Customer Reviews

First Knight (Special Edition) [Blu-ray] [Import]

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(13)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

Got this to view my old favorite with my 12-year old. What a lovely experience to share with your new young adult. Also room for nice discussions afterwards...on love, choices and values...

The legendary story of Camelot and King Arthur has been told, and retold in various incarnations, over the years. Some of them, like Excalibur, and the television mini-series Merlin, were excellent in the way they handled aspects of the the tale. These examples are among the very best and have stayed with me. While I would like to put First Knight in the same league, I cannot, thanks to an annoying bit of casting.

Lancelot (Richard Gere) is a rogue with no ties, no enemies, and no fear-until he meets Lady Guinevere of Leonesse (Julia Ormond). She has promised to marry King Arthur (Sean Connery), not only because his armies can protect her country from evils like Knight Malagant (Ben Cross), but because she truly loves him. But her chance encounter with Lancelot as she prepared to enter Camelot stirs conflicting and powerful emotions within her. Arthur welcomes both into his city with an open heart, little foreseeing how his great capacity for love and trust opens the doors for his own betrayal.

First Knight marks the second time that director Jerry Zucker has traded in the laughs of Airplane! and The Naked Gun films for something a bit more dramatic. His first, was a little "mega hit" called Ghost, therefore his limited track record in the genre was off to a fine start. To be honest though, the main draw for me in the film, was the prescence of Connery, whom I have always liked and Julia Ormand. She made quite a name for herself in Legends Of The Fall. I knew both of these actors could make the most with the material. It's too bad that Gere had to be in the film. He must have went to the same school on how to use a bad surfer dude accent, as Kevin Costner did. This is not something that's easy to forget. It is so bad that it brought everything else down in the process. He makes it difficult to get into the film, without thiking that maybe Zucker is making a comedy after all. As usual Connery saves the day--commanding every scene he's in. Connery, Ormond, and Cross, who makes a good bad guy, are reasons to watch.

The DVD lacks extras. But you have the option of watching the film, in either the fullscreen or widescreen formats.

The casting of Connery as an old Arthur was not bad. He was at least effective in the role the script provided him. Julia Ormand was a wonderful Guenivere. And Cross as Maliagaunt was especially great as the villain. I consider him to have stolen the movie outright from the others. I thought Gere was not the right pick for Lancelot, and further, it seemed he merely gave a pay-the-rent type performance.

The movie does get points at least for using as inspiration a source other than Sir Thomas, for a change, in favour of one of Chretien de Troye's tales. The whole of the Maliagaunt kidnaps Guenivere plot was right out of Chretien. It is not without some irony that where it is closest to Chretien, it is best. It does take things in different directions with different characters which seems more whim than artistic decision. The other Arthurian characters are either minimized, or not utilized at all. Maliagaunt is used most effectively, Arthur and Guenivere work fairly well, while Lancelot is just too card-board tragic as scripted. Those are the only characters that get the film time, really.

One of the oddest things about the movie was that they sent Arthur off in a pyre, burned up like a viking! No way the king will "return" after that, thereby killing the nationalistic resonance of the legend.

The visual look of the film is more of a pristine sort of, fantasy look. It isn't very gritty at all, with all the bright costumes, and bright architecture. There seems nothing dirty in the realm. And apparently, in some cases they didn't use real swords, that is, real prop swords even. If one pays attention there is a moment in the climactic battle where Lancelot is holding a sword, then merely a hilt, then his sword reappears again!

This film as far as I know is the only English language film that seems to have taken any inspiration from Chretien (there is a much better adapted French language one, script-wise). It is fairly acceptable for family viewing, (something which, generally, can not be said about EXCALIBUR) the good are fairly good, and the bad are really bad.

Judging from younger relatives, if they can sit through and enjoy Harry Potter, this might not be a bad introduction at least to other realms of fantasy.

First Knight isn't faithful at all to the story of Arthur and the costumes, lighting, and settings were all terribly modern, but the story itself was well done enough that the movie makes up for the rest of it.

It follows the story of Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot and thier journey from the time Quinevere and Lancelot meet by chance as her carraige is ambushed on her way to marry Arthur, through some more kidnappings, a wedding, and a knighthood, to the death of Arthur. Lancelot, who begins as a mercenary, grows a great deal as a character, while Guinevere's struggle to control her feelings for him is painfully clear. Sean Connery's Arthur is the kind of king one would expect of Arthur, kind, understanding, with a rigid set of morals that he cannot break even for his queen. Julia Ormond makes it clear that Guinevere loves both men and Richard Gere's sensitive performance and longing looks tug the heartstrings.

In essense, it is the acting and the love story that make this movie enjoyable. It is a remarkably un-historically accurate movie and there is not much in common, aside from the names, with the traditional Arthur legends, but these old stories are made to be interpreted. The romance of the movie is what makes it worth watching...that a Richard Gere looks really, really good.

This is one of the most historically inaccurate movies I have ever seen. It is certainly the worst King Arthur movie that I have seen. I can not believe how bad this film is. King Arthur was a fairly young to middle age guy, but Sean Connery is in his 70's and looks like it too. The other Knights of the Round Table were also about the same age as King Arthur, but in this movie they
are of wildly different ages. The acting is generally poor with several of the actors being just plain wooden. The script is pretty bad too.

One of the worst aspects of this movie is the costumes and acting. All of the clothes look brand new and there are a number of instances where clothes that get dirty in a battle suddenly and mysteriously get clean again even though the characters are still on the battlefield. Evidently the actors could not stand wearing dirty clothing. Back in the days of King Arthur, knights wore chain mail instead of plated armor.

The final word: avoid this flick at all costs.

This film is an insult to the viewers intelligence and the Arthurian tradtion. I can not believe how awful this film is. Wooden acting, contempt for the source material, some of the worst period costumes and armour ever seen in a film and a scrip to bad they could use it for torture sessions...

This film is an insult to the viewers intelligence and the Arthurian tradtion. I can not believe how awful this film is. Wooden acting, contempt for the source material, some of the worst period costumes and armour ever seen in a film and a scrip to bad they could use it for torture sessions...

Sean Connery is awesome as Arthur, Julia Ormond is beautiful and sensual as Guinevere, and Richard Gere sizzles as Lancelot.

It may not be the most historically accurate portrayal of Camelot and the circumstances surrounding it, but it's a great movie nonetheless.

If you're in the mood for a great romance with some adventure and betrayal thrown in, I definitely recommend "First Knight."

A truly great epic movie and one of my personal favorites, First Knight, brings to the screen the tale of King Arthur of Camelot, Lady Guinevere, Sir Lancelot and the likes. Sean Connery, Julia Ormond, and Richard Gere, whose performances are outstanding, make this movie one of the best of its kind. The castles, the battles and the costumes are all wonderful!
First Knight is a movie about honor, bravery, and heroes from a time long gone.
A great movie indeed!!!

Okay. I feel compelled to write a review because of all of the silliness in the other reviews. Yes, there is a Melagant (or Meleagant) in Arthurian legends. It is one of the oldest Arthurian legends to appear in the Romances (it's in Chretien's Lancelot). He's a villain who abducts Guenevere.
That said, the movie strays as far from the Arthurian legends as possible. At the end [SPOILER ALERT], Arthur dies and Lancelot rules Camelot with Queen Guenevere at his side. Lancelot and Guenevere remain chaste until Arthur's death, however. Oh, and Lancelot defeats some automatonic gauntlet thing. This is worse than heresy. It's like one of those 19th Century rewrites of Romeo and Juliet where Romeo and Juliet come back to life in the end to avoid a sad ending.
There is an episode of the Simpsons where the Simpsons watch a Zorro remake. At the end of that movie, after Zorro defeats the villanous Scarlet Pimpernel, King Arthur makes Zorro the King of England. Watching this movie is an experience akin to what I imagine watching that movie would be. You simply cannot tag on a happy ending to the Camelot story without being ridiculous. This movie is ridiculous.