Quest for Camelot

I know I gave this movie a higher rating then it probably deserves. Well lets just say this movie is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. I actually really like it. I see its faults and still don't care. I think I was seven when this came out but I really don't think I seen it till a bit later in life. I enjoyed the characters, for the most part the songs,the plot, and the world that was created. I eventually plan to buy this movie but it's one that can wait. Which shows that I don't love it, just find it to be one of the better kids movies. Or put it this way. An old kids movie that wasn't made by Disney that I consider to be good. :)

Genre: Cartoon, Camelot, Adventure with female knight in training.

Main characters: Kayley, Garret, Devon and Cornwall.

Actors: Lots of famous ones here! There is Cary Elwes (Garret), Eric Idle (Devon), Gary Oldman (Ruber), Jane Seymour (Juliana), Don Rickles (Cornwall), Pierce Brosnan (King Arthur), John Gielgud (Merlin).

What happens: Kayley is the daughter of Sir Lionel, one of the knights at the Round Table. The young girl dreams of following in her father's footsteps as a knight. Then, disaster strikes. Lionel is killed :-( and Kayley as well as others mourn for him. Kayley dreams on of becoming a knight...

My thoughts: This film had good potential. It had good animation, good, heartwarming songs, good characters and lots of good actors. They released it and (on IMDb especially) it sort of flopped like a deflated balloon. What happened?

Well, I don't know personally. I suppose a lot of people don't like this film for a number of reasons. Yes, the film isn't perfect, but it's CERTAINLY enjoyable and good to watch! It's also good for the children, they are likely to enjoy at least one aspect of the film and want to watch on (just like me when I was younger). They may enjoy the songs, they may enjoy the actors, they may enjoy the characters or the excitement, or they may enjoy the humour. They are most likely NOT to be disappointed.

Adults are most likely to like the actors. Monty Python fans will hopefully not be disappointed by the performance of Eric Idle. Also here is Jane Seymour (but not Henry the Eighth's wife OBVIOUSLY! :-) )

Why this film has gone down so badly is a mystery to me. I hope those of you who have never watched it before will enjoy it as much as I do.

Recommended to: Families who like cartoon films, people who like any of the actors I mentioned earlier and people who just like the sound of the film in general - enjoy! :-)

I too enjoyed this movie. It isn't flawless, but few movies are. The animation is good, if a little bland in the musical numbers, with exception of the splendid witchcraft scene. As for the songs, they aren't actually that bad. My favourites were "The Prayer", "Looking Through Your Eyes", and "If I didn't have you." The other songs were not as good, but not mind numbingly awful. The biggest problem was the singing voices, they didn't match the voice acting. Celine Dion is a very good singer, but her voice is too powerful for Julianna, but it's good they didn't ask someone like Barbara Streisand, another excellent singer with a too-big voice for the character. Same with Andrea Corr. Another problem was the script, which had its ups and downs. The reasons why some children didn't laugh at the two-headed dragon, which was the best character, is because they wouldn't in a million years have understood the pop culture references, though they were funny. As for the voice talents they were a mixed bag. Jessalyn Gilsig and Cary Elwes started off a little bland, and Gary Oldman relishes his role as the villain, if a little over the top at times. On a positive note, Eric idle and Don Rickles were hilarious, and Jane Seymour made a sincere Julianna. Pierce Brosnan was also an interesting choice, but if I were a director, I wouldn't have picked John Gielgud to voice Merlin, although he would have been good if it was live-action. In conclusion, an above average movie, with a story that started off well, but ran out of steam too early. If I wanted to see it again, I would. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The wonderful, classic legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table has never been properly handled as a feature film. Even "Excalibur" seemed forced, and perhaps the only truly enjoyable features have been gentle comedies like Disney's "The Sword in the Stone" and of course "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" which throw the technical mythology out the window and try to make what's left fun. Eric Idle starred in that latter entry, and he stars here, as one-half of a fairly well-animated, somewhat badly-designed, talking dragon. With Don Rickles' help he becomes a comic sidekick, but the script doesn't let either of them be all that funny, and the animation mixes the beautiful and awful with a disturbing shot-to-shot tickertape rhythm. About 1/4th of the animators here don't seem to know how to animate convincingly, and those who do have to struggle not to let the movie fall down around them. But the animation is still the best part of this woefully misconceived hybrid of randomly-scattered Camelot legend and F-grade science fiction. The science-fiction takes over, sadly. Consider the red-armored, action figure of a villain (played by Gary Oldman, in yet another bad career move). I can't decide if he's Riffraff from Rocky Horror, or Ade Edmonson from the Young Ones. It matters little. Caring not for the great legend sitting right under their feet, the umpteen writers turn out sub-Disney drivel about robots, walking trees, a laughable CGI version of the rock monster from the "Never-Ending Story," and a talking chicken with a hatchet for a beak. Lovely. I'm sure Sir Thomas Malory wanted to put these elements in his "Morte D'Arthur," he simply wasn't clever enough to think of them, right? Who needs Lancelot and Galahad when you've got Lionel and Bladebeak? And does anyone really want Celine Dion Eurovision Song Contest-esque material sprinkled in every few minutes? Supposedly sung by the "characters" of what story there is, but they rarely move their lips to it, so the work is not particularly convincing. An all-star cast is wasted (Sir John Gielgud, for chrissake!), as is the time of anyone watching this confused "Black Cauldron"-esque collage of scenes from other movies. The design looks like Don Bluth traced by Wang, and the entire enterprise made me slightly ill. What a waste of talent. I want to hurt this movie.

This is a film that I have watched several times now with the kids and find myself enjoying it more each time.

Previous comments have compared it unfavourably to Disney but this seems unfair - it is clearly a separate product, darker and more cynical than the works of that other company. The song by dragons Devon and Cornwall - 'Without You'- stands in stark contrast to, say, the sentiments of 'You and Me Together' in Disney's Oliver and Company. Neither could I imagine Ruber, with his particular vein of sarcastic villainy, appearing in the products of that more family centred studio.

The weakest individual moment, for me at least, is anachronistic. Devon and Cornwall sing about their mutual hostility, and their song is animated with some twentieth century props and in-jokes. This is a jarring note in a film which otherwise tries to maintain some sort of historical integrity. It is funny but creates a disruption that is hard to forget. (More acceptable is the 'Do you feel clucky?' line later on)

There has been some criticism of the animation quality, and it does seem to vary. Some of the movements of animals, in particular, seem jumpy at a distance. However balancing out these weaknesses are such scenes as the evocation of a cold morning, when Kayley hears of her father's death, and Ruber's splendid witchcraft scene.

Overall the film suffers from being underwritten - one wishes more time was taken in filling out character and incident before the final attack on Camelot. Cayley and Garrett fall in love too easily, while Devon and Cornwall (delightfully witty and charming creations) have too little to do. And what happens to Merlin? He's reduced to flying a bird. It's a shame as other supporting characters, like the Gryphon and the axe chicken are very well judged, and completely memorable. More unforgivable is the character of King Arthur, who is just bland.

On the plus side, this is still a good film, utterly free of pretension. Ruber's magical creation of his henchman is a highlight, a demoniac sequence that is quite thrilling, a brilliant musical set piece that moves the plot forward, sparking huge suspense. His creations are delightfully original in themselves, frightening and intriguing in equal measure. Watching it again I was reminded of how little of this quality of real wonder appears in another non-Disney animation, Prince of Egypt - a much more favourably received work, and far more earnest in tone.

This Arthurian adventure can be quite revealing in comparison when taken this as an unofficial sequel to The Sword in The Stone, throwing stereotypical Disney values and methods into greater relief. In its own right it is very enjoyable in any case, although it could have been even better with some extended work on the script.