A historical note: Although tons of pictures of Vikings with horned helmets have been produced over the years, this is actually a myth. They never, to our knowledge, wore such helmets. And, if you think about it, this makes sense, as the horns would make such a helmet unwieldy and difficult to wear. Plus, you might get stuck going through doorways! This traditional view of Vikings is more the Wagnerian view of the people. In fact, the wonderful movie "The Vikings" is so wonderful, in part, because it gets this point correct. Also, while this might disappoint you, most historians don't believe King Arthur ever lived or if he did, the stories about him are all false. The stories you read about him were often written as much as 1000-1300 years after he was to have lived and vary tremendously--and they are essentially myths. Sorry to spoil this for you, but I was a history teacher--and I love debunking myths.<br /><br />The film begins with Valiant (Robert Wagner) being sent by his daddy the king (Donald Crisp) to the court of King Arthur to become a knight. Crisp's friend, hidden under all that makeup and hair, is Victor McLaglen, by the way. It seems that Crisp has had his kingdom stolen from him and why he would then choose to send his son away is a bit of a mystery. What also is a mystery is why a Viking would go to the UK and serve Arthur. Oh well, it's no worse than a film I saw years ago where a Saracen (who were from the Middle East) was also in Arthur's court! At least Scandinavia is kind of near Britain! On his way there, he stumbles upon a Viking making a dirty deal with a Brit--and accidentally stumbles into the midst of the traitors. He manages to escape(!) but is now a man pursued by many who wish to bash in his skull! In addition to avoid getting killed, much of the film concerns Valiant's new career as a squire. While he hates to have such a lowly job, such is the way to career advancement in the knighthood game. Oh, and by the way, knights were NOT the noble dudes you see in the film. Mostly, they were used to beat up the peasants for their lords and fight various wars. They were an incredibly violent and non-chivalrous group and I'd love to see a film portray them like they really were--often, a bunch of raping, murdering scalawags. Now THAT would make for an interesting film! So, as you can tell, I hate this film for its many, many inaccuracies. However, I can enjoy such a film on purely an entertainment level. So is it entertaining and worth seeing? Well at least on a aesthetic level, it's a nice film. It has the wonderful touches that you'd expect from an A-picture from Twentieth-Century Fox. Great music, lovely period costumes, wonderful locations and nifty castles--it sure looked wonderful (though the castles used were all built much too late for the time period in the film--gosh, that history teacher in me is rearing up its ugly head again).<br /><br />As for the writing, dialog and acting, it's not a film that impresses. Much of the dialog seems strangely anachronistic and dull. Some is even rather dumb (such as when Janet Leigh confronts Valiant at the 50 minute mark). The characters all seem a bit flat and dull. The actors, though often accomplished, are not at their best here. Sterling Hayden, a wonderful actor, just seems out of place as does James Mason. The biggest problem, however, is Robert Wagner. In this period in the 1950s he was very much an up and coming actor--having starred in quite a few plum roles. However, Hollywood often didn't seem to know how to use this handsome man--putting him in films that simply didn't seem to fit him. Here, he plays a Viking and in "Broken Lance" (also 1954), they cast him as a macho cattle rancher!! I mean no disrespect, but he was not the action hero sort of guy. He would have been better in romances or such films as "A Kiss Before Dying"--where he very effectively played a guy who romanced and then murdered women. You can't blame Wagner for these roles--he was young and the studios paid well...and they were starring roles. Too bad he just wasn't right for them--and his accent and manner seemed to have NOTHING to do with Vikings. I would have much preferred to see some rugged ruffian in the role instead (such as Ernest Borgnine or Victor Mature).<br /><br />As far as action goes, for an adventure film it is strangely static and filled with dialog. I would have loved a good castle siege or sacking here and there throughout the film...and I kept waiting and waiting and it only came too late--after I was pretty bored with the film. Sure, there were a few nice attempted murders here and there (cool) but not enough to make the film seem "actiony"--instead, it was much too much like a stuffy costume drama much of the time.<br /><br />Now if I wanted to watch a rousing and completely historically inaccurate film, there are a lot of dandy ones out there. "Ivanhoe" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" are fantastic costume dramas and are first-class entertainment. And, if you are some sort of weirdo and want to actually see something with more realism and accuracy (but with tons of really, really cool action), try "The Vikings"--a rousing and wonderful bit of entertainment that actually touches on some of the themes seen in "Prince Valiant". It isn't that this film is terrible (it isn't), but there just are a lot better and more entertaining films out there to see first. Heck, now that I think of it, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" would definitely be my choice as the best Arthurian film out there!