Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Fantastic!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

This musical adaptation of the Tony Award winning musical play (of the same name) by Alan Jay Lerner, from T.H. White's "The Once and Future King", was directed by Joshua Logan. It earned three Academy Awards – for Art Direction-Set Decoration, Costume Design, and Music, Scoring of Music, Adaptation or Treatment – in addition to Oscar nominations for Cinematography and Sound.However, its lead actors: Richard Harris as King Arthur, Vanessa Redgrave as Guenevere, Franco Nero as Sir Lancelot, and David Hemmings as Mordred leave something to be desired (acting-wise, but especially singing when) compared to the original production's Richard Burton, Julie Andrews, Robert Goulet, Roddy McDowall (respectively). Among those also in the film's cast are: Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore, Laurence Naismith as Merlyn, and Estelle Winwood as Lady Clarinda.The story is a familiar one, as are countless songs (including "If Ever I Would Leave You" and "What Do the Simple Folk Do?"), which help to make the movie run on for nearly 3 hours:Arthur, who as a boy was the only one able to remove the sword (Excalibur) from a stone in which it was 'stuck', a sign that he was the one true King of England, was mentored by Merlyn as he grew into the role. He meets and establishes flirtatious 'relations' with Guenevere, who's desperate for adventure, before he and she realize that their marriage had already been arranged.Arthur's idea for bringing together the various warring provinces of his country involves establishing a coalition of representative knights that would meet in his castle at a round table (so that no one could claim its head, e.g. prime position of power) of equals. France's invincible Lancelot Du Lac hears of the "Knights of the Round Table" and decides that he too must serve Arthur. But the religious and somewhat arrogant about both his ability and purity Lancelot is destined to fall in love with Guenevere.When Arthur realizes this, and subsequently suspects that his queen is having an affair with his "right hand", he decides not to publicly acknowledge it – "there's no proof" (e.g. for a court of law, an instrument that the forward-thinking King himself first devised) – for what he thinks is an honorable reason (to save his kingdom). Instead of having them arrested burned at the stake, he banishes anyone (including his knights) that claims there is an affair. Of course, this erodes the nobleness of the kingdom, and its end is just a matter of time ... especially when the King's own illegitimate son Mordred returns to England and spins his treachery.

Lerner and Loewe's successful stage musical is adapted for the big screen by Lerner and directed by Joshua Logan--someone who certainly knows his way around film adaptations. Yet the film lacks the charm of the stage production and it is troubled by performances that are less than inspiring.If there were any story that should be inspiring it is "Camelot"--a tale of a kingdom where virtue and justice are made law. Arthur (Richard Harris) is the designer and conceptualist of Camelot. The story has him originating the trial by jury concept and giving voice to the ideas of his constituents. But Harris--though he has a solid grasp of melody--has a voice that is better suited to talk-singing. It worked well for Rex Harrison in Lerner & Loewe's earlier "My Fair Lady" (some would say), but somehow it comes up short here. Likewise, Vanessa Redgrave (Guenevere) is no Julie Andrews or Marni Nixon. They dub for Franco Nero's (Lancelot) voice.A bigger problem for the film is the unevenness of its tone. In the first scenes, Arthur and Guenevere meet in a forest some distance from Camelot. The scenes are shot in a whimsical way, as if the intent is to set the action on a stage. For example, you can see their shadows on the prop trees even though it's a night scene. This is acceptable if the entire film is shot that way.But after some light music (e.g. "I Wonder What the King is Doing Tonight") and a symbolic wedding ceremony, the tone changes. This is when the king sings "How to Handle a Woman", when the story does become darker, but there is a noticeable difference in the filming style. It really feels like a different film. In the final scene, Arthur rediscovers his fire for life and his last lines are fueled with enthusiasm for his vision of a perfect place representing his ideals. This vision is the grail that he is meant to seek. Those last lines are emotionally powerful and they would possess even more power if the entire film focused on his dream.Unfortunately, though Guenevere and Lancelot initially are inspired by Arthur's vision, their focus never returns. We need to see that Camelot is a special place for them and that they truly understand what is at stake. Instead, the story has them deal solely with personal matters.My focus was constantly drawn away from the film by its numerous similarities with "My Fair Lady", but the costumes are wonderful and a few of the songs are, of course, beautiful in any context.

Just my first impressions after a brief look. Never had the cast album or soundtrack or seen this until now.I think there are two major flaws; compromised casting as many others have pointed out here. I agree with many of those comments. Oh, Lancelot seem to be some Latin lover; they should have really gone for it and gotten Ricardo Montalbán.Primarily the camera work is too much. Almost all if it is some "modern" filmmaking of the [60s] time that would not allow it to be done the way they did in the 'classics of the "old days.' Panning and zooming or tracking all combined and quick-cuts like TV for some throw-away bits do not make for great film-making. There are so many too-tight shots not leaving any 'air' around the actors too often; facial close-ups cutting off some hair and chins. It diminished the actors. Angled shots all the time, sideways or up or down. Spare my eyes, please. Too-clever focus. A sense of place got lost much of the time, and this is supposed to be a storied, magical world we become privy to. Instead, what I saw looked cheapened. Can some student of film confirm, and is there an example of some newer musical that backed away from these techniques?

This film is positively dreadful. In fact, it's so bad I actually started laughing as I watched it wondering how any studio executive could sit in his luxurious private screening room and not groan at how utterly awful this film is. Where does one even begin? Well, let's start with the story of the Camelot legend. Gee, folks, it's about adultery. How modern! Just what I want to see - adultery - as if there isn't enough unfaithfulness in the movies we have to get it in what is supposed to be a mythical legend. But it gets even worse. The Queen falls for a Knight and to hide her lust for him she arranges to have him dispatched in a jostling match. Nice girl! Gee, with women like that who needs enemies? And this girl is supposed to be a heroine! Oh dear, what happened to true fair maidens like Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music or Debbie Reynolds in Singing in the Rain?