Le premier chevalier

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.

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.

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 !

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.

Richard Gere should play detectives or cowboys but not Knights.This is the worst King Arthur movie i have seen in my life.He really is too American and besides the whole story is just bad.Before and after have been much better movies telling movies about King Arthur,Beides there should be less of an age gap between King Arthur and Lancelot.This movie is like a meal at McDonalds it feeds you but its not a good meal.