Critics’ reviews

Excalibur (1981)

12 reviews from 12 publications. Critics’ score 71: 10 positive, 0 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of Excalibur

71
Positive
10
Mixed
0
Negative
2

Most critics like Excalibur, and the praise clusters on John Boorman’s visual approach: the battles, the fire, the magic, the Arthurian legend told at full mythic scale rather than trimmed to a tidy plot. Several note the film’s debt to Jung and its use of Orff and Wagner, and most take the graphic violence and nudity as part of the design rather than an indulgence. Nicol Williamson’s Merlin is singled out again and again, with Helen Mirren’s Morgana close behind; even the harshest reviews spare them.

The reservations are about story and feeling. Roger Ebert calls it wondrous but messy, without a clear story line or consistent character behaviour. The two outright dissenters go further: Vincent Canby in The New York Times finds it solemn, grandiose and pretentious, and Time Out finds it overlong, incoherent and unable to sway the emotions. The spread is wide: ten reviews are positive, two negative, and nobody is merely lukewarm.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Mark Dinning
90*

This John Boorman film delivers a terrific end result full of energy and mysticism. It includes all the key Arthurian elements and stands out for its glorious photography and epic drama, while emphasizing blood, guts and magic over sentimentality.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1980 · Variety Staff
90*

The critic calls the film exquisite, a near-perfect blend of action, romance, fantasy and philosophy that is finely acted and beautifully filmed. A somewhat extended Grail quest sequence is noted as a minor fault.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
12 December 2012 · Keith Phipps
80*

The piece praises the film's ambitious scope in covering Arthurian legend with mythic depth drawn from Jung and other sources, resulting in a cohesive and appropriately grand work. It highlights how graphic violence and nudity are integrated without feeling gratuitous.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
1 January 1981 · Roger Ebert
70*

The film is a wondrous but messy vision of Arthurian legend, a triumph of production design and visuals that nonetheless lacks a clear story line and consistent character behavior.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
13 March 2011 · Glenn Heath Jr.
70*

The critic calls Excalibur a staggering achievement of bloated artifice that dismantles the Arthur legend one invigorating aesthetic swipe at a time. They single out Boorman’s hallucinatory visual approach, linking processes of nature to human moods through stylized melodrama and overdone representations of magic and sex.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
13 April 1981 · Pauline Kael
70*

The critic praises the film's crazy integrity as a serious, R-rated fairy tale soaked in Jung and scored to Orff and Wagner, with a stubborn discipline in its visual style. She singles out its raging battles, balls of flame, and refusal to linger on beautiful images as elements that give it genuine storm-like energy.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
10 April 1981 · Vincent Canby
30*

The critic finds the film a big, solemn, grandiose retelling of the Arthurian legends that is pretentious and obscures its vision. He singles out the performances of Nicol Williamson as Merlin and Helen Mirren as Morgana for praise amid an otherwise uninhabited story.

Read the full review →
Time Out
29 March 2012 · GA
30*

The review finds the film a visually impressive but muddled and uneven adaptation of Malory that is overlong, incoherent and ultimately a misguided folly. It singles out the film's inability to sway the emotions despite its audacity and bizarre characterisation.

Read the full review →
The Ringer
12 May 2017 · Adam Nayman
90*

The critic hails it as the only good King Arthur movie, praising its ambitious, bizarre, and visually stunning take on the myth that captures its grandeur and cult classic status.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
22 June 2008 · Jennie Kermode
85*

The critic praises the film's epic scale and visual imagination as doing justice to the Arthurian legend in a way no other version has, highlighting its thundering battles, passionate romance, and mythic atmosphere. They single out Nicol Williamson's unforgettable performance as Merlin and Helen Mirren's strong turn as Morgana for particular praise, while noting some weaknesses in the central casting.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
17 April 2019 · Jim Knipfel
80*

The critic praises Boorman's stylized and strange take on the King Arthur legend, highlighting its visual style, performances especially Nicol Williamson as Merlin, and its deeper thematic elements about civilization and magic. It stands out among fantasy films of the era despite production challenges.

Read the full review →
Polygon
10 April 2026 · Francesco Cacciatore
80*

The piece celebrates the film as a bold, ambitious milestone in fantasy cinema, underscoring its uncompromising vision and powerful cinematography that bridges cinema and myth, despite some disjointed elements.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate