Customer Reviews

First Knight [VHS]

5 star:		(67)
4 star:		(52)
3 star:		(18)
2 star:		(17)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

I am 15 years old, and I just love this movie. "First Knight" ranks up on the list with the musical "Camelot" and Disney's "The Sword and the Stone" as a magnificent telling of the Camelot legend, and may in fact surpass these other two movies in excellance. Creative license was taken so that the "accurate" legend is not portrayed, but the charcters stay true to the story and the affect is nothing short of amazing. Lady Guinevere of Leonesse (sic?) is on her way to marry King Arthur of Camelot when she inadvertantly meets Lancelot, a very cocky mersonary whose arrogant ways hide a dark childhood. Although attempting to stay loyal to her King, Guinevere is twice saved by Lancelot (although she did a good deal of the work to escape herself) and finds herself falling in love with him. To complicate the problem, the evil Prince Malagant is determined to take over both Leonesse and Camelot. Tension builds to a stunning climax, a shocking ending, and a glorious conclusion. ----- This movie is filled with both heart-pounding action cues of suspense and heart-rending conversations of real people. Richard Gere portrays Lancelot beautifully, giving him a self-assured pride and arrogance that later reveal to be merely a cover-up to the pain he experienced as a child. Although I have heard complaints that Gere is too American for the part, he added a dimension to Lancelot's personality that few others could top. There is a chiling reason for his cockiness, and it makes him seem more human. Julia Ormond gives Guinevere beauty, but also independance. She is quite able to handle herself, and is one of the few "damsels-in-distress" that haven't gotten on my nerves by their helplessness. Because this Guinevere is anything but helpless! Guinevere is torn apart by her love for two men, and Ormond portrays it excellently, allowing you to see into Guinevere's soul and find the pain she is going through. Ben Cross as the terrible Malagant is perfect. He is wicked, cruel, selfish, and disgusting; the perfect villian! Not every actor/actress can play a villian so well. Great job! And what can I say about Sean Connery as King Arthur? This was the first movie I saw him in after I saw the film "DragonHeart", in which Connery played the voice of the dragon. Perfectly cast in that movie, perfectly cast in this, Connery gives King Arthur boundless dignity, wisdom, and heart, but he also gives him a human side; vulnerable and not always quite sure what to do next. This is probably the most realistic portrayal of Arthur, and you can't help but have your heart go out to him. ----- The music, the diolodge, and the wonderful acting make "First Knight" such a great movie. For anyone who loves the Arthurian Legend, or simply a story of regular people with lots of heart, see this movie. As the song goes, "It will not be forgot that once there was a spot for once brief, shining moment that was known as Camelot!"

The '95 film `First Knight' is a romantic and adventurous reinventing of the timeless tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. As already mentioned in several previous reviews, the script takes a very different approach to the subject matter than one would expect. There are no personal appearances nor mention of Merlin, Morgan le Fay, or Mordred. Even more unexpected is the manner in which the identities of the 'Knights of the Round Table' remain anonymous.

As if that wasn't enough to send the Arthurian purist screaming into the night there are more surprises ahead. You will find no Holy Grail, no pagan deities or prophetic utterances and no mention whatsoever of the sword Excalibur in this film. When all is said and done the movie resembles the '38 classic `The Adventures of Robin Hood" more than anything else.

Oddly enough, in eliminating the usual esoteric elements long associated with Gnostic Christianity and Celtic paganism the developers of the film saw fit to replace the time honored storyline and symbols with a strong, more traditional Christian allegorical subtext. Relying heavily on the vivid, literary themes and imagery found in John Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and Dante Aligheri's 'Divine Comedy' the film centers on the ages old battle waged between good and evil, the war between God and the rebellious Lucifer, once the greatest of all the heavenly host.

Ben Cross does a superb job of exploring the persona of Lucifer in the role of Malagant, the "first knight" (hence the title of the film). Now banished from the hallowed walls of Arthur's realm, Malagant (i.e.: malignant, maligned) is definitely the embodiment of the "Great Adversary" bent on overthrowing the ideals of Camelot (Heaven) and its fatherly ruler King Arthur (God). As he waits impatiently for the right moment to attack, this black armored knight dwells with his followers in a dark, dank fortress appearing more cavern than castle. The passageways within his abode are poorly lit with an occasional torch here and there. This nocturnal environment was most certainly designed to conjure images of a Dantesque Hell.

This suggested association of Malagant with the Luciferian archetype is made crystal clear when he makes a dramatic appearance before King Arthur and his knights during a Round Table gathering. In true Milton fashion his arrogant demeanor and boastful rhetoric are straight out of `Paradise Lost'.

While `First Knight' lacks the depth and substance the more mythical Grail elements would have supplied, the loss is more than made up for with a tender romance acted out beautifully by Richard Gere (Lancelot) and Julia Ormond (Guinivere). The two forlorn lovers are perfectly matched. Gere is at his best, delivering in my estimation his most memorable film performance and Julia is mezmerizing as the strong-willed, yet hesitant Queen of Camelot. Not one to miss the obvious, Julia looks absolutely beautiful which always helps to maintain the complete, undivided attention of the males in the audience.

I certainly wouldn't consider this to be the definitive Arthurian film, but it's certainly an enjoyable one. I could watch 'First Knight' over and over again and when all is said and done isn't the repeatability factor the litmus test for any movie?

My Rating: -4 ½ Stars-.

This review refers to the DVD edition(Columbia/TriStar) of "First Knight"....

I was one of those who also thought that Connery and Gere were TOO OLD to play their respective parts of Arthur and Lancelot in this film. Then I viewed the film. All thoughts of miscasting went out of my head, as I just kicked backed and enjoyed this highly entertaining and captivating story. The three major stars in this film, including Julia Ormond("Sabrina"), as Guinevere, had a wonderful on screen chemistry with each other, the scenery was beautiful, the costumes delightful, the romance enchanting, the battle scenes heartpumping, and the music(Jerry Goldsmith) haunting and thrilling.

Young Lady Guinevere is about to be married to the wonderful King Arthur and she will take her new place as Queen in the beautiful land of Camelot. It's a time of happiness for all. But there's trouble amiss, just as the Knights of the Round Table are pledging their undying loyalty to the new Queen, Malagant, an ex Knight who wants to rule the land, is spreading terror and destruction, and is about to envoke his wrath on the people and the home of Guinevere, her beloved Leonesse. Enter Lancelot, newest member of the Round table(having already saved Lady G twice) to the rescue, who will now lead the Knights in battle against the evil Malagant.And then there's the battle for the lovely lady herself....

The performances were touching, as Guinevere and Lancelot form a deep love for each other, but love their King as well. Ben Cross("Chariots of Fire"), is simply evil as Malagant and the illustrious Sir John Gielgud adds his wonderful talents as well.

The DVD presents a beautifully clear picture, with rich colors. It may be viewed in widescreen or full screen.The sounds of the era and the music are excellent. You have the choice of DD5.1 or stereo. Languages include English, Spanish and French with subtitles in Spanish and Korean, but there are no subtitles or captions in English for those who may need them(what's up with that?)

If you're looking for something that stays truer to the classic story, go with "Excalibur", It's a breathtaking and artfully directed film. However, "Excalibur" may not be suited for everyone. The violence is quite a bit more graphic then "First Knight" and there are sexual scenes as well. This one may be better suited for teens, but may be enjoyed for the pure entertainment value as well.

Get the popcorn ready and enjoy....Laurie

for a look at early sean connery:
Alfred Hitchcock's Marnie
A Bridge Too Far

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.

As I watched First Knight, I couldn't help but think that if this film had been freed of the constraints of the original Arthurian tales, it would have been a complete success.

But for the original Arthurian tales, the casting of Richard Gere probably wouldn't be as problematic. But for the original tales, the final siege of Camelot would be more believable.

Instead, we do feel a tinge of oddness at Gere's attempt to play Lancelot du Lac, who in Arthurian legend is very much a French aristocrat trained in all the chivalric ways, not the ranger-like, orphaned free spirit he is here. It's too bad we do get distracted by the mismatch between character and actor, because he has some truly great moments with Julia Ormond (strong and pleasingly complex as Guinevere), hot looks, internal torment and emotional cat-and-mouse in that classic Hollywood tradition. No need for Keira Knightley-style bared stomachs and bow and arrows here. The conspicuous absence of important Arthurian characters like Gawain, Gareth and Mordred, of course, also distances this film from Arthurian legend so much that the Camelot setting becomes pretty much cosmetic, with only the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle being the intact element. And even then, the film treats this relationship far differently from the original tales (the complete opposite of what happens in the legends, in fact).

If you're a purist for Arthurian legends, you will definitely be distracted by these elements. However, distance yourself from the original tales and you'll find a classic Hollywood love story with unusually effective emotional layers, good performances, and absolutely stunning cinematography coupled with impeccable editing, the work of two masters -- director of photography Adam Greenberg (cinematographer for Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Ghost, among others) and editor Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now). The group shots in this film are eye-popping, recalling Akira Kurosawa's style, and director Jerry Zucker keeps the narrative flowing with nary a wasted moment.

I duck one star because of the King Arthur baggage. To a certain extent, I feel that if you're going to change the story so much, you may as well call it something new, rename your characters and so on. That is a small criticism, however. First Knight, viewed on its own merit, is a highly well constructed, old-fashioned romance adventure with balanced strengths and, again, a beautifully light touch in the emotional and acting departments. It's really something to watch the familiar story of the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle come into life this satisfyingly, and just for that, First Knight would already deserve high marks.

Forget Jerry Goldsmith's music punctuating every raised eyebrow. Ignore Julia Ormond's ability to play two emotions: earnestness and confused earnestness. First Knight is a crashing bore. It insults its audience with the weakest dialogue this side of Camelot. "I want you; you want me," says Lance. I couldn't tell if these two were medieval lovers stating their passion or it was day two of Woodstock.

Worst of all, this isn't the King Arthur of Morte D' Arthur. It's not even the King Arthur of the musical Camelot. You'll find no Merlin, excalibur, or Holy Grail inside these city walls. The grand mythology of Arthurian legend is stripped to the barest of bones. This isn't First Knight; it's knight of the living dead with more frightening results.

Okay, first off park everything you know about Grail Lore at the door and enjoying Connery the King!! This one is more style than substances, but what STYLE!!! Beautifully filmed, with a good eye to period, and well acted,
this film visually assults the senses.

So pull kick back with a bowl of popcorn and JUST ENJOY!!! For a film so long, it does has the feel of being rushes in places, but just don't question, experience!!

(...

because here is another clunker. Richard Gere is just awful as Lancelot. You know, the legendary Lancelot is a NOBLEMAN, not a street performer. He is FRENCH, not...well...American like Gere. These legends have stood the test of time because they are good, just as they are. They don't need to be updated--you ruin what they're all supposed to be about that way. I like Sean Connery, but isn't he a little long in the tooth to play Arthur? He might be a better age for Merlin. Nope, this is not my kind of Camelot.

The approach to this movie is an interesting one, for clearly the director tries to 'humanise' the entire Arthurian legend. Gone is Excalibur as a magical blade. Lancelot is a travelling loner, rather than having been sent by the Lady of the Lake. Merlin is nowhere to be seen, and there is no hint of magic or mysticism in sight. Many viewers will automatically be deterred by this approach.

This approach provides an interesting perspective on the movie - trying to get behind the true story upon which the Arthur legends are based. The idea is good, the execution lacking.

Geer provides a very modern portrayal of Lancelot. The American accent for an English hero was proven not to work by Costner in Robin Hood : prince of thieves. His portrayal of Lancelot is very contemporary which creates discord with the setting of the film. A classic approach was maintained by Ormond and Connery, and so Geer's portrayal goes against the grain.

The plot and villian are very run-of-the-mill in all regards. The only stand out features of this film are: Connery, Ormond and the cinematography. Connery and Ormond, and the lovely sweeping scenes of the lanscape, keep this film above a rating of 1.

While not a terrible film, it is mediocre at best.

First Knight probably has the best look to it out of all the other movies about the charcters of Camelot. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is superb. Sean Connery and Julia Ormond are probably the best Kind Arthur and Guinevere ever as well. Richard Gere however just doesn't work as Lancelot. He looks clumsy with a sword, he's sort of laughable too. He lacks the edge of Viggo Mortenson in Lord of the Rings or even the charm of Heath Ledger in a Knight's Tale. Even just looking at the cover of the dvd, it's obvious that something is wrong with the picture and it's not Connery or Ormond. Gere lacks the heroic look that is needed for Lancelot. I can't say that he at least doesn't have some chemestry with Ormond though.

The film still wouldn't of been great without him as Lancelot I must admit because the movie still has it's problems. It's predictibale for one thing, everyime Guinevere is in trouble you just know Lancelot is gonna come to rescue. Meanwhile it would of been nice to see Arthur get some action instead of being smothered with the predictability that something is gonna happen between Lancelot and Guinevere that will betray Athur's trust in them.