Reviews

The only reason I have not given this movie a "10" is that I might find something wrong with it on subsequent viewings. If anybody knows of this film being available widescreen, unedited, and not bootlegged, let me know where. My high definition TV does not forgive picture flaws. Otherwise I will be patient for a remaster. As someone who is an amateur historian of the Indian wars, I can tell you this is the most accurate dramatization of the campaign against the Apaches ever filmed. Accurate history is presented in the fact that the Apaches were the dominant tribe of the southwest {the Comanches in Texas might have been their rival}. Ask the Puebloes, who actually welcomed the white man, as a buffer against the Apache. The Apache dominated the southwest long before the Spanish ever showed up. Their spiritual philosophy of "taking a man's power" was shared by other warlike Indian tribes all the way to the east coast {see "Last of the Mohicans", Mann's version}. The film manages to also be great western drama as well as a history lesson.There is no moral judgment, only the way it was. The cast is superb.Lancaster, Davidson, The Hispanic Indian actors. Richard Jaeckel, and Karl Swenson {two workhorse character actors, who turned in performances of a lifetime}. All these guys plus director Aldrich and the writers knew they were working on something special. Even the PC edited version is worth seeing. A great Cavalry/Indian western, maybe the best!

Am I one of the few people who notices that Ridley Scott is trying to do loose remakes of Anthony Mann's Historical epics? Granted, Kingdom of Heaven is set in the holy land instead of eleventh century Spain,but this is basically a lovingly done update of Mann's EL CID; right down to a new age take on Chuck Heston's "purest knight of all" {a quote from both films}, who wanted the Moors{Islamists} and Christians to just get along. After "Gladiator" basically borrowed the plot of "Fall of the Roman Empire" right down to a Gladiatorial face off between Commodus and The Republican General,what's next? Is Scott going to re-shoot Winchester 73{Mann's classic western}. Don't get me wrong. I loved Kingdom of heaven {outside of unbelievable secular humanism spouted by medieval characters}. Also, how did a blacksmith get to be such a siege engineer. Outside of that, I loved this film.

I have two nieces{years old and 9}; straight A students. I am a PHD in history; successful in my career, happily married with two successful kids. I am still a geek at heart. This week I had to baby sit two nieces who have seen LORD OF THE RINGS and SPIDERMAN{good flicks}. I insisted they watch '7TH VOYAGE' with me. It's my house! They were gabbing through the credits TILL the wizard showed up. Who needs the Green Gargoyle when you have Torin Thatcher! When the cyclops roared in, they were hooked, or should I say, petrified. The 9 year old buried her head in a sofa cushion {first rate endorsement if there ever was one!} I knew I had them! The 11 year old blurted out:"cool!" I prefer surreal, or magical. CGI IS an improvement on many levels. Harryhausen never could have made the trilogy.But after seeing the CGI drenched TV 'JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS', I am sure something is missing from today's more "realistic" special effects. Two very bright little girl will testify:"it's the magic!"

Good Lord! a historical epic without a spectacular set piece till the fire of London. There was not a minute of this film I did not enjoy! Those who need chariot races to feel historically present need to know we can't all hang out with Cleopatra or Rhett. These people, in this film, came across as real through the ages! After seeing this delight,I mourn for Downey's career. Rent, NO! Buy this movie and step back into time for two hours. As historical drama, this is surpassed only by " A LION IN WINTER" and "LAWRENCE OF ARABIA". Mel Gibson should see this film before he messes with historical characters again. Please, you critics watch this with your heart; not your eye for spectacle 'NUFF SAID!

This is a film that I understand was a disappointment when it first hit the theatres. Maybe because the quality of today's efforts in this genre are so mediocre; this film has improved with time.I've read an interview with director Wise, and he reveals his ambivalence for this film. He actually states he took it on for no other reason then he was curious about epic film making! I'm surprised his experiment with other people's money turned out to be more then adequate!The mystery of the euro unknowns in the leads is explained by the difficulty of casting the ancient world's version of Rhett and Scarlett.So he beat the debate by not going with the already famous! Sadly, he does not reveal who dubbed their voices.After numerous viewings, I believe Ann Blyth did Helen, and Edmund Purdom did Paris. If anyone really knowshas a better guess]; leave a new comment. I'll keep checking back.

Quite simply the best.How much fun could a Saturday Matinee be. Great color,great music,beautiful cinematography and Burt,at his swashbuckling best.Kravat was a great second bannana,but let's not forget Torin Thatcher as the treacherous mate."Do 'em the dirty,skipper!!!" My kids loved this as much as I do!

Oskar Homolka got it. Richard Widmark got it.Even Gordon Jackson got it.Does anyone remember "the Crimson Pirate"? Folks this is not history! This is fun. One of My childhood favorites. The score that every one seems to love is the tipoff.This is going to be a swashbuckler! Only Poitier seems to think he's playing Shakespeare's Moor. This is a great adventure movie! So well done in fact;that no one, in my Saturday matinee audience,even noticed the interracial romance.Kudos to Cardiff for pulling that off! Quite a feat in 1963! This is the kind of film parents hated,because scrap lumber and yardsticks disappeared to make swords,and every trash can lid became a battered shield [that no longer fit the can]. By Sunday morning there were many bruised and splinter wounded 10 year olds You should rate this type of movie by the number of bandaids passed out to young berserkers!

This movie made me cry as a child,and I still choke up at the ending.I believe this was the first film I had seen where the hero did not physically triumph over the villain.As distressing as that was to me,even to my 11 year old brain I realized that the protagonist had somehow[spiritually]won out over the roman general.I often wondered how Kubrick could become such a cynic in later years[Dr. Strangelove,Clockwork Orange,Full Metal Jacket].I was not surpized in later years to discover that he and Douglas quarreled bitterly over the ending [among other things].His take on humanity is definitely not stamped on this film that he disavowed.I do believe that Kubrick restrained was a better film maker then Kubrick without limits.By the way does anyone know how Crassus ended?Well eventuallly the roman mob ran him out.He went to the eastern frontier of the empire to command a disaster of a campaign.and watched his son captured and vivisected alive before his eyes.And ended[this is a disputed version]having molten lead poured down his throat by his Parthian executioners.Makes crucifixion seem like a shot to the back of the head;doesn't it?

Not George Pal's best,but at least he had us farther along then we are now.His unflagging optimism was all up there on the screen.As a kid who built space ship models I loved this stuff.The film drags a little now,but the dead astronaut's body tagging along for the ride till his "at sea" burial,kept me awake all night at age 8.movie trivia moment:character actor William Redfield who washed out of the mission crew got to pilot the miniaturized sub in "Fantastic Voyage".Talk about perseverance!

I have heard it rumored that Lucas made this movie to sell himself to the Tolkien heirs as the man to make a "lord of the Rings" trilogy,and had the inside track until they were turned off by how commercially oriented "Phantom Menace" was.Listen folks.you don't spend that kind of money for an audition tape;even if you're George Lucas. And if the Tolkien estate didn't like money;we would have been deprived of figurines and calendars along time ago. Now to the movie.Acting so-so. story OK,EFX superb.Also the action;pacing and cinematography.The music was epic and also appropriately and touchingly beautiful when it needed to be. and speaking of touching [and I am a well adjusted college educated successful American male] I choke up at the ending every time when Willow comes home to Kia at the end of the film.That works for me. Ron Howard,however, seemed too intimidated by Lucas to make his own film. The vision was obviously not his.

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.]