Lancelot : Le Premier Chevalier

In 'First Knight' Connery has gentleness in his eyes, and embodies the best aims of the founder of the Knights of the Round Table... Arthur had his share of war... He had devoted his life to building a land of peace and justice... He looks forward to quieter days... He asks Guinevere to 'marry the king but to love the man.'

Julia Ormond glows and smolders to fine effect as the passionate Guinevere who is confused about her feelings for the king and his first knight... Guinevere tries to convince Arthur that her will is stronger than her heart... She assures the king that she may look at him differently but not with less love...

Richard Gere lacks the heroic stance required for such part... He is not colorful and flamboyant as Lancelot... He is simply Richard Gere... He lives by the sword, and fights for money... He is introduced as a wanderer, with no wealth, no home, no goals, just the passionate spirit that drives him on... Lancelot had never dreamed of peace or justice or knighthood... He rescues the Lady of Leonesse, and gives Arthur back his life itself...

Ben Cross is arrogant as the powerful Prince Malagant, a former knight of the Round Table, with hatred in his heart... He dares to kidnap a lady who is almost a queen... Malagant doesn't care how many men he loses so long as he wins... He offers the king what is not 'his' to give..

In Jerry Zucker's film there's no Merlin, no malevolent Mordred, no femme fatale, just the city of Camelot seen golden as ever, the knights brave and loyal, the battles almost breathtaking in their ferocity, and the scenic beauty so fresh, so pure, so green...

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.

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. ***

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.