--- title: "Excalibur: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/excalibur/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/excalibur" critics_score: 71 critics_reviews: 12 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Excalibur (1981): what the critics said Critics' score 71 from 12 reviews: 10 positive, 0 mixed, 2 negative. 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 — Mark Dinning Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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 review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/excalibur-review/) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1980. 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 review](https://variety.com/1980/film/reviews/excalibur-1200424996/) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 12 December 2012. 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 review](https://www.avclub.com/john-boorman-s-excalibur-covers-the-king-arthur-legend-1798235232) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 1981. 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 review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/excalibur-1981) ## Slant Magazine — Glenn Heath Jr. Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 13 March 2011. 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 review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/excalibur/) ## The New Yorker — Pauline Kael Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 13 April 1981. 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 review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/04/20/boormans-plunge) ## The New York Times — Vincent Canby Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 1981. 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 review](https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/10/movies/boorman-s-excalibur.html) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 29 March 2012. 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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/excalibur) ## The Ringer — Adam Nayman Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 12 May 2017. 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 review](https://www.theringer.com/2017/05/12/pop-culture/excalibur-king-arthur-movie-adaptations-55732956b7f8) ## Eye for Film — Jennie Kermode Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 22 June 2008. 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 review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/excalibur-film-review-by-jennie-kermode) ## Den of Geek — Jim Knipfel Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 17 April 2019. 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 review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/john-boormans-excalibur-isnt-just-another-king-arthur-movie/) ## Polygon — Francesco Cacciatore Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2026. 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 review](https://www.polygon.com/excalibur-john-boorman-45-year-anniversary/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/excalibur.md