Avis des utilisateurs

This film has to be one of the most underrated films ever. And in some ways I think this could be due to it being a British film made with a reasonably low budget...in other words a prejudice against it.

I admit it does have it's flaws such as some of the fight scenes (but not all) being a little silly, a few deviations from the plot of the poem, and the occasional line of cheesy dialogue (though on this count we there is not that much of this at all).

This film had a small budget however the filmmakers accomplish a great deal despite this. The set designs I have to say are rather good. As for the costumes, they do indeed look like 'Monty Python And The Holy Grail' costumes in some cases. There are two reasons for this that are over looked...these are the facts that Monty Python spoofed this film (aswell as others) with their film...The other fact is that the costumes are based on Medieval Costumes and so it's obvious that some will look similar.

I have seen a lot of people on this site say how bad the effects are, and I have to respectfully say that their comments are baloney on this matter. The effects are no worse than most other films of that time and genre.

Also it should be noted that this is a British film and most of the cast were fairly well known in the UK at the time, so they are only a 'No Name' cast to people abroad (not in the UK) in the USA...etc...People forget that films are always predominately made for their own countries and not generally foreign markets...and this film is the same.

Over all this is quite a good film...I will give it full marks just because everyone else are giving this film such ridiculous marks on these reviews.

This movie is so mediocre, it's depressing. It's not so bad that it's unwatchable, but it's not good enough to be even remotely interesting. It's a long, dull movie with nothing to recommend it... except for one thing that is worth noting:

Almost every other review points out that this movie seems to be the inspiration for "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." However, I am surprised to see that no one else noticed something very interesting: Ronald Lacey plays a guy who gets his hand burned to a crisp by a hot medallion. Strange that the EXACT SAME THING happened to him eight years later when he played a Nazi in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Other than that fun bit of trivia, the rest of the movie contains unnerving landscapes that look like something Dr. Suess would draw if he was on LSD, ridiculous costumes, dull fight scenes, creepy characters, and the overall feel of a fever dream. It's definitely weird, but not in a so-weird-you-have-to-watch-it way, just a so-weird-you-better-just-skip-it way. 3/10 stars.

This film version of one of the Arthurian legends is badly done, with cheesy special affects, stagey acting and a green knight with an enormous green-tinted wig and false beard that must be seen to be believed. All I can say is that the members of Monty Python MUST have seen this before they sat down to write The Holy Grail (Gawain was released in England 2 years prior), and decided to make fun of it.

I vaguely remember this from being around 7 years old at the time. The combination of time since, my age at the time, seeing it in a strange old-fashioned cinema, having an inter- mission(!), and the weird and dark storyline, have kept me perplexed to this day – with weird flashbacks.

I remember little detail I'm afraid, other than a general green tinge to the whole film and the Green Knight's head (I think), played by Nigel Green (born for the role, obviously), being lopped off by a sword in a finalé fight sequence. I think I was completely bamboozled by the whole affair, but not necessarily bored. If anything, I think it encouraged my liking of strange and weird films, and furthered my interest in the appearance of things – ending up as a graphic designer.

I do remember Nigel Green though and think I was aware of him at the time, maybe having seen him in Jason and the Argonauts earlier (as Hercules). In spite of his theatrical larger-than- life acting style, I remember him being a gripping person to watch – at least as a kid. A shame it was his last film.

I'd love to see again some day...

Atmospheric is the first word I'd use to describe this movie. With the thick rolling fog, deep forest, dark castles and rocky seacoast; this movie delivers on locations. The filth is fantastic. When characters get dirty, they stay dirty. Their clothes look worn. When Gawain falls ill, he looks it. There are sweat stains on most of the cast. I don't know about you guys, but I appreciate touches like that.

In this version of Gawain, everything, no matter how bizarre or with a touch of silly, is deadly serious for the players. From the moment the movie starts it wraps itself in the period and surreal imagery and grimly marches on to a very well done conclusion.

Though it gets a lot of bad reviews, I genuinely like this movie. In fact, I like it much more than the remake "Sword of the Valiant"-- whose characters come off as not taking their environment, or each other, seriously.

These reviews heighten my need to get hold of a copy of this film. I've been looking for it ever since the videotape was invented, hoping to relive the glorious three weeks spent as an extra on Gawain and the Green Knight during my art-school days in Cardiff Wales. Costumes? how can you criticise chain mail knitted from silver sprayed string? Combat scenes? bad acting! I was personally involved in hand to hand combat with Murray Head! Awful scenery? Don't let the Welsh hear that.. mainly Cardiff and Caerphilly castles. Terrible SFX? How about covering the set in artificial snow only to have to delay filming because it snowed for real. A masterpiece.

Having just watched back-to-back two version of Gawain and the Green Knight, that of Stephen Weeks (1973) and that of David Rudkin/John Phillips (1991) it seemed like a good idea to write one review covering both. The difference is basic and simple: Rudkin's is a faithful and highly literate rendering of the text, while Weeks's is more of a fun romp based loosely on the same material. I find both equally enjoyable in their different ways, and can't understand the opprobrium heaped on the 1973 version. It's charming and delightful, with nice music and graphics, and features some great one-off (if over the top) performances from the likes of Nigel Green (who seemed born to play his namesake the Green Knight), Geoffrey Bayldon and Murray Melvin. Both benefit from some marvellous Welsh locations with which I am very familiar. Perhaps one of the greatest advantages I have in appreciating it is the fact that I'm probably the only person in the world who has never seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and has no intention of ever doing so. Rudkin's more earnest and serious screenplay, with its hypnotically alliterative iambs, has made me want to go back and reread the original.

I was about six when I saw this so forgive the vagueness. It's kind of Monty Python's Holy Grail in look with a Michael "couldn't-direct-traffic-on-the-Orkney-Islands" Winner directorial style. It was so deeply bizarre that it has stuck in the memory ever since. Thinking I perhaps didn't understand it because I was a kid I asked a couple of film boffins I know, they said, "no, mate, it was a genuinely odd film." (I seem to recollect lots of misty forests, dream-like fights and a man who lived in a vat of oil in order that his genitals erode away). Anyway, I think more youngsters should be made to watch this film so that they can grow up confused and slightly warped.

This is fabulous. One of the writers (Week) made this movie again in 1984 with Sean Connery and totally ruined this script and created a horrible 2nd version. This however was excellent. Catholicity is often shown as the original story from middle ages does that. The pentangle of Gawain is shown correctly. It's important because it has a deep meaning. The actors are all very talented, speak excellently. Look great, act perfectly, emotions are conveyed perfectly. The guy playing green knight is fantastic, no actors like that anymore around anywhere and does a much better job than Sean Connery. But that goes for all actors in this. Linet plays great too and is sexy. Gawain actor 10 stars as well.

I dunno why I wrote "the knights who say ni!" as my summary. I suppose it was to be creative. Anyway, this movie is very close to the original story, but another half hour of this crap I would've been ripping my hair out. Well, at least I think that is what I might have done had I not been a huge fan of Murray Head.

But Murray's the man, so I watched and I got a kick out of him running about punching people and hitting them with sticks, rocks, himself, swords, and anything else he found laying about. The cinematography is stinky and the script/ interpretation of the tale is sorta crappy. But if you like Murray, by all means go ahead and watch.

A medium budget film it maybe, but it has a great cast of memorable character actors ,a decent script, and a beautiful atmospheric Ron Godwin soundtrack I saw this in the cinema when it came out as child and the rare tv showings in the 1980s Why so many negative reviews I cannot fathom, it has never had a comercial DVD or BLU RAY release either let alone be picked up for streaming if anyone has the rights to this I suggest they actually view the film and let people see what a lost treasure it is.

As before it is full of memorable British character actors and has certain dream like feel to it it evokes the spirit of poem.

But does not pretend to be a special effects sword and soucery Story either but concentrates on gawains journey discovery and loss of love.

If you compare it to something like Lancelot du Lac which is released the following year it channels medieval Arthurian mythos in a very film friendly way Hollywood films like Knights of the round table 20 years previous to this were fun big budget epics this is a completely different more gentle approach to the myths but again by way of the middle English poem if you can see this in anyway if you love Arthurian myths or medieval fantasy seek this out.

A bored and listless viewer sat through a boring and listless movie today. As others before me have said, I waited in vain for the Monty Python troupe to come charging out of the bushes and breathe a little life into the proceedings. GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT is, I suppose, an honest attempt to portray the legendary exploits of a Knight of the Round Table, however it fails to generate any excitement or even any interest in the characters. Badly acted and unconvincing combat scenes, dreary scenery and a vastly overblown musical score become tedious rather quickly. Overall, this is a real yawner by any standard one cares to apply.

I managed to catch this movie on cable yesterday afternoon. Yeah, sure, it stinks, but it was made in 1973, so whaddaya want?

I would not be surprised, however, if this movie was the inspiration for many of the scenes in Monty Python's Holy Grail. There are many small similarities, and while watching this movie you can just hear the Python troupe's twisted gears turning in their heads.

"wouldn't it be funnier if Sir Gawain was wandering in a forest and then came across a castle of virgins...?"

holy boogers... heehee that was good. for those who havent seen this movie yet, you should try your best to try and dig it up if you're in need of a laugh... I cant figure out if the movie was just soooo bad that its funny.. or if it was TRYING to make fun of itself... the movie was awful, the fight scenes are ghastly, the acting is terrible, and its all in all a bad flick, though ive never enjoyed such a bad flick this much. i was laughing my head off at it, I cant get enough of it, my friends and i have a bad movie night every once in awhile, we watched texas chainsaw masacre the next generation and this. we all laughed ourselves silly. you must see this flick!!! Cheers