First Knight (1995) User Reviews (230)

Exciting medieval story that deals with a love triangle between legendary characters as Lancelot , Guinevere and Arthur

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 24 January 2012]

Mighty and pretty spectacle about Lancelot , King Arthur , Guinevere and the famous romance in color magnificence . This spectacular production from Jerry Zucker that gave you ¨Ghost and Airplane¨ among others and only Columbia TriStar could bring it so magnificently to the screen including a majestic soundtrack and splendid cinematography . The classic story of romantic adventure come to life enriched in glamorous color and with such great stars as Richard Gere (roving spirit Lancelot), Julia Ormond (wonderful Guinevere), and of course the great Sean Connery (upright Arthur) in the classic love triangle . Restless Lancelot who lives by his wits falls in love with Guinevere, who is due to be married to King Arthur . Meanwhile, a violent warlord attempts to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table , as they set out in fight against the traitor Prince Malagant (Ben Cross), a Sir Mordred-alike . Whilst in the meantime the bride Guinevere and Sir Lancelot betray the king in their own way . Adding the apparition of knights of the round table as Sir Kay (Christopher Villiers) , Agravaine (Liam Cunningham) , Sir Patrise (Valentine Pelka) and Sir Mador (McCormack) , though there doesn't turns up neither Merlin , nor Morgana LeFay and all things supernatural are out of this flick . This is an overwhelming tale with adventures, villainy,romance and heroism in the grandeur of big screen although in television set is lost its splendor .

This sweeping movie displays adventures , thrills , a romantic love story , breathtaking battles and epic confrontation with a terrific climax final for a mortal confrontation . Excellent main cast as an attractive Richard Gere , a gorgeous Julia Ormond , and exceptional , as always , Sean Connery as Arthur , an aged and war-weary king who is forced to go to battle one last time . Rousing battle scenes with impressive production design by John Box , though is also used computer generator . Excellent settings , the castles ,outdoors and tournaments or jousts are well staged . Handsome story well written by William Nicholson though contains some awkward narrative elements . Luscious costumes and gowns specially suited for Julia Ormond . Colorful wide-screen cinematography by stylish cameraman Adam Greenberg . Emotive and sensational musical score by the classic Jerry Goldsmith . However this epic film never takes off as it should despite of pomp and circumstance showed . The motion picture is imaginatively directed by Jerry Zucker working at the peak of his powers . Other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur are the following : MGM's first wide-screen film titled ¨Knights of the Round Table¨ 1953 ( by Richard Thorpe) , the musical ¨Camelot¨(Joshua Logan) , the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨(John Boorman) and recently ¨King Arthur¨(Antoine Fuqua). The picture will appeal to aficionados with chivalric ideals and historic movies fans , it is a fine production that will lose much on small television screen .

This spellbinding film is freely inspired on legends and supposedly based on facts and famed personages . In spite of there aren't real documents about legendary feats King Arthur , allegedly in VI century he was King of Bretons and then were created in 12th century some writings by notorious French authors who romanticized the legend as Chretien of Troyes , Thomas Malory that wrote the Breton series with their knights looking for the Holy Grail . Besides Godofredo of Mormouth publicized in 1136 the History Regnum Britanniae and in XX century John Steinbeck wrote about the events of King Arthur . The story concerns when the Romans had withdrawn Britain and the Empire dissolved into chaos,then rules the king Arthur, he achieved to maintain the Christianity and civilization in the west of England ,though no exactly congruent with the VI century , time was presumed to have lived but the film is developed in a high medieval panoply .

A pleasant fairytale and action movie

[kmoss55 · 7/10 · 22 August 2001]

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 !

Brother To Brother

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 22 January 2011]

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.

Interesting Adaptation

[MotorbikeMaintainanceGuy · 7/10 · 8 December 2005]

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.

Everything That Could Possibly Be Bad

[RonellSowes · 21 March 2021]

This film really brings out everything wrong or possibly wrong with a King Arthur movie beautifully. Everything aspect that could be hokey, is. And neither does it have any shortage of uninspiring action sequences and horrible dialogue. Because at its core it's just a poorly made film. The only thing it really has going for it is Sean Connery and despite that this role may have been written for a younger actor, he's still a good choice to play King Arthur. But with so much stacked against Connery's presence isn't enough to turn this film around. Anyone familiar with the King Arthur lore will know that it's not a bad concept for a film, yet the countless adaptations have been unable to make anything decent. I'm still waiting for the good Camelot movie because First Knight certainly isn't.

Sean Connery has the voice, the look and the chivalrous character of the legendary King Arthur...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 21 January 2004]

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...

Another take on the Lancelot, Guineviere Love Affair

[The-Sarkologist · 7/10 · 5 February 2012]

Most people who saw this movie said that it was bad, and I expected it to be as well, but I decided to watch it anyway. The thing that sort of put me off the movie is that it was about the affair that Lancelot has with Guinevere, and that is something that I never really appreciated. I was expecting there to be a justified affair, which it is not, but this movie did turn out quite differently. In fact I ended up enjoying it.

The first thing that I must say is that the cinematography and the sets were quite good. They created an impression of a real place of legend. The realm of Camelot came across as a legendary place which has been lost in the midsts of time. Unfortunately the screenwriters adapted the background of the story a lot - though the main push was that of the love triangle between Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere.

The changes were immense. In the original story (not that I have read it, but I am going by the movie Excalibur and the mini-series Merlin) Guinevere was a lady that Arthur met at a party and asked Merlin to set them up. In fact Merlin did not even appear in this film, but then it was not his film. Even so, Merlin is an important character as he is Arthur's adviser. In this film, Guinevere was a lady in a realm bordering hostile territory and she was going to marry Arthur for love and political protection. The enemy was Prince Malagant, who was once Arthur's First Knight. He rebelled and is now wanting to destroy Arthur.

Malagant is a constant threat, but the thrust is the love between Lancelot and Guinevere. They first meet when Lancelot saves her from Malagant's thugs, and then leads her back to the road. His character is of a roaming knight who charms ladies and does good for no reason, except that he wants to protect the weak. This is because in his past he watched his family be slaughtered in a burning church, and he now seeks to prevent that from happening to others. After they rescue Guinevere's province a boy approaches Lancelot and asks if he can go home. This is a direct reflection of Lancelot's pain as he no longer has a home to go to.

His greatest struggle is the love he has for Guinevere, and his service to Arthur. He never wanted to join Arthur because he knew that he would betray him, but Arthur insisted that he do it. He is never far away though because he knows that Malagant wants to force Arthur into an uncompromising situation. But Malagant is only a supporting character, the real struggles comes in the conversations between Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot.

These occur where the characters struggle to understand their emotions and how they feel for each other. Arthur is not too sure, he has never married and is not interested in marriage, unless the right woman comes along, and he wants this woman to be Guinevere. Yet he is not sure, and while talking with her, he is trying to convince himself that this is the right choice to make. He is afraid of being hurt, and unfortunately this is what happens. He wants love and when he catches Lancelot and Guinevere kissing, he realises that this is not what he has. Guinevere says that she loves him, but he is not convinced, "show me the look you gave him." It is all about love, and he wants the love in the heart, but not in the head.

Yet Arthur is a very level headed man. Most men, especially in those days, would have removed Lancelot's head without a second thought. Instead, he arrests Lancelot and puts him on trial in front of the entire land. This is probably was not the best idea because he is bringing a personal matter and exposing it to the people. He is putting Lancelot and Guinevere to shame with such a thing - something that Lancelot does not want. Of course, the threat of Malagant is always present.

"You have to not care whether you live or die"

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 11 March 2014]

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

Awful

[dave-fry1 · 3/10 · 8 June 2022]

Watched this movie again in 2022 and , my god, how awful is Richard Gere? What a load of self-obsessed brown stuff he turned a half decent telling of the Arthurian legend into.

Underrated

[hrpx · 7/10 · 16 September 2001]

I think that many people already know what they want to see before viewing this movie. They see their favorite interpretation of this legend and they are looking for a movie which follows those lines. This movie will not. It is unique in that way and concentrates on specific aspects of the legend while ignoring others. This does give the movie a feeling of being somewhat incomplete (like watching a cut version of the legend on TV) but for what it is, it is not a bad movie. I thought Connery was a good choice for Arthur and that he did a good job in the role. There are clear historical flaws in it, but they do not detract from the enjoyment of the movie. View it with a open mind and don't compare a unique interpretation of the story with others, expecting it to have all the same elements.

Not Even Connery Can Save It

[slightlymad22 · 5/10 · 8 June 2017]

First Knight (1995)

Plot In A Paragraph: Lancelot (Richard Gere) falls in love with Guinevere (Julia Ormand) , who is due to be married to King Arthur (Connery). Meanwhile, a violent warlord tries to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.

YAWN!! This movie is the worst movie Connery has made since Sword & The Valiant. Yes I'm counting Highlander 2 in that. It is produced with a decent budget but a lot will have gone on its two main stars who are awfully miscast. As is the heroine. Both Connery and Gere are too old for the roles and Ormand is too young.

Connery should make a brilliant King Arthur, all noble and dignified!! But he over acts at times and it just doesn't work, neither does Gere who has zero charisma and is totally unconvincing as Lancelot. It should be an interesting love triangle, but you are never really invested in it, and I just didn't care.

First Knight grossed $37 million at the domestic box office to end 1995 as the 46th highest grossing movie of the year. One place better and one million dollars more than Just Cause. But considering this had a budget of $55 million compared to the $25 million of Just Cause. It's easier to see whIch one was considered a disappointment.

The Best Kind Of "Popcorn Movie"!

[alexautourdumonde · 9/10 · 20 April 2007]

I don't see why people are making so much noise against this movie. We all know this isn't a history class. We all know this isn't realistic in any way. It is NOT and it's NOT supposed to be! I've never heard people say : "The musical version of The Three Musketeers with Gene Kelly isn't faithful to the book". Frankly, who cares? If you want the true story, the realistic story, get a book or a documentary. What we have here is a true "popcorn movie", the kind of film you put in your DVD player for a nice evening of "no thinking, just enjoying". This is a Hollywood family movie, with 3 great stars, fancy costumes, beautiful scenery and great music. To me, this is some of the best entertainment! The kind of entertainment that cinema was invented for and that was so successful in the 40s and 50s. It seems to me that people today just can't enjoy that kind of entertainment anymore. And that is sad! So, please, stop complaining and just enjoy for Pete's sake! (lol!)

Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 23 December 2008]

It opens with the backdrop, "At long last, the wars were over. Arthur, the great king of Camelot, had devoted his life to building a land of peace an justice. Now he wished to marry. But the peace was not to last. The most powerful of Arthur's knights, Prince Malagant, had long been jealous of the King's glory. Now he found cause to quarrel with Arthur and left Camelot with hearted in his heart. And so the land was divided again, between those who rallied to Prince Malagant, seeking the spoils of war, and those who stayed loyal to the King. And then there was Lancelot, a wanderer who had never dreamed of peace or justice or knighthood. Times were hard. A man made his living any way he could. And Lancelot had always been good with a sword…"

An awareness of a general negativity concerning this film is one of the reasons it's a more enjoyable than not. Even without lowered expectations, "First Knight" is an above average film. Jerry Zucker directs a series of well-paced action scenes with pomp and circumstance. William Nicholson's screenplay focuses on the "love triangle" formed with Richard Gere (as Sir Lancelot) falling in love with Julia Ormond (as Lady Guinevere) on her way to marry Sean Connery (as King Arthur). It isn't difficult to figure out the rest of the story.

The three principal players are nicely suited to their roles. Mr. Gere plays "Lancelot" (the leading man) with nobility and nonchalance; he has a gracefulness which might have been utilized in other Errol Flynn-type roles, had he chosen to perform them. Ms. Ormond adds a considerable amount of spirited resoluteness to her "Guinevere"; this, combined with her physical beauty, makes her irresistible. Mr. Connery's "King Arthur" gives the film an old-world foundation. Ben Cross (as Prince Malagant) heads up a splendid supporting cast, with something old John Gielgud (as Oswald), and something new Stuart Bunce (as Peter), all dressed up in something blue.

So, where's the rub? The valiant filmmakers took a chance by removing the mythological elements. The wizard "Merlin" does not appear. "Excalibur" has no magical powers. Stripped of its magic, the still noble "Camelot" is a nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there.

****** First Knight (7/7/95) Jerry Zucker ~ Richard Gere, Julia Ormond, Sean Connery, Ben Cross

Atrocious!

[waez · 2/10 · 16 October 2005]

I absolutely loathe this movie - it is one of the most awful screen adaptations of the Arthur story to date.

First of all the casting is all wrong - Julia Ormond as Guienevere and Richard Gere as any kind of historical person is simply laughable. Sean Connery could have been OK as Arthur but he delivers a very weak performance, mostly due to the horrid script I believe. Perhaps he realised what kind of sheep dung they were creating and lost interest.

The story in itself is does unforgivable changes to the Arthur mythology, the idea to take a minor villain from an obscure medieval romance and turn him into the one that overthrows Arthur's reign is simply atrocious. Arthur's realm is portrayed as a weak little kingdom that topples over at first sight of trouble, and Arthur himself comes across as a jealous despot. The Arthur story, especially the love triangle between Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, contains a lot more depth than this movie shows you.

Also, the fight scenes are meek and the armour worn by the knights seems more like something from Star Trek than any kind of actual medieval protective gear.

If you want to see a good Arthur movie, I'd recommend Excalibur, Merlin or even the latest installment; King Arthur. Avoid this heinous atrocity of a movie at all costs!

respectful, well-made adaptation

[Special-K88 · 12 April 2002]

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. ***

It's not that bad!

[Thornfield2 · 7/10 · 12 July 2001]

I don't agree that this a horribly bad film. People really do like to crucify this film and I don't know why. Anyone ever see Mannequin 2:On the Move, Aliens Go Home or Bats? This film surpasses all those stinkers. But I must say,however I can see where people are saying that it could have been so much more. Although Richard Gere is a fine actor, I believe they could have chosen someone who fit the role of Lancelot, a little better. Someone younger. Gere's performance also seemed a little stiff, and they could have chosen someone else with a little more spunk. Sean Connery too seemed out of place, although he is one is the finest actors of our day. He was much too old to play Arthur. Julia Ormond, however, was perfect for Gueniviere. She really was a delight to watch and brought a certain dignity to the character. Her classy acting and presence seemed to fit the story best amidst her misfit co-stars. I will agree however, that the costumes were a little off. The peasants were wearing costumes that seemed to much too new and nicely kept. The scenery, however was breathtaking and and theme of this movie is very romantic.It's no four star movie but common folks this movie was not all THAT bad. I give it a 7 out of 10.

much better than given credit

[Erik G. · 7/10 · 11 March 1999]

The problem with First Knight is that it is old-fashioned. It lacks cynicism and irony. As you can see from many of the other comments, it was not well received by many. Why? I'm not sure, really. I loved it tremendously. It isn't for King Arthur purists who think that 'Le Morte D' Arthur' is the ONLY version of the Arthurian legend out there (as if legends can have only one version!). First Knight is a visually beautiful, sentimental, and well crafted romantic adventure, told from the point of view of Lancelot, in this version a wandering sellsword.

If you are looking for the mysticism, the magic and the tragedy of Camelot...you'll be disappointed. This is a more optimistic telling of the tale. It is also more streamlined. There is no lady of the lake, no Merlin, no Excalibur, and no Morgana. If you want to see all that, go and rent Boorman's Excalibur (1981), also a very good Arthurian legend, but very different from First Knight. It is a much darker and more savage rendition of the tale, and the ending is also more grim and brooding.

Here, you have only Arthur, Lancelot, Guenevere, and a villain who is essentially Mordred, known as Malagant (they even refer to him as a prince). It focuses on the love triangle and the final battles between Arthur and Malagant, which lightens the burden of storytelling considerably from Excalibur, which can be quite thick with plot at times (not that this is bad, it's just different). I found myself not really missing all the magic and myth of the story, and enjoying First Knight for its strength: it is romantic, intelligent, and energetic. The performances are all good (though the men are a bit old), and the music is simply gorgeous.

If you don't mind that the legend has been toned down, but only to focus on a tighter storyline with fewer characters to encumber it, you will like First Knight. If you have a problem with big movie star names playing ancient characters (Gere distracted many with his performance, but I felt he did a great job), or if you don't like deviations from the 'real' legend of Camelot, you probably won't enjoy this adventure/doomed romance for what it is.

My wife loves this movie

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 17 May 2002]

My wife also likes Richard Gere, and that helps in her opinion. This film is about forbidden love, and is geared for the female audience. With Richard playing the lead in this historical soap opera. It is a good movie, and balances the romance with action scenes. I like the idea of brotherhood and Camelot, to bad the world could not have such honor. 7/10

Better than I expected

[richard_peers · 7/10 · 27 December 2004]

Well, after looking at the vote score and reviews for this film, I wasn't expecting much, but watched it anyway since my wife is both a Connery and a Gere fan. I must say I was pleasantly surprised: both by the plot, which was somewhat different from most Arthurian legend films, and by the acting. Anyone who criticises Connery's abilities should be forced to watch the death scene at the end: so often in films, the hero delivers his dying words, and then flops sideways in an overdone dramatic flourish. There was none of that here; instead, Connery has Arthur just drift away, staring into the beyond, and somehow, goodness knows how he does it, the life just vanishes from his eyes! An amazing piece of acting, and worth seeing the film for, if nothing else is.

Beyond this, however, there is plenty for the viewer to enjoy. Of course, it's not Shakespeare, and isn't trying to carry a strong message. As pure escapist entertainment, I found it passes muster, and if this was its First Knight, then the run should be a long one. 7/10

Do you love bad movies? This is the one for you!,

[benbrae76 · 3/10 · 11 September 2006]

How on earth did Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julie Ormand, Ben Cross, Sir John Gielgud, and other actors of note, ever get roped into making this awful atrocious movie? The word "hokum" is undoubtedly a compliment in this case. Surely it wasn't for money? Nobody's that greedy or hard up. Or did they all think it was a good idea at the time? If so, they were badly mistaken.

The supposed Norman armour looked like something that was dreamed up for (and thrown out of) Star Trek or Flash Gordon. Actually the styles of (designer) armour on display here range from the bizarre to the unbelievable with shades of the ridiculous in between. Disregarding that they were all made out of modern material, uniforms were not worn by any military in Britain until Cromwell's New Model Army in the 17th century. Until then recognition of both friend and enemy alike was by banners etc., and was all a bit of a hit and miss affair (just like this movie in fact). On reflection I can't recall seeing a single banner in the entire film.

The fabled King Arthur wouldn't have been Norman anyway. He was supposed (debatedly) to have been a 5th or 6th century Ancient Briton, some say with Roman ancestry, and to have lived long before the Norman Conquest was even thought of. One theory even puts forward the view that he actually was a Roman who'd remained in Britain after all others had departed. Whichever of the many theories you prefer, you'd have to agree that he certainly wouldn't even have seen a Gothic building let alone lived in one.

The moralising (or should I say demoralising) script was not only absolutely dire but downright silly. Almost as silly as the gas fire in the middle of the Round Table.

I don't think that Britain was actually mentioned in the script, so perhaps if this re-telling of a powerful story had been set anywhere (a planet somewhere in the far reaches of Andromeda comes to mind) instead of in and around Camelot, and with a different set of characters, the movie might have been acceptable. As it is, it has to go down in the comedy mode. Except that it wasn't meant to be one.

Richard Gere as Lancelot has to be the one of the worst casting mistakes in movie history, that is if you discount John Wayne as Ghengis Khan (and the "Surely this must be the Son of God!" Centurian), or a 30 yr old Robert Taylor as Billy the Kid. And Sean Connery as King Arthur doesn't rate much better.

The only good comments I can make about the whole production is that there's a rather nice musical score lurking somewhere behind everything, and Adam Greenberg's cinematography is rather good. For those two points alone I've given it an extra star, but it's still an awful movie.

In conclusion, this has to be a Follywood production that cannot be missed...otherwise you'll never know how bad it is!

Sensual, earthy aspects

[henoser · 6/10 · 30 April 2008]

With - I am hoping - not offending disregard for quality of acting or else, I found the shooting locations and earthiness of the characters Lancelot and Guinevere to be very refreshing. Although I may not have a proper way to evaluate the film as justifying of the subject matter, I gained pleasure from the châteaux, forests, and moors... Julia Ormond was breathtaking. Worthwhile to watch for that... I am sure there are plenty of more accurate films on the Camelot and related subject matter that do the story better justice. I am by no means recommending it as a satisfying film in that aspect. I recommend the film as satisfying in its sensual qualities.

King Arthur's tale made into uninteresting film.

[zombiegunslinger · 1/10 · 24 June 2002]

This is a painfully bad retelling of the Arthurian Legend. The bad guys use crossbow pistols and wear black leather ala Road Warrior, The good guys look like a high school production of Camelot. Camelot itself looks like part of Disneyland.

The story centers around Richard Gere as an unappealing Lancelot, Sean Connery as a doddering Arthur and Julia Ormond (Guenevere) who, despite being the high point of the film, is completely unable to convince us that she has any affection for the wizened Arthur.

Bad guys grimace, music sweeps heroically, rousing speaches and predictability ensue, followed by a forgettable conclusion.

Not worth it even for fans of the genre.

Exactly made as movies should be !!!

[onlynishank · 8/10 · 25 February 2009]

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.

Round table

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 13 August 2020]

Swordfight Central. power hungry Malagant (Ben Cross) has left Camelot, and opposes Arthur's rule. of course, there will be a showdown. an alliance between Guinevere (Julia Ormond) and Arthur (Sean Connery) would bring the strength to oppose Malagant... the awesome John Gielgud is Oswald; Richard Gere is the arrogant Lancelot, who comes to the aid of Guinevere. even saves her life. adventure. drama! izzzal good! Directed by Jerry Zucker, who directed some of my favorite films.... Airplane, Ruthless People, Ghost, Rat Race... who knew??

In my opinion, one of the worst movies ever.

[Steve-882 · 1/10 · 31 December 2000]

In my opinion, one of the worst movies ever. This movie shows how Europeans think the Americans like to see the middle ages. A Disney-like castle, weapons, machines and armory invented centuries later. If it would have been a pure fantasy-movie with no connection to reality it would be still a bad movie but perhaps not that bad. Richard Gere is totally missplaced as Lancelot (One of the funniest scenes was the one on the battlefield in slowmotion that looked more like a shampoo commercial than a historical movie). All in all totally stupid.