I'll admit that I'm vulnerable to stories about King Arthur. I was fascinated with the legends as a child, reading everything I could find—I even listened to the original cast musical version of Camelot so many times that I could probably lip-synch with Richard Burton. Perhaps, the fact that my middle name is the same as my dad's (Arthur) had something to do with kindling the interest, but I think it's more the romantic ideals expressed in King Arthur's quest for using might for right that appealed so much to the once and future me.

Throw in some Irish location-shooting and some realistic-looking armor, and I'm predisposed to enjoy the film. First Knight goes astray with a weak script that can't overcome location shooting in England and Wales, and it doesn't have the passionate background music highlighted by various Wagner pieces that Boorman uses so effectively in Excalibur. And who can forget the excitement generated by the chorus in Carl Orff's "O Fortuna"? Whenever I hear Orff's chorale, I am instantly transported to the Excalibur scene in which King Arthur revives, fires up his troops, and charges forth among the blossoming countryside. I can even hear Arthur's words, "Now, once more, I must ride with my knights to defend what was, and the dream of what could be!"

The Camelot legend has been attempted in other movies, but it's a difficult thing to pull off. If you make Arthur and his knights too realistic, you lose the romantic energy of the legend, which is where First Knight flops badly. On the other hand, if you deal with it as a fairy tale like Quest for Camelot, you have a cartoon palatable to children only.

Disregarding the Monty Python parody of the tale, which is the most brilliant of all the Arthurian films, there are two films that have attempted to combine reality and fantasy. Though I love the music and many individual scenes in Camelot, it doesn't hold up over time, but Excalibur does, despite its schmaltz.

At least Excalibur certainly works for me. Last night a little past midnight, I popped the DVD version into the machine, figuring that I'd watch an hour before my usual crashing time. I ended up staying awake until 3 a.m. because I couldn't bring myself take an extended intermission.

From the first scene in the darkened woods the visible breaths of the horses mesmerized me, and I couldn't help myself. I was hooked again. I've always associated director John Boorman with nature and freshness because of the color green. He also did The Emerald Forest and much of this movie has a green-filtered look to it. Look closely at the armor and Excalibur itself and you will see green lighting over and over. The only times you won't see it for a period are the scenes that show Arthur's kingdom in decline when despair plagues England. At that point you will see grays and browns. But then the Grail is discovered, hope is restored, Orff's magnificent chorale cheers the heart, and all is green with the world again.

Boorman was most ambitious to tackle the entire Arthurian legend, as there are many variations. He stays primarily with Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur but skips some sections and changes some details. We don't see much of Merlin training Arthur as we find in other sources, and viewers will likely have more questions. For instance, does Arthur retrieve Excalibur from the stone, or does he receive it from the Lady of the Lake? Boorman finds a way to present both versions in his screenplay, and the commentary on the DVD lets us know that a real actress actually holds her breath and braves the icy waters to accomplish the deed.

There will be other differences from the accepted Arthurian legend. Though Percival finds the Holy Grail in Boorman's version, the chivalrous Gawain is the hero in most English versions. The most famous love triangle in literature remains intact, so King Arthur, Guinevere, and Sir Lancelot carry out their fated roles that inadvertently destroy their beloved Camelot. As Merlin states, "Evil is always where you least expect it."

Actually, Merlin does get most of the clever lines. The other principle characters are effective in carrying out their roles, but these are not demanding roles. King Arthur does have to adjust a bit from being a naive young man to being an idealistic dreamer, but it's not much of an acting stretch to play the stereotypical Arthur persona. The same holds true with Guinevere and Lancelot. They don't even get a musical number like "f Ever I Would Leave You" to develop their romance. It's done mostly through silent eye contact, and there is that naked scene among the mosses in the forest.

Lancelot gets a few memorable lines that are designed to be symbolic. They may seem a little embarrassing now some 20 years later, but as he sleeps alone in the forest in conflict about his love for the Queen, the naked Lancelot fights with his armor and runs his sword through his abdomen. Boorman should give a credit to George Lucas for a similar scene in The Empire Strikes Back, but he does give Lancelot a schmaltzy line: "I fight with myself." In case we forgot about that wound, Boorman overdoes it again with Lancelot near the end of the movie: Lancelot clutching at the sore spot and declaring to King Arthur "It is the old wound!"

The acting certainly doesn't keep me glued to this film, though two young actors have small roles that are worth noting—Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: the Next Generation) and Liam Neeson (Schindler's List) both have small but expressive parts that hint at their acting abilities. Another trademark of Boorman occurs once again when he uses his children in small parts. His son plays Mordred as a child, and his daughter twirls around and gets raped by a fully armored King Uther in the beginning.

Excalibur is a magical story pieced together with some nifty costume designs, some wonderful sets, and some interesting camerawork in beautiful locations. I've seen this film at least a half-dozen times, even though as a film I can't claim that Excalibur is a great one. Somehow it combines legendary material both visually and audibly that hooks me every time.