Excalibur (1981) (4K UHD Blu-ray) review

[David Vaughn]

Studio: Arrow
Release Date: February 24, 2026
Rating: R
Film: 2.5/5
 
Plot
Excalibur (1981), directed by John Boorman, retells the legend of King Arthur from the rise of the young king (Nigel Terry) to the fall of Camelot. After Arthur pulls the sword from the stone and unites Britain, he establishes the Round Table with knights like Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) and Gawain (Liam Neeson), marries Guinevere (Cherie Lunghi), and faces betrayal, the quest for the Holy Grail, and the destructive love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere that fractures the kingdom.

My Thoughts
Thisis a flawed telling of a classic story of Camelot and the rise of King Arthur. On the positive side, the sets look fantastic in 4K—Boorman’s vision of a dark, primal, almost psychedelic medieval Britain is richly atmospheric. Still, the acting is overdone, almost to the point of a community theater production, the choreography of the fight scenes is laughable, and the film doesn’t stand the test of time and screams “I was made in the 80s” from the very first scene. Needless to say, this is no Lord of the Rings.

It was fun seeing actors early in their careers, such as Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, and a smokin’ hot Helen Mirren, but the nostalgia factor can’t overcome the shortcomings of the production. The first act drags and is hard to get through, but at least the film does get more entertaining from the second act forward as it weaves together Authurian myth with themes of honor, lust, and betrayal.

The video restoration from Arrow is very good and the sets really shine, but the photography is very soft due to how it was originally shot, and the extra resolution brings the backgrounds into better focus which highlights the piss-poor choreography of the many battles in the film. The DTS-HD MA 5.1 is extracted from the original mono track and it struggles to escape the limited ambiance of the original recording. Dialog struggles at times to be intelligible and the limited dynamic range really highlights the harshness of the original recordings. Granted, the film is quite old and who knows how big the budget was when it was shot. Overall, fans will be pleased with the upgrade into 4K although don’t expect to be blown away by the limited dynamic range in the audio track.

Video 8.5/10
Audio 6/10  (DTS-HD MA 5.1)
 
Special Features:

• Theatrical Cut in 4K
• Audio Commentary with John Boorman
• Audio Commentary with Brian Hoyle
• Audio Commentary with David Kittredge
• The Making of Excalibur: Myth into Movie
• To Be  Knight and Follow a King
• When Death Was But a Dream
• The Charm Making
• Confession of a Professional “Pain in the Arse”
• Anam Cara
• Divided Nature
• Trailers
• Image Gallery
• TV Version (1080p) (Mono Audio Track)
• Excalibur: Behind the Movie

 
Conclusion
Fans of the film will be happy with the strong video that makes the fantastic sets come to life and the roundtable’s armor shine bright. Unfortunately, I find the film at best middling due to the dated acting, laughable fights, and uneven tone throughout the production.  Nostalgia and the early career appearances of Stewart, Neeson, and Mirren help, but it’s no modern classic and unless you’re a fan, I’d probably see if you can stream it somewhere or possibly rent it from your local library. 
 
Reference Review System:
JVC DLA-RS3100 4K Ultra High-Definition Front Projector
(I utilized Portrait Displays' Calman color calibration software)
Stewart Filmscreen - Firehawk 110” 2.35:1 Screen
Trinnov Altitude 16 Audio/Video Processor
ATI AT527NC Powering Bed Channels
ATI AT524NC Powering Atmos Speakers
Zidoo UHD8000 Media Player
Panasonic DP-UB820 Ultra HD Blu-ray Player
System Controller: URC MX-990
M&K S-150 THX Ultra (R-C-L Speakers)
M&K SS-150 x4 (Surround Speakers)
Atlantic Technology IC6-OBA x 4 Overhead Speakers
Dual Rythmik FV15HP2
Mini DSP HD
Audioquest and Monoprice - Audio/Video/Speaker Cabling
PureAV PF60 Power Conditioner

[SRW1000]

Oh man, that's disappointing.  Perhaps my impressions of this movie were set as a teenager when first watching it in the theater.  The edgy content is probably considered light today, but impactful back then.

I'll have to see if it lives up to those memories or if seeing it with older eyes will rob it of its imaginative core.

[David Vaughn]

Oh man, that's disappointing.  Perhaps my impressions of this movie were set as a teenager when first watching it in the theater.  The edgy content is probably considered light today, but impactful back then.

I'll have to see if it lives up to those memories or if seeing it with older eyes will rob it of its imaginative core.

It took us two nights to get through it. The first night was Act 1, and my wife threatened to leave the room (I have to admit it was pretty bad). Thankfully, things got much better on Night 2 or else I would have been in the doghouse. 

[Barry]

Great review again DV.

Here is what I wrote for us when Excalibur was first listed as coming out

I saw it many many years ago when it first came out, and I was disappointed and I was not impressed’’

[David Vaughn]

Great review again DV.

Here is what I wrote for us when Excalibur was first listed as coming out

I saw it many many years ago when it first came out, and I was disappointed and I was not impressed’’

You and I agree on that one Barry. I was very disappointed as well (outside of Miren's performance). 

[Ralph P.]

Greetings,

Thanks for the review Dave. As we have discussed, viewing Excalibur today, it feels quite out of date. Part of the reason is that since its release, we have had many films of its ilk that have followed. Seeing them, and then this, would lead one to feel let down. I saw it in the early 80's and as such, have a soft spot for it. Perfect? Nope. Entertaining? I think so. I mean the fact that it was made in the 80's would certainly explain why it feels that way. 

Nice job buddy.

Regards, 

[David Vaughn]

Greetings,

Thanks for the review Dave. As we have discussed, viewing Excalibur today, it feels quite out of date. Part of the reason is that since its release, we have had many films of its ilk that have followed. Seeing them, and then this, would lead one to feel let down. I saw it in the early 80's and as such, have a soft spot for it. Perfect? Nope. Entertaining? I think so. I mean the fact that it was made in the 80's would certainly explain why it feels that way.

Nice job buddy.

Regards,

Thanks for chiming in Ralph. Definitely not perfect