First Knight | | Cast : | Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julia Ormond | | Director : | Jerry Zucker | | Studio : | Columbia/Tristar Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Dolby, Widescreen | | Released Date : | July 07, 1995 | | DVD Released Date : | September 03, 2002 | | Language : | Spanish (Dubbed), Korean (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language), Spanish (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | April 27, 2005 | | Summary | THE MISSING MERLIN | Content
 | Okay, I have to admit that I'm not an expert on the various interpretations of the King Arthur legend. Having seen films such as EXCALIBUR and MERLIN, my knowledge of the legend is based on these two films. So imagine my surprise when we get a story that adheres hardly at all to the legend that I am familiar with. Where's the sword? Why is Arthur so old? Where in the world is Merlin, Mordred, Morgana, etc.? Although I have admired the works of Sean Connery and Richard Gere over the years, I did not find them convincing in the roles of Arthur and Lancelot. Julia Ormond comes off fairly well as Lady Guinevere, but she rides into battle with the army? Ben Cross is cliche in his villainous role, and John Gielgud shows up in one of those "let's get Gielgud in the movie and it will be classier." While the movie does have some dazzling cinematography and a wonderful Jerry Goldsmith score, it didn't do a whole lot to encourage me to like it on its own merits. I found it dull at times, and Gere's lack of a British accent and sometimes Brooklyn one, didn't add to the credibility. If you're going to revise or update a legend so well known as King Arthur's, you need to be careful how far you go. If you didn't know anything about this legend, then maybe you could enjoy this pompous movie. But for me it was just another swordfight and romance movie. |
| Rating | | | Date | April 17, 2005 | | Summary | Could have been so much better | Content
| 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 06, 2005 | | Summary | Blue Cheese | Content
| Yes, it's King Arthur color-coordinated, and it's cheesy pretty much beyond belief. Nonetheless, these cardboard characters are still fun to watch. And, from a literary perspective, it's kind of neat to see the film-makers take the trouble to include a cart a la Chretien de Troyes and the conflict between Logres (Arthur's England) and Gorre (the traditional land of the evil Meleagant -- here titled Malagant and made a former Knight of the blue formica Round Table). Yes, it's hard not to make fun of this movie -- well, maybe that's part of the pleasure. My guess: it's going to get even campier and more hilarious as time passes. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 04, 2005 | | Summary | Fun adventure. | Content
| First Knight is a entertaining version of the Arthurian legends, but there are a few detractors. Sean Connery is hardly in the film at all, giving Richard Gere as Lancelot WAY too much time on screen. And Sean Connery's name is listed first. Go figure. And Richard Gere as Lancelot is a pretty bad choice. I would have picked Viggo Mortensen or Kevin Costner. However, this is still a fun swashbuckling movie which can hold it's own against other of this genre. It's a great movie to watch with lots of popcorn. |
| Rating | | | Date | December 19, 2004 | | Summary | Forget the Arthurian legends and this is a very good film. | Content
| 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. |
|
