Sword of the Valiant (1984) User Reviews

Legendary account about one of the best known Arthurian stories dealing with a chivalrous young who has to resolve a twisted riddle in a year or die

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 27 November 2014]

The old English tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is brought to the screen with a charming blend of action , imagination ,thrills , adventure , and tongue-in-cheek humor . The medieval legend of a supernatural chivalrous young squire who challenges the king's men to kill him . Being middlingly starred Myles O'Keefe as Gawain , Sean Connery as the Green Knight, and appealing Cyrielle Claire as Lynette ("The Lady of Lyonesse"). In Camelot on New Year's Day, King Arthur's court is waiting for the feasting to start when the king asks first to see or hear of an exciting adventure. At this a gigantic figure, entirely green in appearance and riding a green horse, rides unexpectedly into the hall. He wears no armour but bears an axe in one hand and a holly bough in the other . He insists he has come for a friendly "Christmas game": someone is to strike him once with his axe on condition that the Green Knight (Sean Connery) may return the blow in a year and a day . There appears Gaiwan (a wooden Miles O'Keefe) , a rookie knight in the court of King Arthur (Trevor Howard) who is sent out on a quest brought on by a challenge issue by the magical Green Knight . Gaiwan must solve a riddle in one year or die .

This flabby fairy tale adventure contains witchery , fantasy , cheesy special affects, stagy acting , surreal imagery and grimly marches . The picture has good settings , as thick rolling fog , deep forest , dark castles and rocky seacoast ; this movie delivers on locations ; however , it results to be mediocre and a little bit boring . Connery can only be on-screen for a few scenes but he adds zest to his character , he steals the show as an ironic Green Knight . Ronald Lacey, who played the character Oswald, also played the same character, also called Oswald, in "Gawain and the Green Knight" which was made in 1973, and basically, it was the same movie, same actor, same role .

This lumbering film version of one of the Arthurian legends is badly done , as the motion picture was regularly directed by Stephen Weeks . Filmmaker Weeks was one of two young British directors to emerge in the terror field in the late sixties , the other , Michael Reeves died at 25 . He began his professional film career at age 17, directing a series of short films . He made his film cinema short film, 'Moods of a Victorian Church' (1967) at age 19, and his first cinema drama, a film set in the First World War in France '1917' . Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was Stephen's second picture at age of 22 and he realized other horror films such as ¨Madhouse mansion¨ or ¨Ghost story¨(1979) and adventure movie such as ¨Gawain and the Green Knight¨ (1973) also with Peter Cushing , Ronald Lacey , Murray Head as Sir Gawain and Nigel Green and its remake titled ¨Sword of the valiant¨ (1983) and not much of an improvement . Rating : 5/10 . Well worth watching but only for Sean Connery fans .

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a late 14th-century Middle English chivalric romance. It is one of the best known Arthurian stories, and is of a type known as the "beheading game". The Green Knight is interpreted by some as a representation of the Green Man of folklore and by others as an allusion to Christ. Written in stanzas of alliterative verse, each of which ends in a rhyming bob and wheel, it draws on Welsh, Irish and English stories, as well as the French chivalric tradition. It is an important poem in the romance genre, which typically involves a hero who goes on a quest which tests his prowess, and it remains popular to this day in modern English renderings from J. R. R. Tolkien, Simon Armitage and others, as well as through film and stage adaptations. It describes how Sir Gawain, a knight of King Arthur's Round Table, accepts a challenge from a mysterious "Green Knight" who challenges any knight to strike him with his axe if he will take a return blow in a year and a day. Gawain accepts and beheads him with his blow, at which the Green Knight stands up, picks up his head and reminds Gawain of the appointed time. In his struggles to keep his bargain Gawain demonstrates chivalry and loyalty until his honour is called into question by a test involving Lady Bertilak, the lady of the Green Knight's castle.The poem survives in a single manuscript, the Cotton Nero A.x., which also includes three religious narrative poems .

When Good Actors do bad movies

[JoeB131 · 4/10 · 23 February 2008]

This movie had a collection of interesting supporting actors such as Peter Cushing, Ronald Lacey, Trevor Howard and the great Sean Connery.

However, it completely fails on the lack of acting ability of Miles O'Keefe, who did a lot of movies of the fantasy variety before being consigned to Direct to DVD Perdition.

The plot is that Sir Gawain has been given a year to live by the magical Green Knight, after which if he has not solved four riddles, the Green Knight can have his head. After a series of adventures rescuing a fair maiden from the magical city of Lyonese, and a battle with evil forces, Gawain has a final confrontation with the Green Knight, by which time you really and truly will not care anymore.

Parts of this movie look good, others look kind of cheesy even for 1984.

Good for all the wrong reasons

[Sergiodave · 3/10 · 26 November 2020]

This movie is based on an old English poem, unfortunately the scriptwriters couldn't match the prose.. It has a wonderful cast all earning a pay check and nothing more. But, it is fun to watch, for all the wrong reasons., The lead hero Gawain is obviously based on Prince Adam, AKA He-man, he looks the spitting image, the music is atrocious and the acting is woeful. Grand Moff Tarkin, James Bond, Gimli, a Time Bandit and Albert Steptoe and it's still awful (but fun in a bad way).

Wonderful Entertainment for All Ages

[batzi8m1 · 22 December 2004]

Both the stories of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Owain a the Lady of the Fountain are classic remnants of an oral tradition more ancient than the French Norman Romances and 14th Century Welsh Mabinogion story collections, yet both thought these two stories worthy of retelling and recording in written form much like Tristan and Parzifal. And there's a good reason for it, obviously good enough reason to get the likes of Sean Connery, Trevor Howard, Lila Kedrova, and John Rhys-Davies to take part in this admittedly cheesy production. (The fact that this was a Golan Globus production should have been a clue to any movie fan.)

The ancient Celtic bards had to memorize some 100 major stories and 200 minor ones to entertain the folks during those long cold winter nights. While Tristan and Parcival belong to the former, Gawain and Owain belong to the latter. These are ribald entertainments for light late night story telling entertainment much like a James Bond, or a cheesy B-Movie. In fact I have heard one professor of Medieval Studies refer to Owain as the James Bond of the Arthurian cycles. And the middle part of this film that deals with Lyonese captures the whole Bond formula (or I should say formula which Fleming followed) of impossible predicament (ala Dr. Evil's "No. Intend to set up an elaborate death and walk away assuming it happened."), narrow escape, beautiful damsel, daring do, hand to hand combat against impossible odds complete with tongue in cheek reparté.

I loved the movie for what it was from the moment I saw Trevor Howard's aging Arthur acting line the mean spirited cranky old fart the Welsh triads depict (not the "boyish" one of the Gawain poem) , through Lina Kedrova's scary horny old widow queen, Rhys-Davis's Fontenbras playing with toy soldiers, and of course Connery's transcendental Green Knight. Sure I missed some of the original story elements of both stories - the fountain and the ogre with the giant club - and I hated that cheesy last scene with Linet that they added on the end of the perfect ending scene with the Green Knight.

But this one captured the spirit of the older tales of the Mabinogion (from which we get the oldest Owain and the Lady of the Fountain) much better than the Saxon-Norman poetic retelling of the Gawain story. Ribald, cheesy, fun with a few moral lessons thrown in for "redeeming social value." In this film's retelling one gets a much better feel for the kind of story the bards might have told the assembled drunken retainers in the King's Hall on a late mid-winter night.

I give it a 7 for capturing the spirit of the tradition (that Monty Python Holy Grail feel that one detractors here noted as though it were a bad thing) , great acting by the legendary actors in smaller parts noted above and the James Bond pulp fiction feel. I'm detracting points for the music, skipping the fountain/storm and the ogre/giant, and that dumb ending scene.

(PS contrary to one reviewer's accusation that it looked like a back lot in Pasadena, these were real Welsch castles including Cardiff and the former Palace of the Pope in Avignion.)

A very odd movie

[SelinaKyle82 · 1/10 · 13 October 2001]

I had to watch this movie in a medieval literature class I am taking in college, and to be quite frank, it was one of the worst films I have seen in the course of my life. The plot mixes both the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Countess of The Fountain(a.k.a. Owein) but seems to leave out the whole meaning and message of each work of literature. To someone watching this movie, who has not read these works before may not be as...repulsed...by it as one who has.However, even someone with no knowledge of the texts will still not enjoy this movie.Really the only good thing about it is Sean Connery. I don't like giving bad reviews, but I just can't recommend this movie to anyone.

A stinker

[MovieReporter · 1/10 · 5 May 2005]

Abysmal screen adaptation of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" which not only frequently abandons the source material but is devoid of any of its themes or meanings. The result is a strictly one-dimensional swords and sandal shambles which fatally chooses to take itself seriously. Miles O'Keefe is as bland as one can be in the role of Gawain whilst the action sequences are staged totally without panache or energy. The sole highlight (for me, anyway) among the mess was Sean Connery's lively portrayal of the Green Knight yet its not enough to rescue the movie. Overall, the whole thing is a sorry excuse for a film production and (considering its release in an era where action-adventure was being taken to new heights through "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones") one has to wonder what the filmmakers ever saw in it.

Worst film! Worst wigs! Worst acting... Worst... full stop!

[jb520997b · 1/10 · 30 April 2005]

This truly has to be the worst film ever, a bunch of five year olds would surely be able to write a better script, construct more realistic sets and props and act to a higher degree than the actors in this movie seem to have demonstrated and still be more understanding to historical accuracy!

And can someone please explain the wigs? Surely not adding to historical accuracy (for any century!) or even 1984! Added to this the poor soundtrack which seems to suggest that the director, at gunpoint, forced some lonely spinster from the organ of a church in Dunny-On-The-Wolds, Surrey to sit down and construct (with a timescale of half an hour) the film score on a budget of £5 and a pickled egg!

I can only describe it as one horrific car crash, so awful, you just stare in disbelief, knowing that you should look away and hoping that no one else will catch you looking! Poor Sean Connery, did he desperately need to pay the mortgage for another month?! Dire!

Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (1984)

[fntstcplnt · 2/10 · 13 December 2019]

Directed by Stephen Weeks. Starring Miles O'Keefe, Cyrielle Clair, Leigh Lawson, Sean Connery, Ronald Lacey, Brian Coburn, Trevor Howard, Peter Cushing, John Rhys-Davies, Lila Kedrova, Emma Sutton. (PG)

Cheap, inept adaptation of the medieval story varies greatly from the source (and borrows from other legends), but fidelity is the least of its problems. Beholden to the look and feel of John Boorman's "Excalibur," but production values are far closer to the level of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." As in "Highlander," Connery appears in a few scenes alongside a leading man devoid of charisma (in this case, the wooden O'Keefe, he of the perpetual thousand-yard stare); Connery provides a scintilla of vigor, but looks ridiculous trying to do so. Lacks the camp value to become a so-bad-it's-fun engagement, though O'Keefe's wig never fails to make one smile. Director Weeks previously helmed a version of the story from 1973 as "Gawain and the Green Knight"; doesn't seem like any lessons were learned in the interim.

22/100

How it compares to other Arthurian movies?

[Pellam · 4/10 · 17 March 2020]

After a very strong intro scene, the plot becomes a hodgepodge of childish gags. I would have preferred this to be "The Legend of the Green Knight and the Green Knight Only". Connery's chest hair alone has more charisma than the bodybuilder protagonist.

Enjoyable like a car crash!

[PeplumParadise · 6/10 · 18 February 2009]

This one finds Miles O'Keeffe, doing an acceptable impersonation of Linda Evans in Dynasty, as Sir Gawain, who is up against Sean Connery, doing an acceptable impersonation of a Christmas tree sprayed with green glitter, as The Green Knight.

The nadir of the brief British medieval peplum cycle sparked by Excalibur, this is chiefly of note for marking the lowest career point for most of it's distinguished British cast (for O'Keeffe it comes in at about average). The entire budget must have gone to paying the cast, since around 10p was spent on the sets, costumes and script combined.

Enjoyable in the way that a car crash attracts morbid curiosity, watched mainly with the mouth gaping wide.

Sword of the Valiant

[phubbs · 5/10 · 20 December 2020]

Another 80's flick that I had never heard of but was drawn in by the quite amazingly hokey looking movie poster. I mean look at it, a huge sword emblazoned across the middle with various character images hand-drawn to either side. And is that Sean Connery I see on the right? Why yes it is! The only well-drawn (recognisable) face on the poster I might add. Connery's casting elevated my interest...along with the glorious cheesiness on display.

This film is loosely based on the 14th-century poem 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' and is also the second adaptation of the poem by director Stephen Weeks. Interestingly Weeks also recast Ronald Lacey in exactly the same role in this version.

The plot revolves around a mysterious knight clad in green armour (Sean Connery) presenting himself within King Arthur's court one winters night. The knight offers a challenge to any brave willing knight, one attempt to behead him. After that the Green Knight would have his chance. Naturally nobody steps forward...until the young squire Gawain (Miles O'Keeffe) accepts the challenge. Gawain beheads the Green Knight only to find it has no effect as the decapitated body merely picks up the head and puts it back upon its shoulders. The Green Knight then decides (after recognising Gawain is still very young) to allow Gawain one year to solve a riddle in order to save his life. And that's it! Gawain must then set off on his somewhat random quest of solving the Green Knights curious riddle in order to avoid getting his head cut off in one year.

So yes the plot is rather odd and with little explanation to anything. Alas one must expect this seeing as it's based on a 14th-century poem, albeit loosely. The most obvious question is who or what is the Green Knight? Clearly this knight is some kind of supernatural being. A messenger or tester of men from another world or beyond the grave. He presumably goes around offering these challenges or tests to men in order to see who is worthy of life...or something like that. Why was his armour green? Well after some minor research it seems in old English folklore green represented nature, mythical creatures and witchcraft. So you can see how that would match with the mysterious Green Knight. In this film the knight also has some kind of stag horns on his head which points towards Paganism and Celtic culture, I think. Again all supernatural elements.

Then you have to question the 'beheading game'. I mean seriously, what kind of game is that?! Surely it wouldn't last too long after the first bloke has a hack at the other. Admittedly after some more minor research, it appears that this insane act is merely a trope of medieval romance and not an actual leading sport from the time of yore (I think).

This film is packed with oddities and various mythical easter eggs as it were. Sir Gawain's first trial is a battle with the infamous Black Knight, a character that has popped up in all manner of material. His reward for defeating the dark knight is to be led to the hidden city/realm of Lyonesse (a mythical stretch of land between Lands' End and the Isles of Scilly consumed by the sea). There Gawain meets with another mysterious character, the Lady Linet, who gives him a magical ring allowing him to disappear. She is later kidnapped by a lustful Prince and it falls upon Gawain to rescue her etc...

Problems do abound with this feature unfortunately. The casting is in places impressive and twas clearly a coup to land actors like Connery and Peter Cushing, both of which do fit their roles pretty well. Cushing as the regal Senechal to the lustful Prince and Connery as the towering Green Knight. Both his Scottish lisp and bushy facial hair a big plus factor here. His clearly sexualised suit of armour has to be seen to be believed. On the other hand the casting of O'Keeffe as Sir Gawain felt awkward and wooden. Sure he had the bod but he definitely couldn't act too well and that blonde wig was terrible! He looked like a Ken doll. Wilfrid Brambell pops up in his last onscreen role looking every bit the scruffy medieval peasant type. And then there's the poor man's Brian Blessed, John Rhys-Davies, as a Baron.

To be honest, the film doesn't really look that good either. Whilst filming took place in various locations with actual castles used (France and Ireland) which definitely looked great, overall the film looked fake. It seemed to differ from scene to scene. There are some scenes inside castle walls which looked really authentic with old period looking wooden storefronts, flags, banners, candlelit halls, and whatnot. There are some scenes where knight armour looked pretty decent and genuinely metallic, and there were some costumes that looked realistic. But overall much of the production looks a bit tinny and plastic with stupid wigs and glittery makeup.

The less said about the score the better methinks, talk about B-movie. And then there's the ending, it just ends, just like that. Sir Gawain rescues Lady Linet, she turns into a dove and flies away back to Lyonesse. We then get a lingering facial shot of Gawain as he looks sad, and in mid-head movement, the film stops and ends. So what happens? Dunno, but can't Gawain just go back to Lyonesse to see Linet again? The original poem is completely different here.

So overall the plot has been tinkered with to make a relatively cohesive plot but unfortunately it simply comes across as generic whimsical fluff. It seems much of the original poem's themes have been jettisoned for a more simplified, trope-laden fantasy. Whilst not a bad film, it's not particularly engaging either.

5/10

A Magnificent, Humorous, Fantastic Vision

[Kabumpo · 9/10 · 14 July 2001]

Yes, this film has weaknesses, notably Miles O'Keefe in the lead. It doesn't really hurt the film, being a hero type role, but it doesn't help, either. The film is a collection of episodes in a year of Gawain's life, which cycles through four seasons in the pattern of the Green Knight's life. The sense of time is rather peculiar, and it's unclear how Gawain rejoins his squire after visiting Leonesse, yet somehow it all fits. The film builds its vignettes around the game of the Green Knight's four part riddle. The film seems to have been botched in the editing room a bit, as the script is excellent, though with a great deal of joke cracking, notably one about a corkscrew that gets repeated an extra time, although it's the only one of the jokes that could be considered camp.

The film is sumptuously photographed, and the cast and the sets are wonderful to look at. Weeks planned to incorporate footage from _Gawain and the Green Knight_, but everything that the producers took out of that film they destroyed, this time hampered again by producers, who denied him final cut and forced him to cast O'Keefe after _Tarzan the Ape Man_ proved a box office success, despite being universally loathed.

The music score is rousing, but it was done on a computer, and so the timbres seem jarring. The humor and makeup effects are obviously jarring to some. Also jarring is the bright yellow bars letterboxing the credits of the video version. While the film suffers from being preserved only in pan and scan, I couldn't wait for the letterboxing to end since it makes the opening sequence more difficult to watch with the yellow glaring at you.

Don't let the bad reviews of this film dissuade you. This is a thoughtful film, buggered in the production process, but much of its glory still shines through. Know going in its a semi-comedy, and that some of the cast, including the aforementioned O'Keefe and Cyrielle, who is lovely but had to have all her lines dubbed, being a French speaker, and the likelihood you'll appreciate this film will go up. Most of the film works so well that I focused on that rather than its weaknesses. I also picked up Weeks's _Madhouse Mansion_ in the same closeout sale (Video Update went into Chapter 11 and is selling off the inventory from most of their stores in the area). That film has been equally poorly received by IMDb users, yet I have read (in _Video Watchdog_) that it is his best work. After having seen this, I hope to list it among the greatest film ever made. This is certainly one of the most entertaining fantasies I've seen in a long time. The other reviews I see here sound like reviews for _Wizards of the Lost Kingdom_ except that they mention Connery's Green Knight, which is certainly impressive. Other than that, it seems like we saw different films.

An entertaining film with weaknesses is still an entertaining film if it makes you think and rouses your spirits. Could have been better, but unquestionably worth seeing.

Bad film yes, but plenty to appreciate

[it_lives · 7/10 · 29 September 2003]

This is certainly a dodgy film on many levels, but it has some redeeming moments. Sean Connery is terrific as The Green Knight, he obviously has a heap of fun in the role and steals the show.

If you come across this film you could do a lot worse.

"Live on Sir Gawain...Live On"

[BaronBl00d · 3/10 · 21 November 2010]

...And he will thankfully in literature but not this cinematic garbage. The Medieval poem "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is a wonderfully layered poem about old and new, good and evil, pure and tainted. This movie basically rips all the subtext from that work and throws it away so it can add nonsense like the Green Knight turning a sorceress into a red frog. Some mythological land where a woman wants Gawain for his body. Then there is the sub-story about some renegade marauders fighting for an evil baron who take in men just from anywhere to fight in their army. None of this makes much sense. The whole Arthur storyline was excised as well. Forget Gawain being a paragon of virtue and chastity. Here we get pretty boy-look-a-lot-like-a-lady Miles O'Keefe - who as another reviewer noted - creeps me out too! Sean Connery looks ridiculous as the Green Knight spouting out drivel. The whole end of the poem as well as the mid-section are totally changed. In the poem the Green Knight has three whacks at Gawain for Gawain had unwittingly stayed at his castle and received three kisses from the lord, Sir Bertilak's wife. He praises Gawain for his purity and righteousness. Here we get some lame ending about the seasons. We also get a fat monk who steals, a Sancho Panza-like Humphreys, and a host of characters not ever imagined in the poem. Director Stephen Weeks did this as his last film. That says sooo much right there. The acting is dreadful with O'Keefe looking like Fabio at every turn. Poor Sean Connery. I felt bad for Ronald Lacey(always good at playing bad guys like the Nazi leader in Raiders of the Lost Ark)and Trevor Howard just as the King - though for what reason I am unable to fathom was not called King Arthur like he was in the poem. Was it copyrighted by an anonymous poet from the 14th century? The gal who plays the love interest is beautiful but always covered. Alas! Woe is me! Then there is Peter Cushing - an actor for whom I have an incredibly soft spot for in my heart of hearts. This was either his second or third to last film. He is in his early 70s and as always good. Shame this had to be one of his last projects. He did do the film as a favor no doubt for Weeks as he directed Cushing in I , Monster - Weeks's best film to be sure. And the final insult to injury is the over-the-top, totally misplaced musical score. It resonates loudly throughout without any other effect than an incredible annoyance. The film is also cheap-looking in that 80s cheap movie way. Despite what might have been a very good cast, this film - in a word - reeks!

My thoughts on Sword of the Valiant

[rhpearce · 28 April 2002]

I thought the movie was entertaining. Sean Connery looked a little ridiculous as the green knight. I saw the movie as a love story between Sir Gawain, Miles O'Keeffe, and the Lady of Lyonesse, Lila Kedrova. It was amusing and cute.

And Connery did not want to do Bond movies anymore?

[Aaron1375 · 2/10 · 10 January 2010]

Yes, Sean Connery did not want to be Bond forever and for the most part you can say he has done a rather good job of doing roles other than Bond. Then there are the head scratchers like that turn as a villain in the very dull "Avengers" movie. Or like here, where he decided to say the heck with serious acting let me be in one of those horrible films with one of those guys who can not act a lick in this case Miles O'Keefe, also seen in the dreadful "Cave Dwellers", which was also a sequel to another one that I have heard is bad itself Ator. Granted the movie "Zardoz" was strange too, and it made no sense as well, but it had a certain style and actually seemed to work even though there are still parts of it I have no clue as to what they were about. This one is just bad with an ending that makes one go what the heck just happened there. Did they not remember to write a good ending so they had to end it in the most vague possible manner. Not really much to say about this movie, only that Sean Connery is the only reason I gave this movie a two because he is a favorite actor of mine. However, he does not really add anything to this one, but it just makes the movie surreal just because an actor of his caliber is in it.

Sword of the Valiant: See it and laugh.

[latsblaster · 1/10 · 19 June 2003]

"After the first 5 minutes there is nothing worth watching in this film" (xnix444).

Yes, but even the first 5 minutes are really bad. The intro with the sword seems to be stolen by 'Conan the barbarian' (also 1982), but in quality not even close to it.

"It has possibly the worst score in film history." (eightx10)

Yes, that is also true. The score is scary!

"The production values are terrible; the writing, nonexistent." (yngue)

Yes, I agree and have nothing more to say about that. Even "The Barbarians" (1987) is a true masterpiece compared to this crap.

Rating: 1 of 10.

A horrendously awful movie!

[xnix444 · 1/10 · 21 May 1999]

This movie starts with a lot of promise. The opening scene, featuring Sean Connery, is very entertaining. However, Connery disappears for most of the rest of the movie along with any talent that anyone else may have exhibited. The movie jumps from place to place with no coherent story. There is no sense of time. The editing is laughable. After the first 5 minutes there is nothing worth watching in this film.

Sword Of The Valiant: The Legend Of Sir Gawain And The Green Knight (Stephen Weeks, 1984) **

[Bunuel1976 · 4/10 · 18 August 2006]

Juvenile fantasy/adventure with an impressive cast of old reliables (Sean Connery, Peter Cushing, Trevor Howard, Lila Kedrova, Douglas Wilmer and Wilfrid Brambell) all operating below-par alongside the resistible - indeed wooden - presence of would-be star Miles O'Keefe (fresh from two similarly low-brow Ator films). Bafflingly, Connery went on to the equally unappetizing and silly HIGHLANDER (1986)...even if, I have to say, that one's something of a guilty pleasure for me!

The hairstyles designed for the film give new meaning to the phrase "bad hair day"! Besides, the look of the film is pretty cheap (I watched this via MGM's pan-and-scan DVD, which certainly did it no favours); the death-knell is delivered, then, by the inappropriate and ultra-cheesy electronic score! Certainly harmless in itself but overlong and not exactly rewarding in any way; strangely enough, the director had already tackled the story a decade earlier in GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT (1973), which is yet another film that I haven't had the opportunity to catch up with since missing out on it on local TV in my childhood...though I can't say that I'm particularly looking forward to it now!

Whoa...what a dumb movie.

[temporarypeace · 1/10 · 13 January 2006]

When I first heard about this movie I knew right off the bat it would be hilariously bad. Think about it...first off it's made by Cannon, one of the most incompetent movie companies of all time (just about 95% of all the movies they ever made were laughably bad). Second, the hero of the story is none other than Miles O'Keefe himself wearing a big dopey blonde wig that makes him look more girlie than tough. Then to top it all off we have Sean Connery in a role he'd probably rather forget as the "Green Knight", but he looks more like a Christmas decoration then an actual magical knight. Not only is he covered from head to toe in green glitter, but he has pieces of holly stuck to his head! Throw all these into a blender and you have a really horrible unintentionally funny film.

The story revolves around Sean Connery challenging all the knights at a particularly wimp-filled castle to use his own axe to chop off his head. The deal is they get one blow to chop Sean's head off, but if they don't succeed he in turn gets to take a chop at their head. At first none of the knights are willing to accept his challenge, but then when the King gets so frustrated at his weak kingdom and offers to accept Sean's deal himself, the brave Miles O'Keefe jumps in and accepts the challenge instead! The King is so proud he makes the young Miles O'Keefe an instant knight! What happens next is ridiculous. O'Keefe takes his swing and chops Sean's head clean off...but then a really fake Sean head laying on the floor is then seen telling his body to come and pick up his head. The headless body walks over to the head, picks it up, and puts it back on his neck. Miles O'Keefe, realizing that he's just been fooled by a magical knight into giving up his own life, prepares to have his own head chopped off in return. However, Sean Connery decides that he will grant the young O'Keefe one more year to live his life before he will chop off his head. He also gives O'Keefe a really boring riddle that if he solves in that year, his life will be spared.

The rest of the movie revolves around Miles O'Keefe in a fake crappy stiff armor outfit traveling around the countryside trying to solve the riddle, fighting danger every step of the way. There are not only tons of cheesy battles, but movie mistakes galore and plot holes aplenty. If you're a bad movie fan then definitely check this one out. You'll be happy you did.

A nice bit of English "halo-halo" which merges the stories of three Arthurian knights.

[Deusvolt · 7/10 · 12 April 2006]

Golan and Globus are known for low-budget "trying hard" spectaculars out to make money, not win awards so I was bit leery when I went to see this movie. To my surprise it turned out to be good. Some of my favorite British actors were in it like Trevor Howard, Peter Cushing and of course, Sean Connery. Golan and Globus were right when they insisted on Miles O'Keefe over Mark Hamill who was the choice of director Stephen Weeks. With Hamil, people would have unjustly compared this movie with Star Wars. And as it turned out, Hamill was a one-shot wonder (three shots, actually with the Star Wars Trilogy). I remember him starring in a cheap sci-fi flick the advertising for which was a Star Wars rip-off while the plot was a Terminator rip-off. It bombed of course. Miles O'Keefe did very well exuding youthful daring with self-deprecating humor.

In any case, Arthurian legend purists need not grouse about the fact that Sword of the Valiant mixes the stories of Sir Gawain (the Green Knight story is his), Sir Owein (the Lady of Lyonesse) and Sir Percival (the encounter with a knight in red armor). It's like shooting three birds with one stone and should motivate people to read up on Mallory et al. Besides, the movie is really a merry mix of adventure, action, comedy and romance. In Filipino, we call this "halo-halo," literally "mix-mix" used to describe an iced dessert with sweet beans, custard, gelatin, roasted young rice, tapioca, coconut strands, banana, jackfruit and what have you. Gawain's relationship with Linet is suitably romantic and knightly (that is, chaste). The mysterious character Linet is aptly portrayed by Cyrielle Claire whose beauty is of fairy tale quality.

Despite the daunting looks of the Dowager Lady of Lyonesse, she has a rollicking sense of humor. When Gawain slew the Black Knight in fair duel, he became the Lord Protector of Lyonesse. But that was not his only inherited duty as the Lady of Lyonesse coyly pointed out. You should hear the way she said it.

Sean Connery is suitably menacing. Trevor Howard, as the almost senile King Arthur didn't have much time to act; likewise Peter Cushing but their presence lent weight to the film.

If you can stomach the music

[eightx10 · 1/10 · 16 August 2000]

This was is hilariously bad. One of the most ineptly made movies I have ever seen. Sean Connery has one good scene at the beginning, but even it has some really cheezey effects.

And the MUSIC. It has possibly the worst score in film history. I heartily recommend this film to all those out there who (like me) respect an unapologetic bad film.

A great movie with great music

[Ragnarok-5 · 10/10 · 9 July 2001]

It's a pretty cool movie with great adventures for Sir Gawain. The music is great. I still occasionally listen to the theme song. Miles O'Keefe did a good job portraying Sir Gawain. The story is fun and exciting. It's one of the better fantasy movies out there. The costumes are good, and it has a nice ending.

Admittedly disjointed, but oh so much fun!

[HaemovoreRex · 7/10 · 18 June 2005]

Well, opinion on this movie is universally, shall we say, not very kind (to put it mildly) with numerous critics who have all hastened to point out the many flaws present within that serve to destabilise the films overall structural coherence. As for myself, whilst certainly conceding the films many shortcomings, I have a real fondness for it!

Firstly the movie doesn't take itself at all seriously and is played throughout with it's tongue wedged very firmly in it's cheek. The overall look of the film is excellent with some great locations used for the shooting. In addition it boasts some real star casting including the always excellent Sean Connery and Peter Cushing. The costuming department excel here also with some really great suits of armour. OK, so there IS a problem with the way the film has been edited, thus rendering it disjointed and often bizarre, but who cares? It's never boring and is a harmless way to spend an hour and a half of pure escapism.

In short, it's great fun!

Shame on you, Sean

[songbirdie · 1/10 · 3 December 2004]

Poor costuming,

Bad acting,

Some OK sets,

and Lame plot.

Not representative of the Rennaissance in it's lack of accuracy.

The fantasy portion can't even begin to pull you into the story. Bad wig on Gawain.

Overall the worst movie I have seen in a very long time.

All I can say is Sean Connery must have needed money very badly to act (if you can call it that) in this monstrosity. Don't waste your time!