I watched this movie on the big screen when just 9 years old, a perfect age for the experience. Having avidly read Prince Valiant every Sunday in the newspaper comic section, just the thought of castles, kings, knights, and battles appealed to me very much at that age.Although this movie only follows the newspaper version in name and premise, it was still a nice treatise of the genre. The sets, costumes, hairstyles, props, and pageantry all bespeak the relative glamour of that era in history. The musical score is appropriate for the subject.The acting is a little corny, especially viewed 60 years following its original debut, but it is still a fun and action filled romp through the Medieval age, and is good, clean fun for the entire family.

Robert Wagner is Prince Valiant, who is on a quest to restore his father to his rightful throne. He travels to Camelot in an attempt to become one of the Knights of the Round Table, serving under King Arthur. While doing this, he discovers a Black Knight who has his own evil quest.I usually love films like this, so I thought I'd check it out. I'm sorry to say that though it took place in one of my favorite time periods, I wasn't very impressed with the film overall.The script was pretty much what you'd expect from films of this kind, and the scenery and costumes seemed pretty authentic. The plot was fine, though it was a bit disjointed in places, and at times, it was a bit boring. But once everyone stopped talking and the action started, it became pretty enjoyable. The attack on the castle and the last sword fight were by far the best parts, and both of those take place in the last 30 minutes of the film. The rest of it was rather forgettable.I don't need constant action to be entertained. In fact, one of my favorite films of all time is the Henry Fonda version of 12 Angry Men, which is all talk and no action. But the difference is that 12 Angry Men had an intelligent script, detailed characters and excellent acting.Prince Valiant had none of these things. In fact, I never thought I'd say this about any film starring James Mason, but the acting here is just terrible. Mason's performance is OK, though anyone could have played his part just as well, because it wasn't a very demanding role. There are no other memorable performances, and in all honesty, most of them were just awful. Robert Wagner has never impressed me with his acting skill, but in this picture, he's completely wooden. Just listen to the way he recites his lines. It's as if he put no attempt whatsoever into becoming the character. Actually, the same goes for just about everyone, except Mason. The actor playing Gawain was especially bad.I guess what plagues this film the most is the director. Judging by how the film turned out, it seems he mostly cared about the action sequences and nothing else. As I said before, the action in this movie is by far the best thing about the entire film. If this film's director were working today, he'd be just like George Lucas, who creates films with all style and no substance.The bottom line: 1 point for costumes/scenery, 3 points for action, 1 point for entertainment value, 0 points for acting, 0 points for directing. Total 5/10.

Artist/Book Illustrator, Harold Foster started his action/adventure comic strip in 1937. The full color strip was a feature of the weekend Newspapres' Weekend supplements, such as PUCK, The Comic Weekly* of the Hearst Corporation's King Features Syndicate(the Copyright owner).PRINCE VALIANT, which also has had the subtitle, "In The Days of King Arthur", prospered from the very start. Mr. Harold Foster's excellent draftsmanship, combined with the use of printed text of story and dialog printed under the illustrations, instead of the use of "Word Balloons" gave the strip an appearance of a History Book that's come to life.Harold Foster was highly experienced at that time as a book illustrator. He also had done illustration for the Black & White Daily Newspaper comic strip adventures of Edgar Rice Borroughs' TARZAN OF THE APES. This was his one and only daily comic strip venture.By the 1950's the Good Viking Nobleman's career was well known, World Wide. It is at this time that adaptation to the film medium became a reality, bringing the Prince home to untold thousands of previously untapped fans, newly brought to the ranks of the Army of Foster's fictional Viking.** The Film titled simply, PRINCE VALIANT, was given the big time treatment. The filming was done in the 3 strip Technicolor Process,widescreen CinemaScope and Western Electric 4 Track Stereophonic Sound. When combined with the finely designed sets of castles, medieval villages, etc., gave an appearance to its scenes on par with Foster's Sunday Color Panels. Supporting the action and giving a fine mood setting opening theme is the beautiful original score by the old master, Franz Waxman(himself).A surprisingly good cast presents the story in a very convincing, almost matter of fact manner.(Like, for example, we all have Singing Swords or know someone who does, right?) The plot line involves treachery, betrayal and the problem of finding out just who is the real enemy.Robert Wagner(with Paige Boy Haircut)portrays Prince Valiant in a most convincing manner. Lovely Janet Leigh is Princess Aleta, Debra Paget(Ilene), James Mason(Sir Brack), Sterling Hayden(Sir Gawain), Tom Conway(Sir Kay)all seen as member Knights of the Round Table. And to preside over the Round Table Boys, we have Brian Aherne as King Arthur.Rounding out this costumer are such familiar names as Neville Brand, Richard Webb, Don Megowan,Donald Crisp and Primo Carnera(!!). My personal favourite character/scene stealer is Victor McLaglen as Val's old Viking Warrior Buddy, Boltar.The plot involves states of war between Arthur's Camelot crew and some of its neighbors, both foreign and on the British Isles. (There is even a scene where Val remains mum when asked by Sir Brack, in front of King Arthur (who was a confident and ally of Val's Family) of the whereabouts of Val's Father, the deposed King of Thule, a Kingdom in modern day Norway.) But even more interesting is the presence of a most dangerous Domestic Enemy in the form of 5th column traitors and spies, who provide the greatest threat to Arthur's benevolent Rule. The leader of this enemy movement is the Black Knight. Evil, treacherous and of an identity unknown, he is the one who presents the greatest threat to peaceful Camelot and the rest of Britain.And if we stop and make some comparisons, we will find this film very relevant to those 1950's post World War II, Cold War Era. For it was the internal vermin who were the most dangerous in the story. Led by this unknown who desires conquest of Britain by using these collaborators; which is just what the U.S.A. and the Western World was facing up to then. The Black Knight(Joe Stalin & successors Bulgonin, Kruscchev, etc.) pay and use Soviet Spies, Home Grown Reds and "useful Idiots" in certain high positions to try to weaken and eventually defeat the Western Powers.It seems that this film had some real meaty underlying themes to go along with its value to the Saturday matinée crowd. Either way, it is a film worthy of investing an evening.* In Chicago's The Herald-American we had PRINCE VALIANT occupying the entire back page of the Color Comics, Puck. Other features seen in the Hearst "funny papers" pages then were BLONDIE, FLASH GORDON, JUNGLE JIM, HI & LOIS, MANDRAKE THE MAGICIAN,BRINGING UP FATHER(Maggie & Jiggs),THE PHANTOM, HENRY, BEETLE BAILEY and TIM TYLER's LUCK!** This begs the question: Just what took Hollywood so long in bringing us a Prince Valaint flick?FLASH!! UPDATE! DATELINE January 20, 2011. We watched the film the other night on Turner Classic Movies, in digitally restored condition & Letterbox format. We were very impressed, especially with the depth and magnitude of the photography. This, combined with the action of "When Knighthood was in Flower", led us to wonder if there were plans to release it in the 3 D process.

The biggest problem that Prince Valiant has is that it takes itself too seriously. It is still entertaining on many levels, but I wish it had been done in a lighter vein. A good example to follow would have been Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy had the studio been able to see into the future.The Arthurian legends place Camelot to be a generation or three after the fall of the Roman Empire. At that point Christianity was unheard of in Scandinavia where the Vikings were from. In fact Christianity was in heavy competition with the Druid religions of the ancient Britons. So the whole film has no basis in fact.I do have to say that the film made oodles of money for 20th Century Fox and gave Robert Wagner a career role that he would be identified with for the period of his bobby sox popularity. Wagner certainly had a good a group of supporting players as you could get to help this film. James Mason is a fabulous villain and his duel with Wagner is a classic. Brian Aherne would get to do King Arthur again in Cornel Wilde's Lancelot and Guinevere and he fits my conception of what the mature Arthur was like.One thing though. I have to believe that with Arthur's Excalibur and Valiant's singing sword sooner or later these guys would have tangled. Two magic swords in one kingdom, unheard of.