting... pointing His finger. Robert Shaw - angry, coping with His injured leg, unbeatable, bursting with force. One world dies, as the other one devours Its essence. In the name of god none gives a damn about that. Well maybe some of them do..., but when They have to choose...

WARNING: It's strongly recommended to watch this Movie.


This is really one of the best movies I´ve ever watched in my life! Christopher Plummer is absolutely wonderful as Atahualpa (nice accent, convincing acting) and Robert Shaw is a great Francisco Pizarro (lots of emotion and passion). This movie is about a beautiful culture and empire being ruined within a very short time: the Spanish conquistadors come to Peru in search of gold and to convert the natives. They find an extremely well-organised empire with their own God: Atahualpa. It´s fascinating to watch Pizarro becoming more and more fond of Atahualpa and at the same time it becomes more and more difficult for Pizarro to decide about the Inca´s fate. This is, of course, not a very modern movie: there are no visual or audio effects and at certain points the camera work isn´t perfect (a bit shaky, for instance). However, the story is great, the dialogue is interesting and sometimes thoroughly moving and the actors are doing a terrific job! Full marks for The Royal Hunt Of The Sun and...sorry, but I have to mention it...Plummer doesn´t look bad in this movie...


Royal Hunt of the Sun has been called a cult classic. Maybe so, but for me it was an incredible movie with top notch actors. The film takes a different approach to Pizarro in Peru than one would expect. The mental conflict makes for a fascinating story line as well as a riveting performance by Robert Shaw and a jaw-dropping characterization of a Sun god by Christopher Plummer. It is truly a unique movie.


This is a sort of strange epic spectacular film of a time when the genre was not in high demand. The story deals with the conquest of the Inca empire (now Perù) by the Spaniards leaded by Franncisco Pizarro back in the sixteenth century. This is not a movie for everyone to see it and appreciate it -it could seem a bit slow at times- but it stands as a fine and very decent product for those of us who are interested in historical events om Latin America.

"The Royal Hunt of the Sun" can be considered as the delayed complement to Henry King's "Captain from Castile" (1947) referred to the similar conquest of today's Mexico by Hernán Cortés (played accurately by Cèsar Romero). The more than 20 years elapsed between both films shows clearly the different cinematographic techniques of one time and the other; but both products have many similarities in their conception such as the crash between two completely different civilizations each one with their own religious, social and political standards and also the search of gold and riches by both "conquistadores" and their total lack of scruples for the achievement of their target (clearly leaving aside the pretended conversion to Catholicism of the natives that was the excuse of their kings to support the expeditions in a time when the church ruled in Spain).

If not totally accurate with real facts, the Pizarro saga and his confrontation with the god-king Atahualpa in "Royal Hunt" is acceptable scripted and suits enough history and mainly legend.

The atmosphere that not very prolific director Irving Lerner obtains in his film is excellent transiting a sort of a mystical sensation at times and when required; the final sequence when the Incas are waiting for Atahualpa's Sun-father to raise and bring him back to life is outstanding. The location places, settings and a weird music are very good too.

Robert Shaw plays a convincing Pizarro -daring, ambitious and greedy- who after a while shows some kind of respect and even admiration towards a man he can't quite understand. It is true that Cristopher Plummer's performance as Atahualpa is most eccentric as some reviewers state here, but who knows how a God -he and his people were convinced he was one- would behave? I think that Plummer did a very good job with his role here and his truly original acting is one of the highlights of the film.

For those who enjoy historical films with an epic frame this is one to see.


With a cast of Robert Shaw and Christopher Plummer, Peter Shaffer's powerful and touching stage drama of Pizarro and the Emperor/God Atahuallpa is grippingly brought to the stage. Pizarro, fighting his way from nothing leads an expedition to find gold for himself and the king of Spain. He finds and becomes intrigued with the Inca, living son of the Sun god and promises freedom in exchange for a large chamber filled with gold.

When the deed is complete, the Spaniards refuse to accept Pizarro's promise and intend to put Atahuallpa to death. The Inca convinces Pizarro that if he is put to death he will be brought back to life at dawn of the next day by the Sun god. Pizarro, a man without much faith has come to respect this man and wants badly to believe him. Shaw's performance is, as usual, superb. Christopher Plummer is simply magnificent as the ruler of the Inca Empire.


This dramatic tale of what was arguably the most significant and one sided battle in history should be seen by all. A trivial army of 167 conquistadors lead by Pisarro killed 7000 of the Inca's god king Atahualpa's army of 80,000 in a single battle. The battle was symbolic of Spain's rape of America, but more generally of Europe's domination of the world. The "victory" of the west can be seen as no more than the "good luck" of the bloody thirsty warriors of Western Europe who learned so much from fighting with each other that collectively they could achieve world hegemony. In this battle horsemen, steel, and an ideology of duplicity won the day over a naive other world whose innocence is now virtually unimaginable.


Yes, Christopher Plummer's accent and antics are, to the the least of it, peculiar, but trying to see this as a historically accurate epic seems to be missing the point. The original play was by Peter Shaffer - he of Amadeus and Equus, and this film follows the same themes - the conflict and tension between between (according to interpretation) real and apparent power, or between ability and genius. The tension between Atahualpa and Pisarro is along the same lines as between Mozart and Salieri, or the Boy and the Psychiatrist. One has the trappings of power and success, but who really has the raw power? Seeing it as a historical epic is a mistake - just as "Becket" is a very modern take on a different battle of wills.


The first time I saw this flick, I was disappointed; disappointed because I'd expected an adventure tale of King Soloman proportions, an Aladdin's cave full of gold, and bloody Inca battles in a Peruvian jungle setting. In hindsight, I should've read the reviews, because my frame of mind would've been in the right place to enjoy this intense character study. Suffice to say on second viewing, I was able to appreciate the quality of the stage-born dialogue, and the precision with which its delivered by both Shaw and Plummer in their unique portrayals of demi-gods by any other name.

Narratively, it's a detailed snapshot of Pizarro's ill-fated conquest of the Incas, not for the glory of gold, but for the almost sanctimonious obsession with divinity and unparalleled colonialism. In essence, he signed his ticket before he departed Spain, promising the world he could never deliver, pursuing a pathological indulgence to satisfy his superior ego. There's an element of pity in Shaw's depiction of Pizarro, that of a mercenary without a war, unable to adjust to a civilian life. Shaw is magnificent as the deeply righteous conquistador whose eloquence in arguing secular sovereignty, fails to dominate the simple native lexicon of King Atahualpa (Plummer), communicating in a basically nonsensical series of clicks and chirps. If Atahualpa can prove he is a God, Pizarro will recognise his sovereignty, but if not, both his life and his land of rich antiquities will belong to the kingdom of Spain.

With Michael Craig, Leonard Whiting and Nigel Davenport in the wings, it's an ensemble British cast of true quality, and the performances are first rate. Set design, costumes, score and script deliver, and while momentum is at times a distinct challenge, if you're not fully engaged in the dialogue, the result is likely to be languid in pace and voluble in speak. My initial viewing was such; fortunately, I watched it a second time.


When I saw this film, I was blown away by Christopher Plummer's portrayal of the Incan leader, Atahualpa. I originally saw the film because of Leonard Whiting (Romeo in the Franco Zefferelli film "Romeo and Juliet," opposite Olivia Hussey as Juliet), who plays a young member of Pizarro's party. Plummer was able to accurately capture the essence of the Incan leader, with great pride and dignity, despite his fatal flaw of trusting the representative of a culture whose only goal was domination and oppression. This story was also brilliantly presented in the Newberry Award-winning children's novel, "The Secret of the Andes," by Ann Nolan Clark, about a young boy who is the last remaining pure Incan, living in the Andes with his spiritual guide and teacher, who goes on a journey of discovery into Cuzco, to find out what contributed to the eradication of his race. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find this film to either rent or buy, but if you are able to obtain a copy, it is well worth watching. The title of the film is tied to the Incans' worship of the sun (their monetary unit is the "sol," which is "sun" in Spanish).


I wanted to like "The Royal Hunt of the Sun", but it begs comparison to a far superior film, and fails to entertain. Religious clap trap may have gone a long way towards sinking the movie. I have no problem with Robert Shaw or Christopher Plummer's acting. It is the lack of movement that drags the film down. There simply isn't enough meaningful dialog, unless you are into blasphemy, to maintain interest. Ultimately you will wish you had watched something else. "Aguirre the Wrath of God". had much the same theme, searching for gold, while spreading "God's word", and Aguirre is a far better film. I cannot recommend "The Royal Hunt of the Sun", but do recommend "Aguirre the Wrath of God". - MERK


This movie is a joke from the beginning to the end, the characters do and say what the writer wants them to, not even remotely what they did or said. Atahualpa is portrayed like a moron, naiv person (he seems to be not an Inca but a caucasian with a very good tan) and Pizarro like a sensitive one. If somebody thinks part of this has to do with reality, that person is wrong, I think the writer and director should have read at least a school text before making a film like this.


Jeff Wincott stars as Harlan Quinn a hit-man who wakes up to find that he's been declared dead and that he's been recruited to work for the CIA in killing anybody who's a threat to the government, this has all been set up by the mysterious Mr.Green (Michael Ironside) and his first targets include a homosexual advocate, a muckraking journalist and a female professor with information that the AIDs virus was manufactured. Dr.Ann Kendall (Terri Hawkes) is the last one of Wincott's list but he finds himself falling for his prey and when the time comes for the kill, Quinn ends up protecting Kendall from the assassins now gunning for them both in this intense thriller. Jeff Wincott gives an impressive performance and Ironside makes for a great villain which elevates this far above the usual output of this worn out hit-man genre.

4/5 Matt Bronson


This is a thought provoking movie shot in a very interesting manner. The content is a bit eery, but the quality is superior for a "B" action flick. Jeff Wincott is great in his performance. The storyline is very good but with a dark ending... but it keeps your attention.


This is a warning for everyone to stay away from this piece of garbage. The plot is simple. Jeff Wincott was once a hit-man, and after he died he was brought back to life to do killing for the government. This plot has lots of potential, but unfortunately it is totally wasted here. It just keeps getting worse and worse, and in the end I was supporting the bad guys, even though they weren't exactly the most charismatic bunch of people I've witnessed. Wincott delivered some great fighting and action in movies like "Martial Law 2", "Mission of Justice", "Deadly Bet" and even "Martial Outlaw", and that means that I got really disappointed when it turned out that this film sucked to the extreme on that level. Very bad fight scenes, nearly no action, and it sucks big time. I advise everyone to just pretend that this movie doesn't exist at all.


With the cancellation of the "Teen Titans" and issuance of the hideously awful "Superman: Brainiac Attacks" simultaneously in 2006, I was sure I was witnessing the final end of the glorious reign of the intelligently-written and superbly-drawn and -scored sequence of DC superhero cartoons beginning in 1991 with Bruce Timm's Batman, and continuing on through the 1990s and 2000s with Superman, Batman Beyond, Static Shock, The Zeta Project, Justice League, and the "high anime" Titans. But just as I was about to curl up in a fetal position shaking from withdrawal, along comes the thoroughly delightful "Leagion of Super-Heroes" which pushes all the right buttons. From the look of especially the second episode, plots are going to be quite adventurous compared to the usually Earth-bound shows of the other series.

Animation style: I would describe the designs of the various characters as being between those of "New Batman" or Superman and those of the "Teen Titans", but closer to the former (and young Clark Kent wouldn't look at all out of place if he were appearing in a time-traveling episode of Justice League). ***There is NO "high anime" "mugging the camera" -- so "purists" and "fanboys" can take heart.*** The show appears to have a decent budget at least on par with Justice League (or a lesser one more frugally spent) to permit a good score and higher frame-rate polished-up animation which avoids any "only the lips are moving" or "clunky CGI" feelings. There's a noticeable amount of cheap "bouncing cut-outs" in the first episode (I'm guessing Ep1 is partly cobbled from recycled in-house promotional materials) -- but the second episode is a knock-out.

Target audience is children, but the writing isn't forcibly "dumbed-down" or insulting to the intelligence. If you're hoping to see blood or evil malevolences like Darkseid laying waste to the countryside with omega-beams, you can forget it -- but if you can put your "TV-14+ rating" preferences aside, you'll find you can have a good time on the couch alongside a grade-school kid. Rest-assured: Clark will get blasted, fried, squished, stomped into the concrete, you name it -- all in the very first episode. In short, whole lotta butt-whoopin' just the way there should be in a DC cartoon. The second episode demonstrates that, while red ink won't be overflowing the bathtubs, the series will be capable of creepy and mysterious scripts that'll definitely have little tykes freaked and cartoon-buff adults glued.

In my opinion, "Legion" is going to be a huge winner -- the creators have obviously done their homework.

Geek/fanboy stuff: Care has been taken to not disrupt the "continuity" of the Bruce Timm/Paul Dini "universe" by having the Legion "borrow" Clark Kent as a young man (big teenager?) prior to his even thinking of becoming Superman, and literally promise to bring him right back to the moment after they've left (hopefully after at least fifty episodes!) -- so nothing is "screwed up" by the basic premise. Nifty treat: The reason why Superman's cape is so indestructible may be finally answered. A continuity non-carryover I'm willing to put up with: Superman doesn't need a suit to survive in space.


I don't know what times this show airs (I've watched episodes online), but man, it feels like the older Saturday-Morning Cartoons. Right from the flashy, Incredibles-ish theme music, to the often times corny Superhero dialogue.

And I love every second of it!

After Teen Titans went off, I'd hoped to find another really good superhero show. This is it! If you are expecting Teen Titans, though, this is not it. A different animation style, different feel, basically everything is different. But different is not a bad thing. Whereas Teen Titans had both its very dark story lines (at times) and its uber-comedic moments, Legion sticks to a straight-forward classic superhero feel. Save the world (or rather, the galaxy).

Throw into this whole scenario of nostalgia, a bunch of easter eggs/homages for fans of all things DC (especially Superman). Very rich girl named A-LEX-is, who has a special interest in Superman, and later gets her whole head of hair burnt off (not permanently, mind). Hmm...wonder who that could be. On an episode where a being called Drax gets out of the Phantom Zone, he pulls out some unexplained weakness of Clark's (a green rock of some kind) and answers to some supreme being that appears to want out of the Phantom Zone. Could it be...nah....

I had my doubts at the first episode, I will admit, although I stuck through. First episodes usually leave me in doubt. I don't think I've met a cartoon yet that I've loved since Episode I. But most cartoons that I've actually wanted to check out, I've been happy after the first episode. Legion is no exception. LONG LIVE THE LEGION!

(Oh, by the way, the first season finale was AWESOME, and season 2 looks like it could be just as much a winner.)


Being a long time Legion fan I was truly "worried" about how this would pan out. Well after viewing the first season I can say that ALL my fears were baseless. The producers have taken great care to portrait the Legion properly. I was worried about the team mix as well (Saturn Girl, Lightning Lad, Braniac 5, Timber Wolf, Phantom Girl and Bouncing Boy ) but it worked and it was mixed enough with other Legion standards that there only seemed to be a static team in press releases only. The producers have done an amazing job at mixing and blending different era's of Legion lore into an extremely cohesive bond and there is enough small touches that long time legion fans can truly appreciate (such as the use of Interlac on display screens). My only real gripe is with Braniac 5 and his robot-like body....It's more suited towards Gears of the DnA era of the Legions history. But in the series it works. And with the season finale of Sundown and seeing all the members of the Legion I can't wait until next season.


I am a big fan of the Legion of Superheroes TV series and I watched ever episode that they aired on Saturday morning. I like the first 2 seasons and I was expecting more of the conclusion of season 2, since it ended completely with a cliffhanger. I was really disappointed with that. There was suppose to be a season 3 where it would deal with newer characters such as Ferro lad's twin brother would appear, An older Superman, new legionaries such as Blok, Dawnstar, Wildfire, Shadowlass etc, would have active roles in the third season of the show. It would also deal the new reformed Braniac 5.1 who is now organic and how he would be convinced to rejoin the legion again. Another thing was also the appearance of the new evil braniac where he said "evil does not die, it evolves" was also suppose to battle with the reformed braniac and the legion. I was actually expecting those stories to appear for the 3rd season, but it got canceled abruptly.


It's quite laughable and sometimes even ludicrous when seemingly uneducated, or at the very least, unknowing and uncultured individuals write a comment that is nothing more than trite, shallow, insubstantial, and crude in the hopes that they will sound intelligent or even worth reading. The previous detractor obviously has no appreciation for the principle and the genius behind the creation of the story of the Legion of Superheroes. The original concept was a virtual fertile breeding ground for the creative ideas of writers seeking to birth their own ideas of how a superhero should be, plus the environment provides for an exaggerated interaction between supposed complex relationships of characters. The story of the Legion of Superheroes also gives an insight into the sheer heroism of Superman Prime back when he was still quite heroic and not tainted with the insanity that made him into an intergalactic scourge. If only more people would actually spend more time trying to read about the origin and classical stories of the Legion rather than base the entire concept on the series. Alas, not everyone is gifted with a brain. Too bad.