I liked the look of this film. I liked Richard Harris as Arthur because he has the look of a medieval king. Vanessa Redgrave is a more formidable Guinevere, and Franco Nero is quite stunning to look at. But they are right. They are not singers. They are not very good weak singers (does that make sense). Now I never really bought into Julie Andrews as Guinevere in the music from the Original Cast, and I don't see her as a strong woman my mind's eye. But I do agree, it's time to take a big budget crack at this again. Imagine the pageantry that would be possible now and some of the wonderful musical talents to draw from. Back to the story. This is a touching story of a man who liked the battles but not the rule. He is forced into a marriage and then falls in love. However, the magical Lancelot steals her heart and things go sour. Arthur is left alone on the battlefield, and Camelot is only a memory. Great story...poor execution.

Whenever I watch Joshua Logan's two final directorial outings, I find myself wondering 'why'. Why direct two musicals that feature actors who either cannot sing (such as Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood in "Paint Your Wagon"),can sing but really aren't known for it nor are great singers (Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave in "Camelot") or have to be dubbed because they simply don't speak the language (with the Italian actor, Franco Nero, playing a Frenchman....and is dubbed whenever he sings). It's confounding and I know that much of this also was the fault of the producers....but such casting decisions helped to end Logan's once-distinguished career. I mention all this because no matter how much you like "Camelot", it begins with a few strikes against it.

The story concerns the relationship between King Arthur, his wife and the knight, Lancelot....and how it ultimately destroys Camelot and the kingdom. And, since the stories about Arthur are fictional, you can't fault the writers for taking a few liberties with older versions of the life of Arthur.

On the positive side, the film looks gorgeous and it's obvious the studio spent a lot of money to make the picture look amazing. The same can be said of the songs...which are quite memorable.

On the negative, the story is overlong. While I like long films, they need to maintain momentum and that was an occasional problem with this film. Losing a few songs might have, in hindsight, been a good idea.

Additionally, as I aluded to above, the singing wasn't bad but you expect more from a musical. For such a lavish film, I would have expected actors who were great singers.

Overall, this is a lovely looking film that occasionally bores and whose singing should have been a bit better. A very mixed bag.

In general I did like "Camelot" but there are a number of flaws that do let down what could have been a spectacular film to what is now a interesting but somewhat mediocre one. Well, starting with the positives, it is sumptuously filmed, with stunning cinematography and lush costumes and sets. The music score is marvellous, beautiful, dramatic, moving, haunting and lots more. Most of the performances are well done, particularly David Hemmings as Mordred who is deliciously devious and even detestable. And it was nice to see the late Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. The story is tragic and inspiring, the ending is moving and the dialogue is good. However, the film does drag a lot, not only because the pace is disappointingly pedestrian, but Joshua Logan's direction is very stodgy. Also, while Gene Merlino provided the singing voice of Lancelot beautifully, I personally didn't find the singing that great. Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave act convincingly as Arthur and Guinevere, but their singing is flat mostly. As Lancelot Franco Nero is wooden at best, handsome yes, but wooden. All in all, worth watching, but with more secure pacing and a perhaps better director, no offence to Joshua Logan, this could've been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox