Der erste Ritter

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.

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 !

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.

There were three medieval/British Isle films released in 1995 -- "Braveheart," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight." Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" is certainly the most epic of the three at three hours, but I found it overrated; which isn't to say I don't like it, I just don't feel that it's as great as the hype would suggest (only about half of it is worthwhile). I liked "Rob Roy" better than "Braveheart;" it's very adult-oriented, violent, gritty and grim, however.

"First Knight" is a believable take on the King Arthur/Camelot legend starring Sean Connery as Arthur, Richard Gere as Lancelot and Julia Ormond as Guinevere. They get tangled up in a bit of a love triangle. Ben Cross plays the villain, ex-knight Malagant.

Being a relatively realistic portrayal of the folkloric story, the tone is similar to "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" (1991), but without the witch and the campy Alan Rickman. So don't expect any of that silly magical jive with Merlin, Excalibur, etc. This might explain why so many pan the film, but I don't get their beef. Aren't there enough cinematic depictions of the Camelot tale with supernatural elements for them to enjoy, like 1981's "Excalibur"? I'll put it this way, "First Knight" is to the Arthur/Lancelot legend what the film "Troy" (2004) is to the Helen of Troy chronicle, although "First Knight" is less gritty.

The film caught my fascination right away with the character of Lancelot. He is portrayed as an expert swordsman, drifter, loner and all-around lost soul. The beginning reveals something integral to understanding his character: Lancelot takes on an intimidating dude in a swordfight contest at a village he's traveling through. After Lancelot prevails, the big guy asks him for advice on how to be as skilled a swordsman. Lancelot tells him that he needs a couple of obvious sword-fighting skills, to which the man confidently replies, "I can do that." Then Lancelot tells him the last quality he needs: "And you have to not care whether you live or die."

This is a powerful scene; Gere plays the character very convincingly (in fact, if you hate Gere, this film might give you a new-found respect for him). This character-defining episode reveals HOW Lancelot is the only one able to prevail against an incredible and decidedly deadly weapons gauntlet later in the story, which is a highlight.

The rest of the film is just a solid medieval/British Isle adventure with a noble folkloric tone, requisite forest scenes and all. What I mean by "folkloric" can be seen in Lancelot's heroic rescue of Guinevere in Malagant's cave fortress, which is pretty implausible. But these are larger-than-life figures, right?

"First Knight" more than satisfied my hunger for a medieval/British isles flick and surprised me with the intriguing character of the suicidally-brave Lancelot. If one doesn't have hang-ups regarding the absence of Merlin, Excalibur and the magical baggage that goes with 'em, this is an entertaining and classy heroic film.

On top of all this, the movie features a fascinating allegorical subtext: King Arthur is God, Camelot is Heaven, Malagant is the fallen Lucifer, his dark, cavernous 'castle' is the Underworld, Guinevere represents humanity caught in the epic fight between good (Arthur) and evil (Malagant), and Lancelot represents worldly temptation.

The film runs 2 hours, 14 minutes and was shot in Wales & England.

GRADE: B

Lavish retelling of the Arthur legend may not be as compelling as one would hope for, but it does still entertain in its own right. In order to protect her people and village, magnanimous Lady Guinevere (Ormond) agrees to marry the noble King Arthur (Connery) who has the resources to keep her safe from lawless tyrants. Unfortunately for all those concerned, she also has feelings for bold, spirited wanderer Lancelot (Gere), which only complicates matters further when he becomes one of Arthur's knights. The lush kingdom of Camelot is also in jeopardy as the former knight Prince Malagant (Cross) threatens to conquer and enslave it for himself. Intense swordplay, enchanting set design, and three perfect leads make this a real treat to watch. ***