फर्स्ट नाइट

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 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.

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

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.

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.