Nigel Terry is terrible
-
Janebo — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 10:02 PM)
It's too bad you feel that way. Nigel Terry REALLY acted for that movie and pulled off a believable King Arthur that had impressed that character in our imaginations for decades. When many people think of "King Arthur" now, they think of someone like Nigel Terry. He carried that movie and all of the actors in it, many of whom went on to super stardom after Excalibur.
I couldn't agree with you more. The Arthur legend has been one of my favourite stories since I was a kid & read The Crystal Cave series (& almost every other book about it I could get my hands on lol). But while I watch Camelot, with the truly painful miscasting in pretty much all of the key roles, (Jamie Bower for one, who actually would have suited Boorman's Mordred over Arthur) I appreciate Nigel's performance a thousand fold. And Nicol's Merlin; untouchable. -
MIJACology — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 09:55 AM)
Thanks for the reply. I actually feel that Nigel Terry's Arthur is one of the greatest roles pulled off by an actor, ever.
The way Nigel Terry aged and matured Arthur still boggles my mind. Obviously time went by so that he could grow facial hair for when he became King. He may have also put on more weight. That is understandable. But even his voice and demeanor changed. I am just impressed with Nigel Terry's job here period.
I can't think of one actor who played themselves so convincingly from being a boy, to a man, to an elderly statesman.
None. -
-
loveagoodstory — 12 years ago(September 23, 2013 02:39 AM)
His country-boy naivety was actually what I liked about young Arthur.
When I first saw it, I was expecting a wise-words, watchful, knowing young Arthur (or, as I realise in retrospect, a total clich!). This characterisation was far more interesting start to see him develop from and hopefully more likely anyway, though I'm no expert there.
Free your mind and the rest will follow -
coye — 12 years ago(November 08, 2013 06:55 AM)
The poster makes a valid observation. Saying he should try acting is completely irrelevant and nonsensical, he's a viewer, as we all are, and it's a question of whether the viewer finds a performance believable.
Terry is pretty awful, and was a poor choice.
The cast as a whole were all theatre actors who were unfamiliar with the subtleties of film, It's very campy in general, and but still enjoyable. -
Blueghost — 11 years ago(August 17, 2014 06:34 PM)
by coye Fri Nov 8 2013 06:55:50
IMDb member since August 2003
The poster makes a valid observation. Saying he should try acting is completely irrelevant and nonsensical, he's a viewer, as we all are, and it's a question of whether the viewer finds a performance believable.
Terry is pretty awful, and was a poor choice.
The cast as a whole were all theatre actors who were unfamiliar with the subtleties of film, It's very campy in general, and but still enjoyable.
Give me a break, not he doesn't.
Terry is an accomplished actor, and creative forces behind the film thought him talented enough to cast him.
So, go make a film, and cast someone better. FYI it's supposed to be campy. It's a fantasy film. The armor was wrong, not all the knights are there, the grail story is reworked, and a bunch of other things.
But, in spite of all that, it still has dramatic appeal. -
JR541 — 12 years ago(December 03, 2013 11:13 PM)
Never liked this kind of reply. Just because one is not an actor (or singer, athlete, etc.) doesn't mean they shouldn't be permitted to critique ones performance. You don't need to be a gourmet chef to know when the soup tastes like crap.
-
hachmom-1 — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 07:02 PM)
Nigel Terry's young Arthur reminds me very much of his performance as young John in The Lion in Winter. It boggles my mind that nearly 15 years later he is that convincing as a young man in his late teens. I also love him as the later Arthur, I think its a great performance.
It is not our abilities that show who we truly areit is our choices -