Lancelot : Le Premier Chevalier

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. ***

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.

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

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.

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.