First Knight (1995) Poster

(1995)

User Reviews

Review this title
202 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
The Best Kind Of "Popcorn Movie"!
alexautourdumonde20 April 2007
I don't see why people are making so much noise against this movie. We all know this isn't a history class. We all know this isn't realistic in any way. It is NOT and it's NOT supposed to be! I've never heard people say : "The musical version of The Three Musketeers with Gene Kelly isn't faithful to the book". Frankly, who cares? If you want the true story, the realistic story, get a book or a documentary. What we have here is a true "popcorn movie", the kind of film you put in your DVD player for a nice evening of "no thinking, just enjoying". This is a Hollywood family movie, with 3 great stars, fancy costumes, beautiful scenery and great music. To me, this is some of the best entertainment! The kind of entertainment that cinema was invented for and that was so successful in the 40s and 50s. It seems to me that people today just can't enjoy that kind of entertainment anymore. And that is sad! So, please, stop complaining and just enjoy for Pete's sake! (lol!)
129 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Exciting medieval story that deals with a love triangle between legendary characters as Lancelot , Guinevere and Arthur
ma-cortes24 January 2012
Mighty and pretty spectacle about Lancelot , King Arthur , Guinevere and the famous romance in color magnificence . This spectacular production from Jerry Zucker that gave you ¨Ghost and Airplane¨ among others and only Columbia TriStar could bring it so magnificently to the screen including a majestic soundtrack and splendid cinematography . The classic story of romantic adventure come to life enriched in glamorous color and with such great stars as Richard Gere (roving spirit Lancelot), Julia Ormond (wonderful Guinevere), and of course the great Sean Connery (upright Arthur) in the classic love triangle . Restless Lancelot who lives by his wits falls in love with Guinevere, who is due to be married to King Arthur . Meanwhile, a violent warlord attempts to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table , as they set out in fight against the traitor Prince Malagant (Ben Cross), a Sir Mordred-alike . Whilst in the meantime the bride Guinevere and Sir Lancelot betray the king in their own way . Adding the apparition of knights of the round table as Sir Kay (Christopher Villiers) , Agravaine (Liam Cunningham) , Sir Patrise (Valentine Pelka) and Sir Mador (McCormack) , though there doesn't turns up neither Merlin , nor Morgana LeFay and all things supernatural are out of this flick . This is an overwhelming tale with adventures, villainy,romance and heroism in the grandeur of big screen although in television set is lost its splendor .

This sweeping movie displays adventures , thrills , a romantic love story , breathtaking battles and epic confrontation with a terrific climax final for a mortal confrontation . Excellent main cast as an attractive Richard Gere , a gorgeous Julia Ormond , and exceptional , as always , Sean Connery as Arthur , an aged and war-weary king who is forced to go to battle one last time . Rousing battle scenes with impressive production design by John Box , though is also used computer generator . Excellent settings , the castles ,outdoors and tournaments or jousts are well staged . Handsome story well written by William Nicholson though contains some awkward narrative elements . Luscious costumes and gowns specially suited for Julia Ormond . Colorful wide-screen cinematography by stylish cameraman Adam Greenberg . Emotive and sensational musical score by the classic Jerry Goldsmith . However this epic film never takes off as it should despite of pomp and circumstance showed . The motion picture is imaginatively directed by Jerry Zucker working at the peak of his powers . Other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur are the following : MGM's first wide-screen film titled ¨Knights of the Round Table¨ 1953 ( by Richard Thorpe) , the musical ¨Camelot¨(Joshua Logan) , the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨(John Boorman) and recently ¨King Arthur¨(Antoine Fuqua). The picture will appeal to aficionados with chivalric ideals and historic movies fans , it is a fine production that will lose much on small television screen .

This spellbinding film is freely inspired on legends and supposedly based on facts and famed personages . In spite of there aren't real documents about legendary feats King Arthur , allegedly in VI century he was King of Bretons and then were created in 12th century some writings by notorious French authors who romanticized the legend as Chretien of Troyes , Thomas Malory that wrote the Breton series with their knights looking for the Holy Grail . Besides Godofredo of Mormouth publicized in 1136 the History Regnum Britanniae and in XX century John Steinbeck wrote about the events of King Arthur . The story concerns when the Romans had withdrawn Britain and the Empire dissolved into chaos,then rules the king Arthur, he achieved to maintain the Christianity and civilization in the west of England ,though no exactly congruent with the VI century , time was presumed to have lived but the film is developed in a high medieval panoply .
27 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Be On Your Guard, Fools On The Loose (at IMDb)
tl1210 April 2012
It never fails. Every Arthurian movie that has ever been reviewed on this site has some version of these "It's not accurate", It's not historic", "So and so Knight was not like that", "It didn't look like Arthur", "It didn't look like Lancelot", "It didn't look like Guinevere", etc. etc.

This is when I get very worried about the would that is full of these people!

This is the last time I am doing this because they clearly outnumber me.

THERE IS NOTHING TO BE ACCURATE, FAITHFUL OR TRUTHFUL TO! They complain it is not faithful to FICTION. This is legend that was oral legend long before every being written down by anyone and it's been written down thousands of ways! I don't see these movies saying they are the movie of The Once and Future King. No, they are just one more telling of a what? A LEGEND!

And, they even believe that this is a IMPORTANT THING! Get a life. Go outside some time. There is a REAL WORLD with REAL IMPORTANT PROBLEMS and CHALLENGES out there. Try worrying about them instead of raging that Richard Gear did not LOOK like LANCELOT (because I have a polaroid of the real one and he looks just like Gear ;). I mean, just how lame can you get (obviously an infinite amount.)

I give this movie a 10 just to balance it out. Besides, I think it's a fun film! And as it's impossible for it to be historicity accurate, I don't have to worry about such foolishness.
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting Adaptation
MotorbikeMaintainanceGuy8 December 2005
Although many have criticised this film harshly, I believe it is unnecessary. It is an adaptation of the myth of Arthur, and is interesting. There is no magic, no Merlin :(, no Morgana, no sword in the stone - in fact, no referral to Arthur's past. This obviously changes the myth quite substantially. Merlin and the Sword were key players in the typical Arthur legend, but this adaptation is good because Morgana often confuses people.

It squashes what Camelot really is - an ideal - into about two and a bit hours of movie. Richard Gere is charming as Lancelot, a roving swordsman, and Lady Guinevere delivers an outstanding performance as the young woman torn between two loves. Sean Connery, is as always, fantastic. The best thing about this movie - to me - was that the love story was sensible. Instead of Guinevere and Lancelot cheating on Arthur, it becomes more of a love triangle, with deeper issues, as all three love each other (in different ways.)

All this said, it isn't the greatest movie despite some excellent acting - the movie had a weak plot and Maligant is not a very convincing villain. But, if you're bored, home sick, or just want to watch some light entertainment, by all means watch this film - just don't expect Peter Jackson quality.
68 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Exactly made as movies should be !!!
onlynishank25 February 2009
I am a regular Hollywood movie buff, and heavily rely on IMDb user ratings, before watching any movie than relying on any other sources, and I prefer to watch movies which are usually rated at least 7 out of 10.

So when I had a chance to see the movie First Knight, I was in a doubt whether to watch this movie with a low rating of 5.6/10, even with great actors like Sean Connery and Richard Gere, or to skip to some other movie.

Luckily I decided to give it a shot, and oh what a movie it was. I really love the medieval age and other historic movies, and this is a gem added to the list. As reading some other reviews revealed earlier, that this is an adaptation of Arthurian legend, and not a true story, so I didn't bothered about the facts in the movie.

It scores really high in terms of acting, fight sequences, chemistry between actors, and especially keeps you engrossed throughout the movie. As a "movie", the story works well and has all the elements balanced.

If you are a fan of historic movies, please don't trust the IMDb ratings for this movie. Just sit and watch this movie on a nice evening, and you won't repent it.
29 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A pleasant fairytale and action movie
kmoss5522 August 2001
This film deserves recognition for what it is : a good interpretation of part of a legend, with an excellent casting.

Who else but Sean Connery as an ageing and dignified King Arthur ?

Julia Ormond is a convincing and stunning princess with her graceful, touching beauty; her looks are also refreshing and different from all the ever-present boring blondes who get a part in anything because of their hair colour.

As for Richard Gere he is as handsome, charming and fearless as Camelot would be.

This film is not for historians or purists nor does it claim to have a documentary value. It has a sense of magic and the pace is well alternated between romance and action. The emotion and intensity are present thanks to the actors and the music, appropriate to all the scenes in the movie. That is what matters.

Who cares about details such as a castle looking a bit dodgy, blue clothes (we have seen much worse and tackier in cinema history) or the odd line or fact. Never mind that. Just relax and escape : it is only entertainment at the end of the day, not a time for History or Legend Reconstruction. You are better off going to a course or reading a book, do not rely on films to educate you all the time.

Why comparing films ? Let's just say there are different approaches to a subject, that is what makes the interest. Enjoy !
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Brother To Brother
bkoganbing22 January 2011
The Arthurian legend gets another reinterpretation in First Knight with an impressive Sean Connery as King Arthur. The last time Connery was at Camelot was his appearance as the Green Knight in Sword of the Valiant back in 1984. Julia Ormond is a fetching and beautiful Guinevere any knight worth his salt would saddle up and rescue her.

Richard Gere is Lancelot and try as he might he comes off as way too American. This role calls for someone with the dash of an Errol Flynn and I'm surprised no one ever cast Flynn in a Camelot tale. Gere is not Errol Flynn, why was no one from across the pond cast? My first guess would be that Gere was a box office name, but certainly Sean Connery in the cast would take care of that.

Some elements of Knights Of The Round Table got into the plot here. Lancelot who is kind of a medieval sword fighter for hire rescues the evil Prince Malagant played by Ben Cross. He's the Mordred of this story, not a believer in the ideals of Camelot by any means. His philosophy is that Arthur is mistaken, men don't want brotherhood they want leadership and he's just the guy to provide it. Cross is also thinking in terms of real politik, Guinevere's domain of Lynness lies adjacent to Camelot, good base for an invasion.

Gere joins the Round Table brotherhood in part because of sincerely believing in the Arthurian ideals, but also to be close to Julia Ormond. If you've seen any number of Camelot based films or have read Thomas Malory you have some idea on how this will end. But in the case of this particular film, not completely.

First Knight is not first by any means in Camelot films. But it's enjoyable enough for the fans of the leads. And Ben Cross comes really close to Stanley Baker's outstanding Mordred in Knights Of The Round Table.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Wonderful, well-acted and produced escapist story
tooter4425 December 2011
I have watched this movie countless times over the years and it never fails to impress. Unlike lwjoslin, I don't purport myself as a historian. But then, the story of Camelot, King Arthur, Guinevere, and the rest are NOT historical figures in any true sense. They are all fictional characters in a fictional setting.

So why write such a derisive review? To me, it seems clear that the reviewer is incapable of simply viewing this as pure escapist fare. He (or she, but I doubt it) most highly thinks very highly of himself. I hope that people were not put off by his diatribe. He, and those who may be influenced by his critique, need to remember that the entire story is fiction. It is not based, in any way, on historical fact. To make the comments he did, he must have forgotten that simple idea. It is fiction, and the story has simply been embellished in a new way.

For me, this was a wonderful story of a wonderful time. It is a story which has been told many times on film within the past century, and has almost always been presented as a tragic event in an otherwise idyllic time. Why does he insist on tarnishing this telling by citing irrelevant facts? Do not be influenced by his trash. This is simply a wonderful, new twist on an old story, and it's very well done.

Enjoy!
29 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sean Connery has the voice, the look and the chivalrous character of the legendary King Arthur...
Nazi_Fighter_David21 January 2004
In 'First Knight' Connery has gentleness in his eyes, and embodies the best aims of the founder of the Knights of the Round Table... Arthur had his share of war... He had devoted his life to building a land of peace and justice... He looks forward to quieter days... He asks Guinevere to 'marry the king but to love the man.'

Julia Ormond glows and smolders to fine effect as the passionate Guinevere who is confused about her feelings for the king and his first knight... Guinevere tries to convince Arthur that her will is stronger than her heart... She assures the king that she may look at him differently but not with less love...

Richard Gere lacks the heroic stance required for such part... He is not colorful and flamboyant as Lancelot... He is simply Richard Gere... He lives by the sword, and fights for money... He is introduced as a wanderer, with no wealth, no home, no goals, just the passionate spirit that drives him on... Lancelot had never dreamed of peace or justice or knighthood... He rescues the Lady of Leonesse, and gives Arthur back his life itself...

Ben Cross is arrogant as the powerful Prince Malagant, a former knight of the Round Table, with hatred in his heart... He dares to kidnap a lady who is almost a queen... Malagant doesn't care how many men he loses so long as he wins... He offers the king what is not 'his' to give..

In Jerry Zucker's film there's no Merlin, no malevolent Mordred, no femme fatale, just the city of Camelot seen golden as ever, the knights brave and loyal, the battles almost breathtaking in their ferocity, and the scenic beauty so fresh, so pure, so green...
71 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A beautiful and touching movie
clydefrogg11 April 2000
I am proud to say this movie is among my top 15 of all time, along with The Godfather I and II, Shawshank, Amadeus and It's A Wonderful Life. It is not a "chick flick", nor is it an empty-headed Richard Gere movie. This movie is a compelling love triangle between King Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, while also being an exciting action-adventure involving a traitor to Camelot who threatens to destroy it literally and figuratively.

Sean Connery is perfectly cast and superb as King Arthur. Richard Gere is often criticized as a poor choice for Lancelot because of his age, but come on! The whole story is a medieval fantasy. If Gere is 8 or 10 years older than he really should be in the movie, who cares? We're not telling a true story here. He seems a little awkward a choice in the beginning but ultimately gives a great, fantastic at times, performance. Julia Ormond is who really elevates this movie. She is stunning and radiant as Guinevere, the compassionate and brave Lady of Lioness. Every medieval word and mannerism she produces is believable.

Action fans will not be disappointed as this film has some amazing sequences, especially when Richard Gere runs the gauntlet. Zucker really lets go in the battles, also. Ben Cross plays a great villain.

The end of this movie is one of the more moving scenes I've ever seen. The performances by Connery, Ormond and Gere up to that point make what could have been silly or forced seem touching and beautiful.

First Knight is a great and underrated film, not to be missed. It's a simple story that doesn't require a lot of analysis or understanding of folklore and mythology to enjoy. Give it a chance!
60 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Yonder lies the castle of my fodder" Part Two.
ianlouisiana2 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"First Knight" is full of action,romance,adventure and good humour.There is the ultimate good guy - King Arthur - and,in case you're in any doubt,a very nasty bad guy called Lord Malignant or something so close it makes no difference.It has the slightly fading elfin charm of Mr Richard Gere as the nimble swordsman Lancelot,a man who says he doesn't care whether he lives or dies which rather gives him the edge in the swordfights by which he earns a crust,almost literally sometimes. This is a fine physical performance which only loses its edge when he is forced to think rather than do. We know little of Lancelot's history - a bit like Shane - but the inference is that he is the scion of some nobleman;perhaps born on the wrong side of the blanket. Rescuing the Lady Guinevere (Miss Julia Ormond)from the evil Lord Malagant he falls instantly under her spell despite the fact that she is betrothed(for political purposes) to King Arthur. "The next time we meet you will kiss me",he says with a rueful grin. To be fair,Mr Gere spends quite a lot of time ruefully grinning,but he is rather good at it so why not? In Camelot at the celebration for King Arthur's forthcoming nuptials Lancelot does indeed win a kiss from Guinevere by winning some mediaeval form of Supermario to the acclaim of the gathered crowd and that brings him to the attention of the king(Mr Sean Connery). After joining the Round Table,Lancelot becomes a confidant of the King but his conscience is racked(cue for much brow - furrowing from Mr Gere) and the not - quite lovers are caught in an embrace by Arthur. Lord Malagant attacks Camelot,King Arthur is killed,Lancelot in turn kills Malagant and peace is restored to the kingdom.Huzzah!. Miss Julia Ormond is breathtakingly beautiful,Mr Sean Connery is the very epitome of integrity. Along with "The Black Shield of Falworth","First Knight" stands as Hollywood's finest entertaining take on mediaeval England. It sweeps one up from the start and deposits one rather breathlessly in a neverland Olde Worlde which never existed but should have done. No one in either movie actually says "yonder lies the castle of my fodder"but I rather wish they had.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of my favorite movies of all time
KDB16 February 2005
I love this movie!! Julia Ormand and Richard Gere don't disappoint in this medieval action packed film. Love, Honor, Action, Suspense. I have to watch this a couple of times a year, along with Princess Bride and Braveheart. Julia gives an outstanding performance, every expression she makes gives such depth to her character Guinevere. A Love story surrounding the tale of the knights of the round table. There are also plenty of swords and battles. Sean Connery rounds out the cast as King Aurthur, a perfect match for his character. Richard Gere plays an honest happy go lucky traveler that falls in love with Guinevere. This is the only action film with wars and swords that my wife will watch with me.
22 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Very very good!
Flight-227 February 1999
Very good movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Any movie with Sean Connery, Richard Gere and Julia Ormond has to be good, and this definitely was. Sure it has some flaws in it, but that doesn't detract from some brilliant acting and enjoyable story line. The movie retells King Arthur and the round table in a very entertaining way, with fighting, romance, action, and very satisfying ending. Not as gory as Braveheart, and the battle scenes aren't as good, but the movie is just as good in a different, less serious way. Go and see it!
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
First Knight Is First Class
ccthemovieman-19 March 2006
A very pleasing all-around movie is how I found this Knights Of The Roundtable-type story and a good one for DVD, even one that's been on disc for quite some time. For an early DVD, this was a real treat for the ears with some great rear- speaker sound. The story, however, not the sound, was the main appeal of this film for me.

The three main stars in this movie were very appealing: Richard Gere as the cocky-but-good guy Sir Lancelot; Julia Ormond as Guinevere and Sean Connery, aptly cast as King Arthur. He certainly looks and acts the part, as does Ben Cross as the villain, Prince Malagant.

This is a straight adventure story, too, with none of the hocus-pocus sorcery baloney who often see in these King Arthur stories. This is beautifully filmed with a city of Camelot that is awesome to view. Nice values in here, too, with - gasp - the importance of prayer mentioned. No wonder so many reviewers out there hated this message.

This is simply a classy, great adventure and highly recommend to literally everyone who values a nice story that has values.
38 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Magnificent
Mantear1 January 2006
This is basically a fantasy story that uses the King Arthur legend. Gere's Lancelot is a wandering mercenary in a medieval land who becomes a Knight at Connery's round table, and ends up clashing with Connery's Arthur over his bride,Julia Ormond, amid the backdrop of a land under threat from a tyrant. Among the things that make this movie great are the cinematography, the sets(especially Camelot and the beautiful Welsh countryside), the superb score, the action sequences and the refreshing aura of innocence and lack of cynicism which is reinforced by some of the minor characters like Peter and Mark. Gere is one of my favorite actors. He's taken a lot of flak from those who are probably jealous of his good looks. This guy can act and he's convincing as the brilliant swordsman. Ben Cross is excellent as Gere's Nemesis, Connery adds his big presence and Ormond looks good as the lovely lady of Lyonesse.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Cmon, guys! It's a love story!
16kris13 August 2001
Ok, I will be the first one to admit that it could have been done better. But does any of the female population reading this remember being about eight years old or so? Playing princess, waiting for that knight in shining armor to take you away? (A lot of us are still waiting for our knights in shining armor!)Remember how clean and perfect we pictured everything at that age, with bright colors, music, dancing, everyone smiling and happy. That is what this film is about. Not the reality, but perhaps more of the ideal... Sean Connery made a dignified Arthur. A little on the old side maybe, but I think that ads to the overall appeal of the story. Julia Ormond did well as Guinevere, very convincing and innocent. As for Richard Gere, he did seem a bit of an odd choice, but still fit the bill. Overall, this movie shouldn't be taken so seriously, but is an excellent fantasy in my opinion.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Arthur/Camelot Movie I've Seen - Excellent Lancelot/Lovestory
kdean-526 June 2005
Jerry Zucker is brilliant. I saw "Ghost" in the theater when it came out and it was my favorite movie for a number of years, and I eventually bought it on DVD. When I saw "First Knight" on video in the late 90's, I loved it and I eventually bought it on DVD too, and at the time I did not even know the same guy directed both movies! Jerry Zucker directed two of the greatest love story movies I've ever seen. I am surprised that "First Knight" has not been a bigger, longer-lasting and more talked-about hit. Not only is the relationship between Lancelot and Guenevere well done, but it is the best Arthur/Camelot movie I've ever seen. While it is not the traditional repeat of the sword and stone movie with Arther being the one main character, I think this great new vision of the story is brilliant. From an ordinary guy who watches a lot of movies: This one is great! Action, passion, fine acting and good chemistry!
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A good movie
Adaleide26 May 1999
I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the old, medieval tellings of the legend, as well as researching the 'real' Arthur (who existed pre-medieval, around the 6th or 7th century) and I enjoyed this interpretation. The only really bad thing that stuck out was the costumes. Many were not historically accurate. In particular, the costumes of the knights were terrible! Same with the construction of the round table room. It looked like something out of Star Trek.
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Do you love bad movies? This is the one for you!,
benbrae7611 September 2006
How on earth did Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julie Ormand, Ben Cross, Sir John Gielgud, and other actors of note, ever get roped into making this awful atrocious movie? The word "hokum" is undoubtedly a compliment in this case. Surely it wasn't for money? Nobody's that greedy or hard up. Or did they all think it was a good idea at the time? If so, they were badly mistaken.

The supposed Norman armour looked like something that was dreamed up for (and thrown out of) Star Trek or Flash Gordon. Actually the styles of (designer) armour on display here range from the bizarre to the unbelievable with shades of the ridiculous in between. Disregarding that they were all made out of modern material, uniforms were not worn by any military in Britain until Cromwell's New Model Army in the 17th century. Until then recognition of both friend and enemy alike was by banners etc., and was all a bit of a hit and miss affair (just like this movie in fact). On reflection I can't recall seeing a single banner in the entire film.

The fabled King Arthur wouldn't have been Norman anyway. He was supposed (debatedly) to have been a 5th or 6th century Ancient Briton, some say with Roman ancestry, and to have lived long before the Norman Conquest was even thought of. One theory even puts forward the view that he actually was a Roman who'd remained in Britain after all others had departed. Whichever of the many theories you prefer, you'd have to agree that he certainly wouldn't even have seen a Gothic building let alone lived in one.

The moralising (or should I say demoralising) script was not only absolutely dire but downright silly. Almost as silly as the gas fire in the middle of the Round Table.

I don't think that Britain was actually mentioned in the script, so perhaps if this re-telling of a powerful story had been set anywhere (a planet somewhere in the far reaches of Andromeda comes to mind) instead of in and around Camelot, and with a different set of characters, the movie might have been acceptable. As it is, it has to go down in the comedy mode. Except that it wasn't meant to be one.

Richard Gere as Lancelot has to be the one of the worst casting mistakes in movie history, that is if you discount John Wayne as Ghengis Khan (and the "Surely this must be the Son of God!" Centurian), or a 30 yr old Robert Taylor as Billy the Kid. And Sean Connery as King Arthur doesn't rate much better.

The only good comments I can make about the whole production is that there's a rather nice musical score lurking somewhere behind everything, and Adam Greenberg's cinematography is rather good. For those two points alone I've given it an extra star, but it's still an awful movie.

In conclusion, this has to be a Follywood production that cannot be missed...otherwise you'll never know how bad it is!
38 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
my favorite ending
kayteebingsley26 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
In almost all other interpretations of this legend, Guenevere is seen as a woman who cannot choose between two young men that love her. In this movie, Arthur is portrayed as a very mature older man who knows he wants Guenevere as his wife but that she might choose him for the wrong reasons. He gives her protection of her lands without marriage and she refuses. He never loses his wisdom and never forgets his duties as king in face of his crazy private life. Lancelot is presented as a wandering young man who "knows when a woman wants him" and cannot understand Guenevere's refusal of him time and time again. However, he is not fickle, and has known true loss. His love for Guenevere is always constant. Guenevere is in turmoil but is never seen as flighty. She loves both men in different ways but does not know why. Instead of her having to betray either man completely, the production allows for one of her lovers to die and encourage Guenevere and the other lover to be together. I think this is a brilliant way to end the movie and one that allows all the characters complete fulfillment.

This movie also simplifies the plot enough that the movie is not chopped and confusing or hours and hours long. I never have been able to understand Morgan and appreciate a different antagonist. I can see why this movie was not liked as it came out the same year as Braveheart and Rob Roy and wish the producers had not released for at least one year and it might have been better received.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Atrocious!
waez16 October 2005
I absolutely loathe this movie - it is one of the most awful screen adaptations of the Arthur story to date.

First of all the casting is all wrong - Julia Ormond as Guienevere and Richard Gere as any kind of historical person is simply laughable. Sean Connery could have been OK as Arthur but he delivers a very weak performance, mostly due to the horrid script I believe. Perhaps he realised what kind of sheep dung they were creating and lost interest.

The story in itself is does unforgivable changes to the Arthur mythology, the idea to take a minor villain from an obscure medieval romance and turn him into the one that overthrows Arthur's reign is simply atrocious. Arthur's realm is portrayed as a weak little kingdom that topples over at first sight of trouble, and Arthur himself comes across as a jealous despot. The Arthur story, especially the love triangle between Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, contains a lot more depth than this movie shows you.

Also, the fight scenes are meek and the armour worn by the knights seems more like something from Star Trek than any kind of actual medieval protective gear.

If you want to see a good Arthur movie, I'd recommend Excalibur, Merlin or even the latest installment; King Arthur. Avoid this heinous atrocity of a movie at all costs!
49 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
King Arthur's tale made into uninteresting film.
zombiegunslinger24 June 2002
This is a painfully bad retelling of the Arthurian Legend. The bad guys use crossbow pistols and wear black leather ala Road Warrior, The good guys look like a high school production of Camelot. Camelot itself looks like part of Disneyland.

The story centers around Richard Gere as an unappealing Lancelot, Sean Connery as a doddering Arthur and Julia Ormond (Guenevere) who, despite being the high point of the film, is completely unable to convince us that she has any affection for the wizened Arthur.

Bad guys grimace, music sweeps heroically, rousing speaches and predictability ensue, followed by a forgettable conclusion.

Not worth it even for fans of the genre.
39 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Truth about Camelot
candyaldridge5 October 2005
I find that this movie is a much more realistic version of the whole King Arthur thing. No magic, and it all could really happen. Don't get me wrong i love magic and all the other elements in fantasy (i am a fantasy novel writer) but i think it's nice to have a more realistic storyline once and a while. And i think many are more likely to believe this version than the others. Such as Merlin (again a movie i also love). Sean Connery was great as the King he brought so many more options with that voice. For me some of his lines in the movie were the most memorable ones i have ever heard. I feel Richard Gere was OK. Not the best but OK and Julia Ormond was not too bad either.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An Extraordinary Romance (Spoilers)
ndahzone23 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
There are spoilers in the following comment.

"First Knight" is an incredible interpretation of the Arthurian legend, although it is undeniably inaccurate and happily ignorant of many important aspects of the original story. Anyone who has read "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White or "Le Morte d'Arthur" will testify that "First Knight" pays no homage to many pivotal characters and story lines, and of course, brazenly ignores the proper ending of the magical tale.

However, the argument I will make is this: "First Knight" was never intended to be a historically reverent production; instead, it focuses on the beautiful love triangle between Guinevere, Lancelot, and Arthur, and it does an amazing job portraying that portion of the story, if nothing else. Never have I seen such a romantic and pure love story, and much of this effect is produced by the film's capable actors. The ever-beautiful Julia Ormond, in particular, played Guinevere to perfection and managed to convince audiences that it is possible to love two men at the same time, though in invariably different ways. Her every gesture was poignantly suggestive of her increasingly difficult position in remaining loyal to Arthur amidst the burgeoning passion she feels for Lancelot.

"First Knight" also contains the most gratifying climactical kiss ever, and the chemistry between Lancelot (Richard Gere) and Guinevere (Julia Ormond) is moving and very convincing.

With that said, I believe this film should be judged not as a historical epic, but as a sweeping romance, and in this department, Jerry Zucker's film can do no wrong. Rating: 10/10.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
forbidden love
amethystwings3220 May 2012
I love this movie,Richard Gere (Lancelot) was the hero, that won the heart of Julia Ormond (Guinevere).In this movie she was to marry the King.Which she did even though she loved the first knight.When they met he was just a common man that fought for money. That is my mom's take on the epic tale of King Arther and Lancelot. Mine I love this movie as well, it is one of the best renditions . About the legend of Camelot, I have seen it has adventure lust. And forbidden love , between Lancelot and Guinevere! But this tale of the sorted love triangle, has a dark side like all movies. It has a villain Ben Cross (Maligant) a cruel black hearted monster. Whose sole purpose was to dethrone the King and claim Camelot as his own! Until his untimely demise , by the sword of the first knight!
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed