Excalibur: The Movie The West Needs Now

“My pride broke it!  My rage broke it!  This excellent knight, who fought with fairness and grace, was meant to win.  I used Excalibur to change that verdict.  I’ve lost, for all time, the ancient sword of my fathers, whose power was meant to unite all men, not to serve the vanity of a single man.  I am . . . nothing.” – Excalibur

I tried to pull the sword from the stone, but I wasn’t Arthurized.

I rewatched Excalibur last weekend for the first time, likely, since Reagan was president and the phrase “press one for English” had yet to be spoken.

It was glorious, and better than I remembered, and that isn’t just the wine talking.  Excalibur came out in 1981, directed by John Boorman, who also brought us the underrated epic of Zardoz.  Any man who can talk Sean Connery into wearing an orange diaper for an entire film and likes guns as much as Boorman is okay.

Excalibur, however, features no orange underwear or guns.  It is, however, one of the most nationalistic, unapologetic, mythic, sword-swinging spectacles ever put on film.

To be clear:  it’s not a history lesson.  It’s a legend.

First things first:  no, the armor isn’t remotely historically accurate.  Plate armor like that didn’t show up until centuries after the real  Arthur would have been stomping around Britain in the 600s or 700s.  The knights look like they stepped out of a 15th-century tournament sponsored by the Stainless Steel Institute® instead of a muddy Dark Ages battlefield.

The wedding party lasted was too late into the night for one of Arthur’s Knights.  Poor Sir Cadian.

Boorman knew this.  He didn’t care because Excalibur isn’t trying to be a documentary.  It’s a full-throated retelling of the King Arthur myth, the kind that’s been passed around campfires and tavern tables for more than a thousand years.  When I looked back at the overall King Arthur Literary Universe©, I found that there were endless characters and sub-characters and plots and mutually exclusive elements.

Boorman picked the main plot points of the Arthur myth perfectly.  As a result, the film knows exactly what it is:  a legend soaked in Christianity, fog, blood, magic, virtue, redemption, and destiny.

The critics, when it first came out, whined that the characters weren’t “complex” enough.  Arthur wasn’t nuanced.  Guinevere wasn’t layered and didn’t have a chance to prove herself on the battlefield as a Strong Independent Woman©.  Lancelot wasn’t a tortured anti-hero with a tragic backstory and three therapy sessions.

That’s the damn point.

They’re archetypes.

My favorite dessert at Thanksgiving is made by dividing a pumpkin’s circumference by its diameter:  pumpkin pi.

Arthur is the Once and Future King.  He is pure, flawed, larger than life and his failings are the point of the movie.  Merlin is the scheming wizard who sees the long game.  Morgana is ambition and vengeance and hotness wrapped in snakes, silk, and spite.  The film doesn’t waste time giving everyone a five-minute monologue about their feelings.

It trusts the myth to simply be what it is.

And with the exception of Helen Mirren, all of the rest of the cast in main roles flailed for the rest of their careers as B and C listers.  But in this movie?  Nigel Terry is Arthur.  Nicol Williamson is a Merlin that is so Merlin that I can’t imagine another person being Merlin.  In what probably saved their careers, you’ll spot Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne, and Patrick Stewart in roles that are nearly so brief you’ll blink and miss them.

The actors are the roles they were born to play, and the story moves like a river in flood.  That’s why it still works.

Part of the backstory is that Boorman wanted to make a Lord of the Rings movie, but thankfully couldn’t find anyone stupid enough to take the risk on a production far too large for its time.  Instead, he made Excalibur.

I imagine Father’s Day was uncomfortable around the castle.

Excalibur is a nationalist British film, made by a British director, for an audience that still remembered what a legend actually was.  Men were men.  Women were women.

Honor and virtue mattered.  Betrayal hurt.  Sex was raw and consequential, not a punchline or a sermon.  People with good motives weren’t ridiculed.

Boorman put his own flesh and blood into the movie, literally.  Boorman had to direct his own young and incredibly hot daughter in one of the more, shall we say, vigorous scenes in the movie.

Yeah.

Imagine Boorman as a director, talking to his daughter:  “Honey, can you just, you know, a little more passion on take three?  Hip thrusts, dear.”  To top it off, Boorman’s son played the young version of Mordred.  This is the family business, Boorman style.

The man didn’t just make a movie about myth, he co-wrote the screenplay, directed the film, produced the film, and he dragged his own bloodline into the forge.  No wonder the whole movie feels more alive than most things that have been made in the last decade.

That is why Excalibur feels dangerous somehow next to today’s polished, focus-grouped slop.

No one was trying to make Excalibur “relatable for modern audiences.”  No one was worried about alienating the overseas market or triggering the comment section.  No soulless Disney© corporate executive (but I repeat myself at least three times) was trying to make a tentpole for the Arthur Cinematic Universe© and have three more movies so they could triple the profits.

He just told the damn story.

You know I’m right.

The result is a film that looks like it was shot inside a stained-glass window:  every frame drips with atmosphere, every line of dialogue sounds like it was read off of a stone carving.  The classical music fills the spots perfectly.  The (very inaccurate) battles feel like they matter because the people swinging the swords believe in something bigger than themselves.

The movie is earnest.  The actors and writers and crew believe in the story they’re telling.

That’s the contrast that stings in 2026.  We’re drowning in corporate product:  remakes, reboots, and “elevated” retellings that strip out everything that made the originals mythic.

They give us complexity instead of clarity, messaging instead of meaning.

Excalibur reminds me why the old stories endured:  they weren’t about making transgender people or minorities feel seen.  They were about making people feel the weight of destiny, the cost of power, and the pull of something ancient and also something that was True, Beautiful, and Good.

Search for “Amelia Meme UK”.

So, if you haven’t seen it, you might correctly guess I’m a fan.  If you haven’t seen it in a while, give it another shot.  Pour something that Arthur would have quaffed, turn the lights down, put the damn phones up, and let the sword rise from the lake one more time.

In a world that’s forgotten how to tell legends, Excalibur still knows exactly what it is.  And just like King Arthur himself, there will never be another like it.

Let’s hope that Great Britain remembers Arthur’s words from the film:  “Now, once more, I must ride with my knights to defend what was, and the dream of what could be.”