For those of you who don’t know it, the 1980’s was a fabulous time for cinematic Fantasy at the box office.
The wave of innovative storytelling that had burst the studio floodgates with the advent of George Lucas’ Star Wars (1977) was going in high gear. Producers were hungrily searching for any property that could be spun into light and shadow, with a great many of them taking to scouring bookshelves for the kind of fare that original set imaginations ablaze. If fans were willing to embrace a dazzling yarn in print, then it stood to reason that millions would flock to see it on the silver screen. Granted, a good many opportunists also dug their hooks into the trend knowing that even their minimal contribution and effort might double or triple their net worth; but discerning storytellers were willing to show their bosses that Science Fiction and Fantasy – when done right – wasn’t so much a fad as it was here to stay.
Fueled by a long personal fascination with the legend of King Arthur, celebrated producer, writer, and director John Boorman finally decided the time was right to bring a proper version of the Knight of the Round Table to life. From what many knew, the auteur had dabbled with the themes introduced in the myth before – in some surprisingly non-Fantasy properties – but society’s embrace of the truly Fantastic meant that such ideas no longer had to be cleverly nestled into modern stories and could now take center stage in all of its regal glory. No longer just theatrical metaphors, Arthur and Lancelot and Guinevere and Merlin and the Lady of the Lake graduated to marquee sensations; and, thus, Excalibur (1981) was delivered to the multiplexes.
From what I’ve been able to research, the only existing box office for the film indicates that the picture grossed an impressive $35M (in the U.S. and Canada) off an astonishingly low $11M budget. At the 1982 Academy Awards, Excalibur surprisingly only received a nomination in the category of 'Best Cinematography’ (which it lost to the drama Reds), something which is a bit insulting given the high praise the project garnered from the 1982 Saturn Awards. Though it only took home their trophy for ‘Best Costumes,’ it also enjoyed nods in the categories of ‘Best Make-Up,’ ‘Best Director,’ ‘Best Supporting Actor’ (Nicol Williamson), ‘Best Supporting Actress’ (Helen Mirren), and ‘Best Fantasy Film.’ Perhaps the big leagues of the Motion Picture Academy Of Arts And Sciences just weren’t ready to fully acknowledge that Fantasy had arrived; but, thankfully, Arrow Films has resurrected this mildly forgotten gem with an incredible package for 2026 that deserves your attention.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Merlin the magician helps Arthur Pendragon unite the Britons around the Round Table of Camelot, even as dark forces conspire to tear it apart.”
Here’s the thing, folks: our intellectual betters will likely never give Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror the attention they deserve.
While many suggest such disdain is owed to the fact that – ahem – typically these films don’t just make money but garner massively impressive returns, I’ve always tried to give these academics the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they just don’t understand how persuasive mythology is as entertainment, or perhaps they just don’t relate to stories told against the backdrop of pure imagination. All one need do is take a serious gander into the volume of financially successful projects over the years to know that such diversions do tickle the fancies of so many; and – maybe if they did – these critics would realize that properties like Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and more are beloved around the world for reasons greater than just being pure escapism.
Now, I’m not here today to argue that John Boorman’s Excalibur is as deserving of their attention as are other Fantasies of the ‘80’s such as 1981’s Dragonslayer, 1982’s Conan The Barbarian, 1982’s The Beastmaster, or 1982’s The Sword And The Sorcerer. The truth is that big Fantasy was really just kinda/sorta coming into its own in that decade; and – factually – Excalibur is a markedly different attempt in adapting classical mythology for the screen. But I will say that intellectuals often prefer lumping the tale of King Arthur and his knights in with those other entries, and I think this does a huge disservice to what Boorman and his talented cast and crew accomplished at the dawn of this new style. In this film, everything is approached with a degree of dramatic seriousness – with the notable exception to the characterization of Merlin the wizard (as played by Nicol Williamson) – making Excalibur more of an exception to the rule than a great many films that followed.
Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne) has established dominance over several kingdoms, and now he’s found something which entirely escapes his grasp: the ravenous Igrayne (Katrine Boorman) – the Duke of Cornwall’s wife – is a vision of beauty he’s willing to risk his kingdom to bed. Rather than go to war over possession of the woman, Uther convinces Merlin to cast a spell that will give him the outer appearance of the Duke one evening while her husband is away. What Uther didn’t know was that the Duke would die in combat that evening; and thus Pendragon’s momentary moral weakness could have been otherwise avoided. Now, he’s brought a curse on himself by impregnating Igrayne; and Merlin demands the child – Arthur, the once and future king – as payment for his spectral services.
Years later, Arthur (Nigel Terry) eventually pulls the sword Excalibur from stone, proving to those who believe in the legend that he’s destined to bring peace and prosperity to all lands; and – to a degree – that happens. But the man’s unwillingness to stand up for the honor of his wife Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) eventually pushes the woman into the arms of his friend and loyal servant – Sir Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) – a development that ultimately sets in motion Arthur’s own downfall at the hands of his half-sister Morgan (Helen Mirren). Inevitably, the king recovers once he’s rejuvenated from the Holy Grail; and yet he’s destined to meet his demise on the field of battle against Mordred (Robert Addie) when myth and mortality converge in a final showdown.
So, again, Excalibur both is and isn’t the kind of stuff audiences who flock to theatrical Fantasies expect. Yes, it’s filled with fighting and sorcery – both in reasonably limited supply – because Boorman chose to be as true to the Arthurian legends as possible. (Mind you: the director is on record acknowledging that he combined multiple translations in an attempt to represent several versions.) Still, because there are great discussions of nobility and faith (and faithlessness) sprinkled across the script the resulting film gets into some heady waters where other filmmakers might’ve taken easier paths. In fact, the last third of the film wherein Perceval (Paul Geoffrey) goes off in pursuit of the Grail ventures into some visual territory that requires some heavy lifting on the part of the audience; and this is why I’d argue that the film shouldn’t necessarily be looked at in the same manner of works that followed in its wake. It’s infinitely smarter and even infinitely slower.
Even though it’s a picture I’ve always loved, I’ll also concede it has its own share of drawbacks. Terry’s performance is occasionally a bit stiff, almost as if the actor wasn’t quite sure what to make of Arthur’s central motivations. Lunghi – while impressive in a few sequences – is anchored by standing around or sitting too much of the time, giving us only the benefit of facial expressions to make of what we will; and I found it underwhelming. Clay’s work as Lancelot is exceptional, so much so that it’s his character that definitely brings the middle third to life in just the right way; but the film languishes just a bit once he vanishes into the background owed to his sins. Everything clicks on a different level when Mirren and Williamson are allowed to work a bit of magic: though Williamson’s bits alone feel a bit too much like vintage ‘Doctor Who’ (the great Tom Baker comes to mind), there’s no denying the chemistry of their pairing when it comes full circle.
Excalibur (1981) was produced by Ardmore Studios, Cinema ’84, and Orion Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds to this reported 4K upgrade are phenomenal: occasionally, there’s a bit of dip in the audio quality, and I can only guess this is attributed back to the source material. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Holy mother of dragons, you’d better buckle up! This 3-disc set contains multiple edits of the flick itself along with three audio commentaries (two of which are current) and a huge, huge, huge assortment of all-new produced features as well as a 60-minute behind-the-scenes making-of documentary (which is exceptional) shot by filmmaker Neil Jordan. Folks, I’ve seen a lot of packages from Arrow; but – by far – this ranks up there as one of the best. It’s a fascinating back-stage pass to the mechanics associated with bringing this unique vision to life; and it shouldn’t be missed by fans. Well done.
Highly Recommended.
Here’s the thing: 1981’s Excalibur is one of those rare flicks that I – as a critic – have an admittedly hard time reviewing with a level head because it’s both a nostalgic throwback to a time when I was really first discovering my love of motion pictures and it conceived and shot in an age before all of the CGI wizardry and still looks far more impressive without the advent of visual technology. No, I don’t see the performances and certain elements of the plot the same way – not with these age-wizened eyes – but the magic and wizardry of the Arthurian mythos is as alive and well as it’s ever been. There have been other attempts to capture this story – or it might be correct to suggest that there have been other interpretations – but Boorman’s effort remains a truly inspired original. It should be seen and appreciated on that level alone … blemishes be damned.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Excalibur (1981) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
The wave of innovative storytelling that had burst the studio floodgates with the advent of George Lucas’ Star Wars (1977) was going in high gear. Producers were hungrily searching for any property that could be spun into light and shadow, with a great many of them taking to scouring bookshelves for the kind of fare that original set imaginations ablaze. If fans were willing to embrace a dazzling yarn in print, then it stood to reason that millions would flock to see it on the silver screen. Granted, a good many opportunists also dug their hooks into the trend knowing that even their minimal contribution and effort might double or triple their net worth; but discerning storytellers were willing to show their bosses that Science Fiction and Fantasy – when done right – wasn’t so much a fad as it was here to stay.
Fueled by a long personal fascination with the legend of King Arthur, celebrated producer, writer, and director John Boorman finally decided the time was right to bring a proper version of the Knight of the Round Table to life. From what many knew, the auteur had dabbled with the themes introduced in the myth before – in some surprisingly non-Fantasy properties – but society’s embrace of the truly Fantastic meant that such ideas no longer had to be cleverly nestled into modern stories and could now take center stage in all of its regal glory. No longer just theatrical metaphors, Arthur and Lancelot and Guinevere and Merlin and the Lady of the Lake graduated to marquee sensations; and, thus, Excalibur (1981) was delivered to the multiplexes.
From what I’ve been able to research, the only existing box office for the film indicates that the picture grossed an impressive $35M (in the U.S. and Canada) off an astonishingly low $11M budget. At the 1982 Academy Awards, Excalibur surprisingly only received a nomination in the category of 'Best Cinematography’ (which it lost to the drama Reds), something which is a bit insulting given the high praise the project garnered from the 1982 Saturn Awards. Though it only took home their trophy for ‘Best Costumes,’ it also enjoyed nods in the categories of ‘Best Make-Up,’ ‘Best Director,’ ‘Best Supporting Actor’ (Nicol Williamson), ‘Best Supporting Actress’ (Helen Mirren), and ‘Best Fantasy Film.’ Perhaps the big leagues of the Motion Picture Academy Of Arts And Sciences just weren’t ready to fully acknowledge that Fantasy had arrived; but, thankfully, Arrow Films has resurrected this mildly forgotten gem with an incredible package for 2026 that deserves your attention.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Merlin the magician helps Arthur Pendragon unite the Britons around the Round Table of Camelot, even as dark forces conspire to tear it apart.”
Here’s the thing, folks: our intellectual betters will likely never give Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror the attention they deserve.
While many suggest such disdain is owed to the fact that – ahem – typically these films don’t just make money but garner massively impressive returns, I’ve always tried to give these academics the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they just don’t understand how persuasive mythology is as entertainment, or perhaps they just don’t relate to stories told against the backdrop of pure imagination. All one need do is take a serious gander into the volume of financially successful projects over the years to know that such diversions do tickle the fancies of so many; and – maybe if they did – these critics would realize that properties like Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and more are beloved around the world for reasons greater than just being pure escapism.
Now, I’m not here today to argue that John Boorman’s Excalibur is as deserving of their attention as are other Fantasies of the ‘80’s such as 1981’s Dragonslayer, 1982’s Conan The Barbarian, 1982’s The Beastmaster, or 1982’s The Sword And The Sorcerer. The truth is that big Fantasy was really just kinda/sorta coming into its own in that decade; and – factually – Excalibur is a markedly different attempt in adapting classical mythology for the screen. But I will say that intellectuals often prefer lumping the tale of King Arthur and his knights in with those other entries, and I think this does a huge disservice to what Boorman and his talented cast and crew accomplished at the dawn of this new style. In this film, everything is approached with a degree of dramatic seriousness – with the notable exception to the characterization of Merlin the wizard (as played by Nicol Williamson) – making Excalibur more of an exception to the rule than a great many films that followed.
Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne) has established dominance over several kingdoms, and now he’s found something which entirely escapes his grasp: the ravenous Igrayne (Katrine Boorman) – the Duke of Cornwall’s wife – is a vision of beauty he’s willing to risk his kingdom to bed. Rather than go to war over possession of the woman, Uther convinces Merlin to cast a spell that will give him the outer appearance of the Duke one evening while her husband is away. What Uther didn’t know was that the Duke would die in combat that evening; and thus Pendragon’s momentary moral weakness could have been otherwise avoided. Now, he’s brought a curse on himself by impregnating Igrayne; and Merlin demands the child – Arthur, the once and future king – as payment for his spectral services.
Years later, Arthur (Nigel Terry) eventually pulls the sword Excalibur from stone, proving to those who believe in the legend that he’s destined to bring peace and prosperity to all lands; and – to a degree – that happens. But the man’s unwillingness to stand up for the honor of his wife Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) eventually pushes the woman into the arms of his friend and loyal servant – Sir Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) – a development that ultimately sets in motion Arthur’s own downfall at the hands of his half-sister Morgan (Helen Mirren). Inevitably, the king recovers once he’s rejuvenated from the Holy Grail; and yet he’s destined to meet his demise on the field of battle against Mordred (Robert Addie) when myth and mortality converge in a final showdown.
So, again, Excalibur both is and isn’t the kind of stuff audiences who flock to theatrical Fantasies expect. Yes, it’s filled with fighting and sorcery – both in reasonably limited supply – because Boorman chose to be as true to the Arthurian legends as possible. (Mind you: the director is on record acknowledging that he combined multiple translations in an attempt to represent several versions.) Still, because there are great discussions of nobility and faith (and faithlessness) sprinkled across the script the resulting film gets into some heady waters where other filmmakers might’ve taken easier paths. In fact, the last third of the film wherein Perceval (Paul Geoffrey) goes off in pursuit of the Grail ventures into some visual territory that requires some heavy lifting on the part of the audience; and this is why I’d argue that the film shouldn’t necessarily be looked at in the same manner of works that followed in its wake. It’s infinitely smarter and even infinitely slower.
Even though it’s a picture I’ve always loved, I’ll also concede it has its own share of drawbacks. Terry’s performance is occasionally a bit stiff, almost as if the actor wasn’t quite sure what to make of Arthur’s central motivations. Lunghi – while impressive in a few sequences – is anchored by standing around or sitting too much of the time, giving us only the benefit of facial expressions to make of what we will; and I found it underwhelming. Clay’s work as Lancelot is exceptional, so much so that it’s his character that definitely brings the middle third to life in just the right way; but the film languishes just a bit once he vanishes into the background owed to his sins. Everything clicks on a different level when Mirren and Williamson are allowed to work a bit of magic: though Williamson’s bits alone feel a bit too much like vintage ‘Doctor Who’ (the great Tom Baker comes to mind), there’s no denying the chemistry of their pairing when it comes full circle.
Excalibur (1981) was produced by Ardmore Studios, Cinema ’84, and Orion Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds to this reported 4K upgrade are phenomenal: occasionally, there’s a bit of dip in the audio quality, and I can only guess this is attributed back to the source material. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Holy mother of dragons, you’d better buckle up! This 3-disc set contains multiple edits of the flick itself along with three audio commentaries (two of which are current) and a huge, huge, huge assortment of all-new produced features as well as a 60-minute behind-the-scenes making-of documentary (which is exceptional) shot by filmmaker Neil Jordan. Folks, I’ve seen a lot of packages from Arrow; but – by far – this ranks up there as one of the best. It’s a fascinating back-stage pass to the mechanics associated with bringing this unique vision to life; and it shouldn’t be missed by fans. Well done.
Highly Recommended.
Here’s the thing: 1981’s Excalibur is one of those rare flicks that I – as a critic – have an admittedly hard time reviewing with a level head because it’s both a nostalgic throwback to a time when I was really first discovering my love of motion pictures and it conceived and shot in an age before all of the CGI wizardry and still looks far more impressive without the advent of visual technology. No, I don’t see the performances and certain elements of the plot the same way – not with these age-wizened eyes – but the magic and wizardry of the Arthurian mythos is as alive and well as it’s ever been. There have been other attempts to capture this story – or it might be correct to suggest that there have been other interpretations – but Boorman’s effort remains a truly inspired original. It should be seen and appreciated on that level alone … blemishes be damned.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Excalibur (1981) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed