Excalibur Remake

[GreenScar]

Looks like Bryan Singer is looking at this...

Warner Bros. and Bryan Singer are unsheathing "Excalibur," redoing the 1981 John Boorman movie about King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable.

The project is still in the early stages, with Warners only tying up the remake rights, which it shares with Boorman. Singer's involvement is still in the talking stage and Legendary Pictures may come aboard the project.

If deals are made, Singer would produce with Julie Yorn. Former Warner exec Polly Johnsen (formerly Cohen) would also produce.

Matt Reilly is overseeing for Warners while Erik Olsen, who instigated the project by contacting Boorman, shepherds for the Yorn company.

Alex Garcia, an executive at Legendary and Singer's former partner at Bad Hat, was instrumental in bringing in Singer. If Legendary comes aboard, Garcia would oversee.

The 1981 movie starred Nigel Terry as Arthur and Cherie Lunghi as Guenevere and featured early performances from Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart and Gabriel Byrne. The movie told the well-known myth, in a gritty and dramatic fashion, of the young man who draws the sword Excalibur from a stone, is mentored by Merlin, establishes Camelot, loses his wife, Guenevere, to his best friend, Lancelot, and engages in the quest for the Holy Grail.

Singer's "Excalibur" will be a more epic and fantasy version compared with the more earthy Clive Owen-starring "King Arthur" movie released by Disney/Touchstone in 2004.

"Excalibur" is not Singer's next movie. The candidate for that is shaping up to be "Jack the Giant Killer," New Line's action fantasy about a young farmer who leads a rescue mission to the kingdom of giants when a princess is kidnapped. No offer has been made, though Singer has taken meetings.

The director, repped by WME, is coming out of hibernation, and "Excalibur" joins Universal's big-screen version of "Battlestar Galactica" as one of his projects in development.

[Blu Titan]

If they spend the movie, it could be awesome . I am a sucker for this type of movie.

[Secretagentnumber6]

I hate to see it remade, but I love the material. Excalibur is one of my favorite movies of all time so they better make it good. The casting will be key. That original cast was amazing.

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Thats cool. I hope its a dark rated R film with lots of bloodshed, strong sexual content, and special effects. Better yet, an imax showing will draw big box office numbers

[P@t_Mtl]

Is it me or it sometime look's like these director/producers are attach to a lot of projects? Is he not wanting to a reboot of Battlestar Galactica also?

Maybe they should concentrate on one project and complete it, might happen that not so many of them would look awful at the end, just an idea.

[Porkchop Express]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

If they spend the movie, it could be awesome . I am a sucker for this type of movie.

I agree. There is alot of potential for a great movie here. I wonder when we are going to get Excalibur on blu.

[jlaavenger]

I love the stainless or chrome plated armor in Excalibur. I hope they keep it.

[repete66211]

Awesome! Who needs new ideas when you can just retread everything that's been done in the last 25 years? Eventually 100% of Hollywood movies will just be remakes and sequels. I can't wait!

[Steve]

I'm not always a supporter of the remake/reboot concept, but IMO this one has the potential to be great.

[Elandyll]

Singer can go die if he does this frankly.

Why remake "Excalibur"? It is the vision of John Boorman of one of the primordial European myths (Merlin, Excalibur, the sword in the stone, Morgane, the Graal...). So why wouldn't Singer restart from the myth itself and deliver his own version?

Totally absurd and pointless.

That would be like saying "I'm going to do a remake of the movie "Titanic".
No, not the historical events and giving my take on it, no. Specifically a remake of the movie itself."


Retarded.

[Afrobean]

How on Earth can a new movie about King Arthur be considered a remake? Just because it shares a similar name? Similar conceit? It's ****ing King Arthur! Would you call the recent CG animation Beowulf movie a remake? Because I assure you, it was not the first movie to tackle the subject.

I mean... how on earth can a company need to "secure remake rights" to a story which is the very definition of public domain? The only thing I can figure is the title of the movie, but that's not even a very original idea in the first place. Don't see how that could stand up in court if a company made a King Arthur movie and called it Excalibur without permission.

[PH3AR]

I liked the original, so I'll see if this can be a good movie like it should be

[DefTechPioElite]

I loved the 80's movie! There is a sweet death metal band named after the spell the witch casts in that movie. Anaal Nathrak (sp?)

[kccarl]

Remakes are fine, many have gone on to be actually great, but don't think for a minute that film NEEDS to be remade. It was absolutely great the way it was. Dark, foreboding, and just absolutely cool, the original was fantastic. Mark my words, no matter how good they make the remake, it won't be the same as the original...in this case.

I mean, how can you top the tree full of slowly swinging dead crusading round table knights....

KCcarl

[scweb13]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray Fanatic

Thats cool. I hope its a dark rated R film with lots of bloodshed, strong sexual content, and special effects.

The original was R. At least the 140 minute version. There was also a 119 minute PG cut.

[TRIGON]

Excalibur is one of the best movies about King Arthur and the knights of the round table. I dont see why they need to "remake" excalibur ? Cant they just have some one write a new story (so to speak) about the Arthurian days? The hollywood remakes are getting out of hand...

And Bryan Singer? I liked what he did with the first 2 xmen movies , but Superman Returns was pretty awful. So theyre kind of rolling the dice with him.. I think john booreman should tell these folks where to go...

[Moefiz]

King Arthur was pretty good.

Singer is a good choice for this, after doing a period like Valkyrie I am sure he can do a good job with this.

[FindYourWay]

I wouldn't mind a remake of Excalibur.
A year or two ago, I read the most hilarious review for the original film on Amazon, thought I'd share.

This review is a warning. Do NOT subject yourself to this movie. In Excalibur, the often mind-numbingly awful filmmaking of John Boorman (Zardoz, folks) reaches a nauseating peak. At a running time of approximately 14,000 hours, it is a bloated misfire of epic proportions, being simultaneously horrible, boring, laughable, and way too long. It's as though the production started out with grand, epic intentions, and then Boorman decided "hey let's find the worst actors ever, give them the worst lines ever, write the most retarded script ever seen, and then spend 75% of the budget on LSD." Honestly, Monty Python did a far better job of portraying the King Arthur legend. It is really too much of a strain to go into any great detail about exactly WHY this movie blows so much, but please take my word for it. The acting is weirdly ineffective and dense (as is often the case with Boorman). This is partly the fault of the dialogue, which always seems to be hinting at some higher meaning, but in reality it's just pretentious fluff. The main characters are weak, unlikable, and usually look pretty stupid in their goofy outfits (Mordred has to be seen to be believed). Take King Arthur himself for example. Nigel Terry is so painfully un-tough in the role that he makes Winnie the Pooh look like a Hell's Angel. Another one is Merlin, who could have been such a cool character but ends up being this creepy weirdo that nobody would want hanging around in reality. You end up hating them all so much you really don't care if they get killed. In fact you may even take some giddy pleasure in watching them get picked off one by one. The strongest performance is delivered by the inanimate piece of metal that serves as Excalibur itself. One need only bear witness to what may be the most apalling scene in movie history to sum up this movie. Of course I'm talking about the full armor rape scene, complete with roaring flames and full choral accompanyment. Hideously awkward to watch no matter who you're with, it's best to just laugh nervously and fast forward through it. To make matters worse, the filming is consistently dark and creepy, and only serves to make the proceedings even more bizarre. It's like one of those demented nightmares where nothing makes sense and everything looks weird too. It makes being a knight of the round table seem about as attractive as gargling sand.

The first time I saw Excalibur I was almost fooled into thinking it was a good movie. The danger is that it tricks you into thinking it's a great movie if you're not careful. It sneaks up on you, because the beginning is not all that terrible. Then it just goes on and on and on and on, getting stupider and stupider like General Hospital or something, and you start to realize "wow I really don't care how this ends, but hopefully they'll all die." It wouldn't be nearly as bad if it didn't take itself so incredibly seriously. There isn't a single glimpse of humor anywhere. Anyway, I've said enough. It's not that the special effects are dated or that I just "don't get it." The problem with Excalibur is that it's just a really bad movie in every way. I'm quite certain that many people are going to consider this review a mean-spirited affront to a "great" film. If I cared, you could take comfort in my sympathetic laughter. Just don't say I didn't warn you about Excalibur.
Amazon Review

[Pondosinatra]

I'll only watch it if the knight bangs the chick again while wearing full plate armour.

[Mr.White]

I want the John Boorman original on blu! Funny,I was watching an episode of Keeping Up Appearances on TV the other day and forgot that Clive Swift(Richard on KUA) had a small role in Excalibur with long hair and a beard!