Anyone else find it ironic that the OP calls Nigel Terry's performance in this movie terrible and yet says that fine thespians like Jay & Silent Bob rule?

He's not the greatest, but I think it just adds to the atmosphere - folk rallying around a guy who doesn't really know what he's doing!
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

I didn't think he's terrible but quite over acting, made me think of Jim Carrey freaking out.

Loved this film.. I thought Nigel Terry was very effective. Going from a fumbling teenager to Arthur the King and aging right before our eyes.. Tell me you didn't see that

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

Scouserboy,
Thanks for giving me another "contributor" to IGNORE; always a timesaver!

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.

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.

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. Let's see you get in front of the camera and do better with that cast and crew.

When you grow older you'll find yourself surrounded by dumb goofball/dorks. Just keep reminding yourself that some of them will grow into respectable contributers to society.

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

Young Arthur acts like such a dumb goofball/dork, that I have trouble believing that he has matured (and gained intelligence) into his persona as King Arthur.
Country + RAP = CRAP
Country + ROCK = CROCK

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.

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.

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.

Well some of the acting is patchy in this film, sadly, but I love Excalibur, saw it first in 1981 (twice) and am loyal to it. It was very impressive for it's time.