Easily the best telling of Arthurian legend, sadly it doesnt have much competition.

its a good film but I thought the editing was horrible at times, especially at the beginning.

Well, if he was a fan of overacting and wanted his performers to do that, it's still a flaw and not a virtue.
I wasn't thinking so much in terms of personal preference as I was what could commonly be considered good acting that stands up to the test of time. Acting is notorious for ageing badly.

curiously common in John Boorman films, perhaps indicating he wasn't particularly gifted at directing actors, or didn't have a knack for good casting.
There's a third option: maybe the actors acted that way because that is the way he wanted them to act, and that is exactly what he was going for Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is the result of bad directing/bad casting.
"
Occasionally
I'm callous and strange."

The post production was bad, especially the dubbing, and there was some over-acting, curiously common in John Boorman films, perhaps indicating he wasn't particularly gifted at directing actors, or didn't have a knack for good casting. Either way, the film is uneven and has aged somewhat.
But even if I can't concur with it being one of the best ever, it's certainly unlikely to be topped in future Arthurian legend adaptations given the current state of the film industry.
I wouldn't mind seeing a proper adaptation of Wolfram von Eschenbach's version of Parzival for a change.

Well, if you read Malory's original writings, you'll note that it is disjointed, and reads like a series written by a pre-teen.
The film ties all of that together.

the screenplay is very solid.
No it's not. The plot is incredibly disjointed. The last third or so of the film (consisting of the holy grail stuff and the nipple-armor witch and her effeminate son) comes out of absolutely nowhere - it is
not
set up
at all
by the previous 2/3rds of the film - as it would be
if
it was a well-written plot. The first 2/3rds of this film are practically
a different story entirely
from the last 1/3rd.
And the ending is absolutely horrible. It's not even an ending! It's just a completely anti-climactic piece of crap great big pile of nothing that in no way justifies the 45 minutes or how ever long they spent allegedly building up to it.
All of that bespeaks very bad screenwriting.
No way is this worth more than a 7.5, max.

It's an excellent movie for what it is. It's essentially an adult fairy tale about the mystery of emotions and the unknown.
It's exceptionally well shot and directed, and the screenplay is very solid. The art direction is a little over the top, and some of the battle scenes are a little low budget (the opening battle and the battle at the end), but it's otherwise an excellent film.

This message has been deleted.

I second that, it's by far the greatest telling of the Arthurian legend on film.
My vote history:
http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9354248