Prince Valiant (1997) User Reviews

Prince Valiant sets out to rescue the princess in this epic adventure based on the classic comic strip created by Harold R. Foster

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 25 June 2013]

Spectacular adventure with a lot of colorful pageantry and old-fashioned action , concerning on King Arthur and Prince Valiant , though the movie falls short . It packs a non-sense blending of joky modern dialog and Dark Ages action , as the screenwriters don't get the appropriate touch . The whole cast is far too distinguished to be appearing in this sort of caricature of Medieval legends . It deals with King Arthur who governs in the legendary citadel that is Camelot . His Knights of the Round Table commit acts of derring-do and spend their spare time jousting and enjoying feasts . There young orphaned Valiant (chubby Stephen Moyer) is the squire to Sir Gawain (the same director Anthony Hickox) , one of King Arthur's (Edward Fox who steals the acting honours) knights . He is given the task of escorting princess Ilene (Katherine Heigl who is inappropriate here , holding an excessive ironic tone) to her home in Wales and naturally the young twosome fall in love . Meantime , the sword Excalibur has been robbed by Viking king usurper (Udo Kier) , an evil tyrant , and villainous leader Thagnar (Thomas Kretschmann). Then Ilene gets kidnapped and it's up to Prince Valiant to rescue both Ilene and Excalibur . As young Valiant set off to save princess away from risks and of course rides into it . As Valiant brushes aside bangs and journeys to Thule to look for his lover . There Valiant along with a group of outlaws (Warwick Davis , Ron Perlman) attack the Viking stronghold .

This is a Medieval tale with adventures , full-bloodied action , unspeakable dialog , villainy , terrific jousting , romance and heroism in the grandeur of Scope although in television set loses splendor . The movie displays breathtaking battles , being ambitious in scope with epic confrontation and a striking final climax for a mortal duel . Handsome story , being regularly written and contains some awkward narrative elements . Excellent settings , monumental castles ,outdoors and tournaments or jousts are well staged . However this spectacular film never takes off as it should despite pomp and circumstance showed , so you'll be excited and embarrassed alternately . In any case , filmmaker does some breathtaking set pieces and the attack of a Viking castle colorful and vividly thrilling . This is the classic story of romantic adventure come to life enriched by glamorous color and impressive battles . Wooden protagonist duo , Stephen Moyer and Katherine Heigl , both of whom future TV stars with ¨True Blood¨ and Grey's anatomy¨, respectively . Supporting cast is frankly good though wasted , employing such notorious players and not building them roles with which to make a considerable impact , as the screenplay never give them a chance , there appears great stars as Edward Fox , Ron Perlman , Joanna Lumley as Morgana Le Fey , Walter Gotell's last final and Thomas Kretschmann who wields an ax with vigour . The movie was re-cut by the German producers, while the director was away on Christmas vacation. They wouldn't fly him back to Germany to finish the film. Four key scenes setting up its humorous tone and all religious aspects were removed.

This is another attempt to literally transfer a comic-strip about the Arthurian saga to the screen , the first and the best was ¨Prince Valiant¨(1954) by Henry Hathaway with Robert Wagner , Janet Leigh , Victor McLagen , Donald Crisp , Sterling Hayden and Debra Paget . Other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur resulted to be : (1953) the classic ¨Knights of the Round Table¨ (by Richard Thorpe) , the musical ¨Camelot¨ (Joshua Logan), the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨ (John Boorman) , ¨First Knight¨ (Jerry Zucker) and recently ¨King Arthur¨ (Antoine Fuqua) . The picture will appeal to aficionados with chivalric ideals and epic movies fans , it is a passable production that will lose much on small television screen .

.

Unfortunate...

[bones-35 · 4/10 · 16 October 2006]

This movie was an unfortunate waste of time, money and talent. It has all the ingredients for great entertainment. A clear hero, beautiful princess, chivalry, castles etc.. The props and costumes department obviously put a lot of effort in the movie and it looks great.

Unfortunately this movie is hobbled by a brain-dead script. The story-line is non-sensical. The dialogue is really bad and the acting shows it. There are lines that just cannot be delivered with a straight face and some of the dialogue and plot-twists are just corny.

Watching this movie was an agonizing experience, not to be repeated.

*** spoilers start here **** Why did the writers have to combine Excalibur with Nordic elements, add Chinese fireworks and a middle-eastern harem? It just doesn't make sense. If the writers had stayed true to the real Prince Valliant stories in the comics, they would have created a much better story line without having to mutilate a variety of the popular legends out there.

Classic knights-in-armor tale offers so little that's new.

[emm · 6/10 · 13 May 1999]

I can recognize the name PRINCE VALIANT in the Sunday comics, and this is the movie adaptation which is based from. As if I've had enough of these Camelot stories, the swift pacing turns it on for supplementing the royal action, which is interesting to keep you tuned in. This latest version nearly captures the lively HERCULES & XENA look that continues to popularize the culture here in the States. It's a pity that these routine battles lack a solid punch, turning this into a mild consequence. For a new and younger generation of PRINCE VALIANT followers who dismisses the 1954 original film because of its age, this new and improved edition will certainly be it. There is a sacrifice of royalty that made the black-and-white classics sweet and tangy. The best you can really do is keep on reading the comic strip because several movies based on original counterparts (including TV shows and cartoons) fail to recapture a certain essence that was once made to be original.

Funny, adventure, romance how can you go wrong

[Jaivien · 5 November 1998]

this was a lovely film on a great cartoon. It completely delivers in full. Stephen Moyer played I fantastic Valiant, and I like the modern edge on the princess. Joanna Lumley made an evil Morgan Le fay come to life.It was funny, had plenty of action and just the right amount of romance. I thought it was cool and well worth watching. I'd recommend it to anyone

[e-mail]

Worst special effects and stunts of the late 1990s?

[gordonm88 · 3/10 · 24 January 2003]

Beautiful sets, great costumes and makeup.

Run of the mill script. Mediocre acting.

Bad special effects and stunts,and bad film-editing.

The special effects were truly terrible. Just stop-the-movie awful. Alligators that don't move and clearly are not alive. One alligator, clad in plate mail (huh?), shoots vertically out of the water into the air and descends down onto the stonework beside the water, where it doesn't move -while characters run about, pretending to be fearful of the clearly-lifeless, unmoving armor-clad alligator.

And lots of characters swinging Tarzan-like on ropes, slamming feet first into the villains. Except the actors are clearly hanging on ropes being moved by an overhead crane. And the ropes move slowly, as if there was great concern on the set about hurting the actors. In these scenes the villain conveniently stands in one spot until the slow-swinging good guy finally collides with him. This isn't a one-time screw-up; the slow-swinging Tarzan-bit happens over and over again.

The film editing is bad enough that it makes it hard to follow the story at spots. And the stunts and special effects kept blowing up the suspension of disbelief.

There is plenty of no-brainer action, though, and high production values on the sets and costumes. This could have been fun if it was better made.

Proof that Europe can hold its own with America when it comes to bad fantasy epics

[JamesHitchcock · 2/10 · 4 January 2009]

"Prince Valiant" is, apparently, based upon a comic strip, although I must confess that I had never heard of it before seeing the film. The story is set in Arthurian Britain. The king's magic sword Excalibur has been stolen by a gang of Vikings from the kingdom of Thule, so Valiant, a young squire, is sent to recover it. On the way he falls in love with the beautiful Princess Ilene (a name which can be pronounced either as "Eileen" or "Elaine", depending upon which character is speaking) and discovers that he himself is in fact none other than the long-lost heir to the crown of Thule, which has been usurped by the current incumbent, the villainous Thagnar.

The Arthurian legends have not always transferred well to the cinema screen. In recent years we have had the decidedly average romance "First Knight" and the decidedly below-average epic "King Arthur". "Prince Valiant", however, falls so far below average that it almost falls off the bottom of the scale. It is not a would-be epic along the lines of "King Arthur", but rather a sword-and-sorcery adventure along the lines of "Conan the Barbarian", "Red Sonja" or (to take a more modern example) "The Scorpion King".

Stephen Moyer makes a particularly dull hero, acting as though he were recovering from a serious charisma bypass operation. Katherine Heigl makes a pretty but equally uncharismatic heroine as Eileen/Elaine; on the evidence of this film she may have had the looks to succeed as a Hollywood star, but not the talent, so I was rather surprised that she has gone on to star in successful television series and films like "Gray's Anatomy" and "Knocked Up".Edward Fox, who stars here as Arthur, is a talented actor who should have known better than to sign up for rubbish like this.

The one exception to the generally low standard of acting is Joanna Lumley, still splendidly seductive in her fifties as Arthur's evil half-sister Morgan Le Fay, but this only made me wonder why Joanna, who is one of Britain's most popular television actresses, seems to make so many bad choices when she ventures into the cinema. There have been occasional exceptions, such as her cameo in the excellent "Shirley Valentine", but too many of her films have been awful ones- "Don't Just Lie There, Say Something" and "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" are other examples.

Even worse than the standards of acting are the action scenes and special effects. The fight scenes were all clumsily handled and those alligators were ludicrously unconvincing. The storyline was often confusing and difficult to follow and the lighting was so gloomy as to make me think that the film-makers were interpreting the phrase "Dark Ages" absolutely literally. "Prince Valiant" is billed as a British/Irish/German co-production, which only goes to show that there is at least one field, the tenth-rate fantasy epic, in which the European film industry can hold its own against American competition. I can only assume that the film's European origins were the reason that it was overlooked for a well-deserved Razzie nomination. 2/10

Disappointing, compared to the original source

[Schillo · 2/10 · 5 June 2000]

Hal Foster told us his own version of the King Arthur Saga with the 'Prince Valiant' Comic Strips. 'Prince Valiant' was Foster's invention and he created more than 1700 pages of adventure, romance, treachery, sinister villains, cunning heros ... you name it. One could make a great movie by putting any 50 pages of it to celluloid. Alas, in this movie they did not even try to do this. They just ripped off some characters name, gave them complete new personalities, messed up a simple story and build it around some special effects (which are indeed quite nice, but not enough to justify the entrance fee). If you like fast food movies, you might enjoy it, if you like the comic strips, you'll hate it. I recommend Prince Valiant (1954) which is not a perfect movie, but far more authentic compared to the original source. Which is what one should expect when viewing a movie named 'Prince Valiant'.

Good, but not perfect

[Haplo-4 · 7/10 · 31 March 1999]

This is a rather funny movie with all the right fantasy-ingredients in it. The actors are alright especially Ron Perlman and Katherine Heigl. It is well made and the camera photo is inspiring - I like the tempo-changes. But there is one thing I didn't like and that was the use of animated drawings tucked inside the movie which totally destroyed it. So because of the use of animation it only gets a 7 and not a 9.

It may be from 1997, but their hair is crimped

[aiviadiana · 1/10 · 28 September 2006]

well, this really is the worst of the fantasy genre. every cliché has been employed unapologetically. the acting is horrendous, especially on the part of princess ilene. randomly, half of the characters have English accents and half have American accents. there are giggling, insipid ex-queens who are now part of a harem, and a bizarre, gratuitous ass-shot of the main villain. i could barely pay attention to the flimsy story, what with all the distractions. this really epitomizes the long dark in the world of fantasy films that made lord of the rings such a relief. here's my question: WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO FINANCIALLY BACK THIS MOVIE? p.s. this has nothing to do with the actual story of prince valiant. i don't think the writers have ever read it.

Refreshing

[wielderofspoons · 7/10 · 22 December 2004]

After seeing the somewhat visually overwhelming Lord of the Rings trilogy, this was a pretty decent fantasy film to watch. Whilst most of the characters were pretty generic, some were good to watch, especially Prince Valiant. The violence was pretty tame, although this is not really a problem, as most of it looks realistic for the times that the story is set in, as does the armour and weapons, aside from maybe Excalibur. The special effects are slightly cheesy, but all the same they didn't really damage the story. You could kind of tell what the ending was going to be, but the story flowed well. Overall, a good movie to watch.

For the 10 year old Knight.

[ragana · 3/10 · 26 April 2005]

Villainy, jousting, swordplay, a princess in peril, an unknowing prince on a quest, and all in the shadow of Excalibur: what more could the average ten year old would-be Knight ask for?

Set in the days of Round Table chivalry, this is the comic book tale of the orphan and page Valiant (Stephen Moyer) who, due to a case of mistaken identity, is escorting a princess (Katherine Heigl) to her fiancée when Excalibur is stolen from King Arthur (Edward Fox) by his evil stepsister Morgan Le Fey (Joanne Lumley) and two warring brothers (Udo Kier, Thomas Kretchsmann) from an enemy Kingdom. Valiant and the princess become part of the struggle of "he who holds the sword rules the world" which leads them both to love and Valiant to his princely destiny.

This is an okay rainy afternoon movie that is definitely geared toward a young audience. The acting is decent enough, the jousting is done well, and the swordplay isn't bad. Occasionally a scene will fade into a cartoon comic book sequence with voice over. Stunt work is kind of lame and there is this dumb armored alligator effect. Over all, kids will get a kick out of it (and adults will groan-laugh).

Worth a rent/buy used for the kids.

nice unpretentious movie unfairly disparaged

[r-c-s · 8/10 · 15 October 2008]

These nice, unpretentious movies should get better press when compared with junk AAA+ budget kolossals. Someone complains about the 'cartoon strips' inserted here & there in the movie...they didn't delight me, either...but I guess it was a way scriptwriters had to signal they were filming the adaptation of a COMIC STRIP...and in turn another poster here complains they haven't read the story at all...

I find this movie just fine. I won't write about it in my memories, but it's DEFINITELY better than many AAA+ actors/AAA+ budget productions...at 1/12 the cost. Of course you don't have Kenneth Branagh, Lawrence Olivier or Katherine Hepburn here, but they aren't needed, either.

It is the next rendition of ages old fairy tales made of sorcery, supernatural swords, pretty princesses in distress and apprentices on a quest, who discover they are the long lost sons on good kings murdered by evil tyrants.

Photography is good; locations are good; acting is satisfactory, for this kind of movies...(not JULIUS CAESAR with John Gielgud ); the storyline is also good. It helps remembering that people who harshly criticize these modest movies in favor of high-fidelity to whatever 'spirit of the thing' wouldn't be the first to sit through a classic theatre play.

To watch at least once.

Not the same director as Theatre of Blood!!!

[it001k0306 · 7/10 · 18 April 2009]

Just to correct a previous post - this is NOT directed by the man responsible for the Vincent Price classic Theatre of Blood - that was Douglas Hickox. This guy is Anthony Hickox. Having said that - he's got some B-Movie pedigree, his first six films all being in the fantasy genre, including the two excellent Waxworks comedy horrors and input into the Warlock and Hellraiser series. This is reasonably enjoyable sword and sorcery fare and is marked by Hickox' usual ability to involve names that you want to see back in the limelight. Edward Fox as King Arthur. Joanna Lumley as Morgan Le Fay. Brilliant! As a Brit, I know these actors well from the films and television of my youth. In using these guys, Hickox plays the same trick as Tarantino in using Robert Forster, Pam Grier or David Carradine. Also, any film using Udo Kier as a villain is alright in my book.

How it compares to other Arthurian movies?

[Pellam · 2/10 · 17 March 2020]

At some point, a crocodile in a plate mail jumps out of an indoor pool, and that's enough said about this movie. Still, a chance to see Ron Perlman.

At last, a Valiant who's not a bumbling fool.

[Deusvolt · 8/10 · 25 March 2006]

I liked the panoramic artwork which is very like the painstakingly done quarter of a quarter broadsheet spread frames of the syndicated Sunday comics supplements of the '50s. The special effect used to make those artworks seem to melt into reality is awesome. This is rarely, if ever, done now because of economies of print production and advertising. That, by the way is one of the reasons, the cartoonist responsible for the hugely popular Calvin and Hobbes, quit making the offbeat funny series.

The Valiant here is a very competent knight unlike the one portrayed by Robert Wagner in the 1954 film who was nothing short of a bumbling fool who managed to have accidents just when he seemed to be getting the upper hand (e.g. losing his hold on a cliff as he was espying the traitorous transactions of the Black Knight with Norse marauders). Only the superb acting of James Mason as the villainous Black Knight made that older version interesting.

The fight scenes in this Prince Valiant were well executed. Kudos to the arms master for the handsome suits of armor and weapons.

The actress who portrayed Princess Ilene is stunning.

A surprisingly good movie

[Oric13 · 9/10 · 13 January 2006]

This is one of those movies getting trashed by people without any good reason (just like Showgirls and Last Action Hero, which I both consider to be very entertaining movies). I've watched it a second time last night and was pleasantly surprised at how good it (still) is.

The acting is pretty good. There are no major plot holes. The number one "bad guy" wasn't just some 1 dimensional asshole, but actually a well fleshed-out character, who was actually smarter (strategically) than the good guys.

Also, he effects weren't bad at all for a movie with this kind of budget. And, another good reason for watching this, I got a good look at Katherine Heigl's bare ass. :)

I wasn't bored for a single moment while watching Prince Valliant, and really what more could I ask for?

All in all, a very enjoyable movie, and I highly recommend watching it.

A young squire sets out on a journey to protect a beautiful princess and discovers his destiny.

[filmguy450 · 9/10 · 13 September 2010]

Anthony Hickox's comic adaptation is surprisingly great. Based on Hal Foster's long running series, this sumptuous tale is sure to tickle the fancy of fantasy-adventure cinephiles.

The cinematography by Roger Lanser is stunning. Lots of wide angles to showoff the gorgeous landscape, to great effect. The colors burst off the screen, and are very comic-esquire. The long takes establish the geography well, and it makes for an interesting juxtaposition to the more claustrophobic, indoor scenes.

Stephen Moyer stars as the titular character with an unknown past. He makes for a dashing lead, and is easily likable. In the action scenes, he is believable and looks just tough enough to be able to hold his own. Katherine Heigl is Princess Ilene, the female lead/ love interest. Even at 19, her charm is on display. Moyer and her chemistry is strong, making their romance, which starts as a strong, obvious longing to something more substantial as they grow closer during their quest.

As Erik The Old, Walter Gotell, in his final role is very good. Anthony Hickox himself has nice role as Sir Gwain, whom Valiant is a squire. I didn't know it was him, and he was noble and daring, just as he should have been. Edward Fox makes a strong, decisive Arthur, even more refined and imposing. Ron Perlman shows up as a giant that knows more than he lets on, and man, I love me some Perlman. He's having lots of fun, and is used well. Warwick Davis shows up near the end, and livens up everything. He's such a joy to watch, and makes an already pulp-comic even more fun.

Udo Kier is the main villain, Sligon, whom steals Excalibur to take over the world. Kier is (almost) always fun to watch, and he's uber-creepy here, making for a delicious, slightly over-the-top (in a good way) bad guy. Joanna Lumley, so brilliant on "Absolutely Fabulous", is the witch Morgan Le Fey, Arthur's half-sister. She's a lot of fun, relishing the chance to play such a different character.

The action is well done, and exciting. The swordplay is very real, and it doesn't feel choreographed. The larger scale battles are easy to follow and have a nice flow to them. The detail in the armor and costumes are incredible, and it helps to enrich the world and make it much more believable.

Hickox's style is in abundance here, and damn, it's some style. Aside from the already mentioned things, like good action and all, he uses comic transitions, using artwork directly out of the comic strip. A year before what many consider the film to usher in this comic saturated movie culture we are now in (Blade), this was doing similar things, and is unjustly overlooked. But aside from the cool transitional sequences, Hickox employs a lot of camera tricks, forced perspective, and playing with what we can't see just off-screen. All that adds a nice layer of fun, and it reinforces the more supernatural elements.

This was an amazing surprise, that moves quickly, is rousing, had solid special effects, and good acting. An overlooked gem that helped usher in the current comic craze and deserves better than it's getting.

very good

[liderc · 10/10 · 4 December 2002]

I really enjoyed watching this well-done movie. It is not too brutal, witty and has the right dose of humor. Besides it has a very good cast of well-known actors like Katherine Heigl ("Roswell") the great Joanna Lumley ("Absolutely Fabulous"), who is really wonderful in her role (as usual), and Thomas Kretschmann, who is, as usual, very good and very sexy. It is very well done by director Anthony Hickox, who made such movies as the classic "Theatre of Blood" starring Vincent Price, and his directing really shines through. The animated sequences are very well done and give the movie a really nice flair. The only bad performance that I could spot was the real short appearance by the rather silly (but famous) supermodel Markus Schenkenberg. But that couldn't mar this otherwise really good movie, its only flaw is that it is somehow too fast paced sometimes, otherwise I can only recommend it.

Well acted Knights of the Round Table tale.

[brand1 · 10/10 · 7 August 2000]

Surprisingly good with quality acting, including up and coming beauty, Katherine Heigl.Adventures of a squire pretending to be a knight escorting a beautiful princess home,while the rest of England is about to go to war with the Scots over the stolen sword, Excalibur.Valiant and Princess Ilene soon discover that the Vikings are the true culprits in the larceny of Excalibur.Certainly won't boor you, but still has a predictable outcome.

Great Bad Guy, Beautiful Scenery

[bradwilliams · 9/10 · 29 March 2000]

I have no clue why this wasn't released wider and in theatres. I saw it as a fluke on cable t.v. and then looked everywhere to rent it so I could see it again, but no Joy whatsoever. I was forced to rent it on direct t.v. to see it again. The scenery was phenominal, and the action was intense. One of the strongest points in the movie was the bad guy Udo Kier, he was a very threatening individual. The sword play and sorcerey was some of the best I have seen and it is a true testiment to the lack of credit hollywood gives fantasy movies. It wasn't released in a major fashion, and I believe they missed out on a bigger bankroll movie than they could have expected. I wish it were rereleased in theatres, because I would love to see it on the big screen.

Far from the original spirit, but suitable for children.

[cajadomatic · 7 November 2010]

For fans of Harold Foster's Prince Valiant it is a bit disappointing, but very suitable for children. Despite his homo haircut the original Valiant is very masculine, philosophical, and smart. He does not perform foolish acts or show inability with the sword, ever. In the movie he looks too young, shy, messy and foolish. The cast is inadequate, the camera trembles and the fight scenes are unacceptable... but again, not for the children, there are nice places to be viewed causing the correct time effect. There are not enough elements to make a good movie, lacks of art direction, continuity, actor performance and specially edition. The movie was pretty bad edited. Beside the gorgeous naked back of the princess coming out of the bad, the castles, the open air scenes make a very pleasant environment worth to be seen. Ron Pearlman's performance is great as usual but do not save the picture. Maybe i would like too much to see this movie under the view of Ridley Scott, stronger characters, something more close to the original personality and the meaning of Prinz Eisenherz.

Romance is never dead.

[swakcalmm · 10/10 · 3 March 2000]

Romance is not dead yet. In Prince Valiant romance and adventure is very much alive. I highly recommend this to everyone in the mood for comedy, adventure, romance, and fantasy. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.

Magnificent storytelling.

[MK-26 · 10/10 · 29 June 1999]

Terrific movie. Never heard of it until I saw it on cable. Almost as good as the Princess Bride. Should have had wider release. Wish I had seen it in the movies. Great for the kid in all of us. Katherine Heigl is an absolutely beautiful princess, and Stephen Moyer is superb as Valiant.

What really made this film was....

[laura_nd1 · 26 January 2002]

The true star of the film, yes that right I'm talking about Chesney Hawkes! Without his brief but exquisite performance the film would just be a very disappointing with a lack lustre scrip and even worst over the top acting.' But your father gave me strict instructions to...' Arguable one of the best lines in cinematic history, do you not agree! I thank you Chesney Hawkes for one of the best performances ever!

Great movie for young children

[jdcoates · 8/10 · 27 September 2023]

This movie is a faithful adaptation of the prince valiant Newspaper strip. What I find endearing about this movie is that it is something that the entire family can watch without cuss words, or sexual scenes. This movie reminds me of the old Walt Disney adventure movies of the 1960s and 1970s. Too many times today with characters such as Batman, Superman, and the avengers, the movies are really made for teenagers in above, and can scare a little children, and or be inappropriate for them. If you enjoy the Earl Flynn Robinhood movie, or early Zorro movies, which show heroes as being heroic and villains being villains, you will enjoy this movie.