Prince Valiant (1954)

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

First and the best adaptation upon ¨Hal Foster's Prince Valiant¨ famous comic strip ; this decent movie (1954) by Henry Hathaway boasts itself a great cast , such as Robert Wagner , Janet Leigh , Victor McLagen , Donald Crisp , Sterling Hayden and Debra Paget . Spectacular adventure with a lot of colorful pageantry and old-fashioned action , concerning about Prince Valiant , Black Knight , and King Arthur , though the movie falls short . It packs a non-sense blending of romance and Dark Ages action , as the screenwriters don't get the appropriate touch . Prince Valiant (Robert Wagner), son of the exiled King of Scandia , journeys to England . There Arthur (Brian Aherne) governs in the legendary citadel that is Camelot . Valiant attempts to become himself a knight at King Arthur's Round Table . His Knights of the Round Table commit acts of derring-do and spend their spare time jousting and enjoying feasts . There young Valiant who wields his sword with vigour is given the task to be the squire to Sir Gawain (Sterling Hayden who easily steals the acting honors) , one of King Arthur's knights along with Sir Tristram (John Dierkes) , Sir Lancelot (Don Megowan) , Sir Kay , Perceval , among others . Later on , Prince Valiant sets out to chase the Black Knight . But our real hero is wounded and he is then cared by the gorgeous princess Aleta (Janet Leigh) , as the young twosome fall in love . Meantime , an evil tyrant , and villainous leader Viking overthrows his father King Aguar (Donald Crisp) , the Christian King of Scandia .This is a Medieval tale with adventures , full-bloodied action , unspeakable dialog , villainy , terrific jousting , love stories and heroism in the grandeur of Scope although in television set loses splendor . The movie displays breathtaking battles , being ambitious in scope with heroic confrontation and a striking final climax for a mortal duel . Handsome story , being decently written by Dudley Nichols , John Ford's regular , though contains some awkward narrative elements . Excellent settings , monumental castles , outdoors and tournaments or jousts are well staged . However this spectacular film never takes off as it should despite pomp and circumstance showed , being excessively sentimental , so you'll be excited and embarrassed alternately . In any case , filmmaker does some breathtaking set pieces and the attack of a Viking castle turns out to be colorful and vividly thrilling . This is the classic story of romantic adventure come to life enriched by glamorous color and overwhelming fights . Excellent performance by James Mason , displaying efficiently his interpreting skills , proving what a good player he really is . And Janet Leigh and Debra Paget look chastely desirable , as always . Supporting cast is frankly good though wasted , employing such notorious players and not building them roles with which to make a considerable impact , as the screenplay never give them a chance , there appear fine secondary stars as Donald Crisp , Brian Aherne , Barry Jones , Tom Conway and Neville Brand . Brilliant cinematography in CinemaScope by Lucien Ballard who photographs splendidly the jousting scenes and the burning of an impressive stronghold . Rousing and moving musical score by Frank Skinner . The motion picture was compellingly directed by Henry Hathaway . Other rendition was ¨Prince Valiant¨ (1997) by Anthony Hickock , it is another attempt to literally transfer a comic-strip about the Arthurian saga to the screen , including a modern dialog and the whole cast is far too distinguished to be appearing in this sort of caricature of Medieval legends and non-sense , it stars Katherine Heigl who is inappropriate here , holding an excessive ironic tone prankster , Stephen Moyer , Thomas Kretschmann , Ron Perlman , Joanna Lumley , Edward Fox and Udo Kier . And an animation retelling titled ¨Legend of Prince Valiant¨(1991) with voice by Robby Benson as Valiant and Efren Zimbalist Jr as Arthur . Other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur resulted to be : (1953) the classic ¨Knights of the Round Table¨ (by Richard Thorpe) , the musical ¨Camelot¨ (Joshua Logan), the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨ (John Boorman) , ¨First Knight¨ (Jerry Zucker) and recently ¨King Arthur¨ (Antoine Fuqua) . The picture will appeal to aficionados with chivalric ideals and epic movies fans , it is a passable production that will lose much on small television screen . Rating : 6.5/10 , acceptable , well worth seeing

It's not exactly Errol Flynn's classic "Robin Hood" but it's far better than the critics would have you believe. The sets are wonderful, and a majority of (at least the exteriors) were shot at real English-Scottish castles instead of matte paintings. Good stuntwork and a rousing musical score which even reminds me of "Robin Hood" in the way it punctuates the action scenes. The costume design is pretty good, but oh that bad hair! The "page boy" wigs that Robert Wagner (and the other squires) had to wear! Did they borrow them from Doris Day? The swords look a bit "flimsy" and oversized. The horns on the Vikings are wrong, but the pageantry is still all there. The jousting match is every bit as much fun as the tournament in "Robin Hood". Outstanding cinematography and luscious Technicolor. The story is relatively easy to follow, but as a kid, I couldn't understand the difference between the "bad" and "good" Vikings (which all looked the same). As always, it's the Heathens vs. the Christians, isn't it? The princesses are both gorgeous too. Love those push-up bras and their perfect wigs! Like "Robin Hood", there is a climactic "duel to the death" between good and evil. Some awkward dialog and unintentional accents, but I enjoy this film in spite of it's faults. One of the first films I ever saw on a "Really Big Screen" in the 1950's. It's a lot of fun-to-watch and doesn't drag on forever like most Medieval adventures. If you still don't like this movie, then consider that the lead of "Valiant" was first offered to Tony Curtis, who did "The Black Shield of Falworth" instead. The video transfer is disappointing. Weak colors (especially the blue skies), some replacement footage and "video shimmer". (Due to "MacroVision CP") Practically "blood-free" and therefore suitable for most audiences. Note: There was a bad remake in 1997, which was quickly forgotten.

I watched this movie on the big screen when just 9 years old, a perfect age for the experience. Having avidly read Prince Valiant every Sunday in the newspaper comic section, just the thought of castles, kings, knights, and battles appealed to me very much at that age.Although this movie only follows the newspaper version in name and premise, it was still a nice treatise of the genre. The sets, costumes, hairstyles, props, and pageantry all bespeak the relative glamour of that era in history. The musical score is appropriate for the subject.The acting is a little corny, especially viewed 60 years following its original debut, but it is still a fun and action filled romp through the Medieval age, and is good, clean fun for the entire family.

A historical note: Although tons of pictures of Vikings with horned helmets have been produced over the years, this is actually a myth. They never, to our knowledge, wore such helmets. And, if you think about it, this makes sense, as the horns would make such a helmet unwieldy and difficult to wear. Plus, you might get stuck going through doorways! This traditional view of Vikings is more the Wagnerian view of the people. In fact, the wonderful movie "The Vikings" is so wonderful, in part, because it gets this point correct. Also, while this might disappoint you, most historians don't believe King Arthur ever lived or if he did, the stories about him are all false. The stories you read about him were often written as much as 1000-1300 years after he was to have lived and vary tremendously--and they are essentially myths. Sorry to spoil this for you, but I was a history teacher--and I love debunking myths.The film begins with Valiant (Robert Wagner) being sent by his daddy the king (Donald Crisp) to the court of King Arthur to become a knight. Crisp's friend, hidden under all that makeup and hair, is Victor McLaglen, by the way. It seems that Crisp has had his kingdom stolen from him and why he would then choose to send his son away is a bit of a mystery. What also is a mystery is why a Viking would go to the UK and serve Arthur. Oh well, it's no worse than a film I saw years ago where a Saracen (who were from the Middle East) was also in Arthur's court! At least Scandinavia is kind of near Britain! On his way there, he stumbles upon a Viking making a dirty deal with a Brit--and accidentally stumbles into the midst of the traitors. He manages to escape(!) but is now a man pursued by many who wish to bash in his skull! In addition to avoid getting killed, much of the film concerns Valiant's new career as a squire. While he hates to have such a lowly job, such is the way to career advancement in the knighthood game. Oh, and by the way, knights were NOT the noble dudes you see in the film. Mostly, they were used to beat up the peasants for their lords and fight various wars. They were an incredibly violent and non-chivalrous group and I'd love to see a film portray them like they really were--often, a bunch of raping, murdering scalawags. Now THAT would make for an interesting film! So, as you can tell, I hate this film for its many, many inaccuracies. However, I can enjoy such a film on purely an entertainment level. So is it entertaining and worth seeing? Well at least on a aesthetic level, it's a nice film. It has the wonderful touches that you'd expect from an A-picture from Twentieth-Century Fox. Great music, lovely period costumes, wonderful locations and nifty castles--it sure looked wonderful (though the castles used were all built much too late for the time period in the film--gosh, that history teacher in me is rearing up its ugly head again).As for the writing, dialog and acting, it's not a film that impresses. Much of the dialog seems strangely anachronistic and dull. Some is even rather dumb (such as when Janet Leigh confronts Valiant at the 50 minute mark). The characters all seem a bit flat and dull. The actors, though often accomplished, are not at their best here. Sterling Hayden, a wonderful actor, just seems out of place as does James Mason. The biggest problem, however, is Robert Wagner. In this period in the 1950s he was very much an up and coming actor--having starred in quite a few plum roles. However, Hollywood often didn't seem to know how to use this handsome man--putting him in films that simply didn't seem to fit him. Here, he plays a Viking and in "Broken Lance" (also 1954), they cast him as a macho cattle rancher!! I mean no disrespect, but he was not the action hero sort of guy. He would have been better in romances or such films as "A Kiss Before Dying"--where he very effectively played a guy who romanced and then murdered women. You can't blame Wagner for these roles--he was young and the studios paid well...and they were starring roles. Too bad he just wasn't right for them--and his accent and manner seemed to have NOTHING to do with Vikings. I would have much preferred to see some rugged ruffian in the role instead (such as Ernest Borgnine or Victor Mature).As far as action goes, for an adventure film it is strangely static and filled with dialog. I would have loved a good castle siege or sacking here and there throughout the film...and I kept waiting and waiting and it only came too late--after I was pretty bored with the film. Sure, there were a few nice attempted murders here and there (cool) but not enough to make the film seem "actiony"--instead, it was much too much like a stuffy costume drama much of the time.Now if I wanted to watch a rousing and completely historically inaccurate film, there are a lot of dandy ones out there. "Ivanhoe" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" are fantastic costume dramas and are first-class entertainment. And, if you are some sort of weirdo and want to actually see something with more realism and accuracy (but with tons of really, really cool action), try "The Vikings"--a rousing and wonderful bit of entertainment that actually touches on some of the themes seen in "Prince Valiant". It isn't that this film is terrible (it isn't), but there just are a lot better and more entertaining films out there to see first. Heck, now that I think of it, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" would definitely be my choice as the best Arthurian film out there!