It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

To give "Sword of the Valiant" its due, this film is a valiant attempt at presenting a story about a chivalrous knight in its absolutely purest form. The princess Linet (Cyrielle Clair) plays the damsel in distress shamelessly and unrelentingly; making the bra burning feminists shake their heads in horror and disbelief. Sir Gawain (played by former college football captain Miles O'Keeffe) perfectly fits the stereotype of the knight who wants to rescue the damsel in distress. Ronald Lacey captures the villain Osward to a tea, including his pettiness and his lasciviousness. Only Sean Connery (playing the "mysterious" green knight) seems to fully appreciate the fact that he's in an absurd film and hams it up accordingly. He's the most entertaining thing in this picture. Lastly, the creators of this movie were so determined to make sure that the actors spoke exactly like the book's medieval characters that they never stopped to wonder whether important strands of the dialogue made any sense. As for the plot, it simply consisted of situations in the knight's life which barely relate to each other. This attempt to make another purist film about knightly chivalry during King Arthur's time may have amounted to something, if the filmmakers did not take their subject matter so seriously. As it stands now, "Sword of the Valiant" is occasionally fun and some of its convoluted dialogue (which some of the actors probably do not fully understand) is unintentionally funny -- especially after you stop worrying about the details of the plot and give up trying to make sense of what the characters are saying and doing -- but all this is not enough for me to recommend the picture. Nevertheless, if you like to watch actors recite strange medieval dialogue that they don't fully comprehend, then you may want to watch a couple of scenes from this film.

...And he will thankfully in literature but not this cinematic garbage. The Medieval poem "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is a wonderfully layered poem about old and new, good and evil, pure and tainted. This movie basically rips all the subtext from that work and throws it away so it can add nonsense like the Green Knight turning a sorceress into a red frog. Some mythological land where a woman wants Gawain for his body. Then there is the sub-story about some renegade marauders fighting for an evil baron who take in men just from anywhere to fight in their army. None of this makes much sense. The whole Arthur storyline was excised as well. Forget Gawain being a paragon of virtue and chastity. Here we get pretty boy-look-a-lot-like-a-lady Miles O'Keefe - who as another reviewer noted - creeps me out too! Sean Connery looks ridiculous as the Green Knight spouting out drivel. The whole end of the poem as well as the mid-section are totally changed. In the poem the Green Knight has three whacks at Gawain for Gawain had unwittingly stayed at his castle and received three kisses from the lord, Sir Bertilak's wife. He praises Gawain for his purity and righteousness. Here we get some lame ending about the seasons. We also get a fat monk who steals, a Sancho Panza-like Humphreys, and a host of characters not ever imagined in the poem. Director Stephen Weeks did this as his last film. That says sooo much right there. The acting is dreadful with O'Keefe looking like Fabio at every turn. Poor Sean Connery. I felt bad for Ronald Lacey(always good at playing bad guys like the Nazi leader in Raiders of the Lost Ark)and Trevor Howard just as the King - though for what reason I am unable to fathom was not called King Arthur like he was in the poem. Was it copyrighted by an anonymous poet from the 14th century? The gal who plays the love interest is beautiful but always covered. Alas! Woe is me! Then there is Peter Cushing - an actor for whom I have an incredibly soft spot for in my heart of hearts. This was either his second or third to last film. He is in his early 70s and as always good. Shame this had to be one of his last projects. He did do the film as a favor no doubt for Weeks as he directed Cushing in I , Monster - Weeks's best film to be sure. And the final insult to injury is the over-the-top, totally misplaced musical score. It resonates loudly throughout without any other effect than an incredible annoyance. The film is also cheap-looking in that 80s cheap movie way. Despite what might have been a very good cast, this film - in a word - reeks!

Yes, Sean Connery did not want to be Bond forever and for the most part you can say he has done a rather good job of doing roles other than Bond. Then there are the head scratchers like that turn as a villain in the very dull "Avengers" movie. Or like here, where he decided to say the heck with serious acting let me be in one of those horrible films with one of those guys who can not act a lick in this case Miles O'Keefe, also seen in the dreadful "Cave Dwellers", which was also a sequel to another one that I have heard is bad itself Ator. Granted the movie "Zardoz" was strange too, and it made no sense as well, but it had a certain style and actually seemed to work even though there are still parts of it I have no clue as to what they were about. This one is just bad with an ending that makes one go what the heck just happened there. Did they not remember to write a good ending so they had to end it in the most vague possible manner. Not really much to say about this movie, only that Sean Connery is the only reason I gave this movie a two because he is a favorite actor of mine. However, he does not really add anything to this one, but it just makes the movie surreal just because an actor of his caliber is in it.

Abysmal screen adaptation of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" which not only frequently abandons the source material but is devoid of any of its themes or meanings. The result is a strictly one-dimensional swords and sandal shambles which fatally chooses to take itself seriously. Miles O'Keefe is as bland as one can be in the role of Gawain whilst the action sequences are staged totally without panache or energy. The sole highlight (for me, anyway) among the mess was Sean Connery's lively portrayal of the Green Knight yet its not enough to rescue the movie. Overall, the whole thing is a sorry excuse for a film production and (considering its release in an era where action-adventure was being taken to new heights through "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones") one has to wonder what the filmmakers ever saw in it.