The first time I saw this film long, long ago, I must admit that I wasn't impressed. Most of this is that I am a history lover and taught history....and the anachronisms in the film and fact that King Arthur never actually existed left me frustrated. Well, time has passed and I thought I'd give this one another try. After all, I know I had to get over myself and just watch the movie as a normal person and not some history nut!
Now that year have passed and I am focused more on the story itself, I see that the film is better than I remembered BUT it still has a glaring problem. This version of King Arthur (Sean Connery) is an incredible milquetoast...an old, uninspiring and uninteresting man. Heck, it was easy to see why Guinevere preferred Lancelot, as the King was a bit of a putz. It's really hard to imagine Connery playing such a dull and passive character. Purely from a romantic point of view, it's hard to imagine anyone falling for the old guy. Plus, towards the end, the King just seems a bit...well, flacid.
Overall, a lovely looking film with gorgeous music and sets. But the film, while interesting, is uneven. The scenes with Lancelot and Guinevere are nice...but not enough to make this a must-see film.
First Knight
1995
Action / Adventure / Drama / Romance
First Knight
1995
Action / Adventure / Drama / Romance
Plot summary
After King Arthur of Camelot has fought several wars which has led to peace and justice for his land, he is turning his attention to thoughts of marriage, his chosen one being Lady Guinevere, who has become head of neighboring Leonesse following the death of her father. Peace and justice for Arthur and Guinevere are short lived as Prince Malagant, one of the knights of the round table, wants Camelot for himself and King Arthur deposed. Many in the land follow Malagant, whose quest also involves marauding Leonesse. As the King's betrothed, Guinevere becomes Malagant's target in achieving both of his goals. Meanwhile, Lancelot is a free-living peasant who often makes his way through life by demonstrations of his sword fighting prowess. His skill is largely due to his ability to assess his opponents, and not fear dying. On Malagant's first attempt at abducting Guinevere, Lancelot, by happenstance, is there to save her. He falls in love with her at first sight. Although attracted to the man who saved her, Guinevere cannot think of any other man in the lead up to her marriage to Arthur. Because of his attraction to Guinevere, Lancelot becomes involved in the battles between Malagant and Arthur in Lancelot doing whatever needed to keep Guinevere safe. As these battles brew and as Arthur becomes indebted to Lancelot for saving Guinevere at the possible expense of his own life, Guinevere cannot help but fall for Lancelot, resulting in a romantic triangle comprised of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, a triangle of which Arthur is unaware.
Uploaded by: FREEMAN
Director
Top cast
Tech specs
720p.BLU 1080p.BLUMovie Reviews
Monty Python did it better....
Romantic melodrama
This is a well wore story. This one doesn't add much to it. The only interesting thing new is the actors involved. Sean Connery is the elder King Arthur. Julia Ormond is Guinevere whose own realm is under constant attack by Prince Malagant (Ben Cross) a former Knight of the round table. Richard Gere is Lancelot who keeps rescuing Guinevere.
This film isn't grand enough to be a spectacle. The CG is primitive and limited to far away scenes. It isn't gritty enough to be realistic. It is just good enough to be watchable. It's more a romance melodrama.
The acting is above par. When you have Sean Connery as King Arthur, you can't get much better than that. Richard Gere as Lancelot is more of a problem. He doesn't have the heroic act down. He's more smarmy than sincere. And Julia Ormond is regal without the heat.
Didn't like it...at all
I have no problem whatsoever with the Arthurian legend, as a matter of fact I love it. Which is more than I can say for this wretched attempt at a retelling.
Starting with the redeeming qualities, it is beautifully filmed, with lovely costumes, cinematography, sets and scenery, and while he has been much MUCH better Sean Connery manages to steal every single scene he's in as the suitably charismatic King Arthur.(note: if you want any charismatic actor to play a charismatic character, look no further than Connery-he may have been in some clunkers but he is always worth watching). Everything else I am afraid fails, and miserably.
The script is not witty, charming or playful, it is cheesy, too 1990s and contrived. The story takes a while to get going, the direction is unfocused and the score is generic(was that really Jerry Goldsmith, the composer behind The Secret of NIMH, Legend and The Wind and the Lion?). Other than Connery, the other acting is not good at all, the worst being Richard Gere. What on earth was he doing; if you found Kevin Costner too American and I know people did(including me admittedly, at least Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves had Alan Rickman),Gere plays Sir Lancelot with a Philadelphia twang(???). Julia Ormond is ravishing to look at as the constantly imperilled Guinevere, but her looks don't match her acting which is bland, while Ben Cross is ridiculously pantomime as Prince Malagant.
Overall, watch it if you want but sorry I don't recommend it. 2/10 Bethany Cox