Mergana

How come?

sum1

It wasn't known until his son posted it on his site.

Mergana

IMBd says he was one of the greatest actors of his generation.

sum1

I think that's an exaggeration. He was good, but not THAT good.

Mergana

I haven't seen any of his movies.

sum1

I think that glowing assessment of him was based on his theatre work, which I never saw. I think they also said he was the best since Brando, and Brando was shockingly overrated.

Jerry D

Oh absolutely. Brando mumbled through most of his movies, and I think that his acting talent was very overrated. I thought he was especially horrible in Apocalypse Now. I liked him in The Godfather, but I actually thought Robert De Niro did a better job playing Vito Corleone as a young man than Brando did playing him as an old man. I think Brando rested on his laurels after the 1950's, when he had his breakthrough roles in movies like A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront.

Sum1, what did you think of Julia Ormond as Guinevere in First Knight? I thought she was horrible. For a while there, she was touted to be the new Audrey Hepburn, and she even starred in a remake of an Audrey Hepburn movie, Sabrina, but I personally thought she never lived up to the hype.

sum1

Yeah, DeNiro was better in Godfather II than Brando was in Godfather.

Ormond's performance was unenthusiastic. She can do some good work, as in the Sabrina remake, but she was unimpressive in First Knight. Gere was actually good in the film, but that was ruined by the ridiculousness of his character. Sean Connery came across rather tired.

Jerry D

I agree on all counts. I also thought the age difference between Sean Connery and Julia Ormond was glaring.

sum1

I guess they wanted the age difference to make it ok for Guinevere to choose Lancelot over Arthur.

One of the things that bugged me about the film was that Lancelot ended up with not only Guinevere but also the crown. He doesn't end up with either in the legend.

The film was a total Lancelot-worship film and I don't have much time for that, because Lancelot in the legends was basically a French Mary Sue brought in shoving aside the more genuine previous hero Gawain. Lancelot came with a whole lot of idiotic courtly love bull and other silly ideas and took over the story. He was even given a son who achieved the Grail quest (which Lancelot couldn't because of his adultery). He was made the best knight, got into bed with the queen, even had a woman die out of love for him.

sum1

I've been wondering why the 1967 film Camelot is not more highly regarded. It was a critical and commercial failure and it now has an IMDB rating of 6.4, which is not good. I don't get it. It's a really good film. Sure it's a bit old-fashioned, but it's aged well, and that wouldn't have bothered people back in 1967 anyway. It's a bit silly and overly romantic, but people like that kind of thing. It has elements of shallowness, but it also has depth in other ways. Vanessa Redrave isn't great as Guinevere, but she isn't terrible. Richard Harris is sheer genius as Arthur, yet I've seen his performance sneered at. The film is positive spirited, yet touched with a pleasant melancholy. Its three hour length adds to its scope and depth. It's entertaining for all those three hours. It's a fun film with a great central performance. What's not to like? Ok, it's a musical, but a lot of musicals are popular and well-regarded. The 1982 videotaping of a stage performance of the musical it's based on gets a higher IMDB rating (8.2) and while that's a good show (Harrris is a joy in that too) it's considerably inferior to the film version. 1967 Camelot is probably the best Arthurian film out there, yet it has a lower IMDB rating than even the atrocious Tristan + Isolde with James Franco. Mind you, shouldn't get too hung up on IMDB ratings -they're often inexplicable, such as the ridiculously high ratings the Star Wars prequels have. On the upside, Richad Harris did win a best actor Golden Globe for the film. He should have won an Oscar. (Rod Steiger got the Oscar that year for In the Heat of the Night. Steiger hadn't Harris's talent.)

Anybody have any thoughts on why Camelot doesn't get more respect?

Mergana

Haven't watched it. Though I do like Vanessa Redgrave.

sum1

She once did a pro-terrorist documentary, so I'm not positively inclined towards her. She's a pretty good actress nowadays, but she wasn't that good back then. Her performance in Camelot was a little on the cold side and a bit bland. Her performances nowadays have more personality. I recently watched her 1971 film Mary Queen of Scots. It was pretty bad and not very intelligent and she was unimpressive in it. Yet she was Oscar-nominated for it. The only person who was especially good in that film was the much-underrated Nigel Davenport. The film was burdened with Glenda Jackson's painful performance as Elizabeth I. In general, Redgrave is an overrated actress. She can do some very good stuff nowadays, but back when she was in her heyday as a big star her performances were not overflowing with humanity. I would have preferred if they'd cast somebody warmer in Camelot.

You should watch Camelot. It's a really good film. You've got to see Richard Harris in action. As a Harry Potter fan you'll have seen him playing Dumbledore in the first two films, but he's better in this and a lot younger.

Mergana

Oh he's the first Dumbledoor? Interesting.

I have seen Vanessa Redgrave in Murder on the Orient Express and Atonement. Especially heartbreaking in the last one.

sum1

She was ok in Murder on the Orient Express, though Albert Finney was overacting. I don't remember her very well in Atonement.