First Knight

***"You have to not care whether you live or die"*** There were three medieval/British Isle films released in 1995 -- "Braveheart," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight." Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" is cert... ***"You have to not care whether you live or die"*** 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

OK. First things first; this deviates substantially from any of the other depictions of Arthurian legend, so if you're looking for anything akin to the films (or books) you've come across before, then... OK. First things first; this deviates substantially from any of the other depictions of Arthurian legend, so if you're looking for anything akin to the films (or books) you've come across before, then I'd stop now. If you're looking for a light and fluffy costume romance, then you might salvage something from it yet, though. Julia Ormond (Guinevere) is travelling to meet Sean Connery (King Arthur) with a view to marrying him and thus saving her beleaguered land of Leonesse from the frequent invasions of the evil "Malagant" (Ben Cross). On her way, though, she is attacked and only saved by the cunning wit and bravery of travelling swordsman Lancelot (Richard Gere). She is delivered safely to her beau, only to encounter Lancelot again as he wins the most lethal obstacle course known to man - and he gets his kiss! The remainder of the film dips in and out of the legend - she falls in love; gets kidnapped and there are as many shades of "Robin Hood" as there are of "Knights of the Round Table" as our intrepid Lancelot tries to keep her, and the kingdom safe. Cross isn't exactly menacing as the baddie, but Connery is quite good giving an impression of a king who can't believe his luck, and Ormond and Gere have a certain chemistry as their affair blossoms. The ending isn't up to much, though - perhaps if the knights had spent less time in front of the mirror, they may have made for better soldiers - and I thought the whole thing missed the characterisation of Merlin (the most interesting character of these legends, I thought). The look of the film is mischievous, colourful and breezy, and it's a decent if slightly cheesy and unremarkable family film that does what it says on the tin.

**I really like this movie, but it's a terrible movie.** This film is, for me, particularly nostalgic because I really enjoyed watching it in my childhood and youth. It was one of those films that ... **I really like this movie, but it's a terrible movie.** This film is, for me, particularly nostalgic because I really enjoyed watching it in my childhood and youth. It was one of those films that marked my imagination about the Middle Ages, and how it could have been. Obviously, the way I see it has changed with maturity, and studies have allowed me to perceive the enormous anachronisms committed by this film, on several levels. However, like almost everything that brings us good childhood memories, it is a film that continues to be very dear to me. The screenplay does not deserve much consideration, being essentially a poor melodrama of questionable taste, created around the Arthurian legends. The legend, as we know, has a strong Frankish origin, and centers on a legendary king who ruled over Britannia, defending it from the Saxons, in a very early period of the High Middle Ages – yes, because the Middle Ages cannot be considered as a whole, it is practically a thousand years long and a lot has happened in that time. We see a Lady Guinevere enter into a marriage of political convenience with an aging King Arthur, at the height of his power and influence, even though threatened by the host of an enemy, Malagant. And we see how an arrogant young Lancelot pursues, and in effect harasses, the young queen, seducing her and causing her to fall in love with him. Despite the affection I have for this film, which brings me so many good memories, I recognize that it is a weak and poorly made film. The story itself that is told to us is quite ugly, being, in essence, a moral tale of seduction, betrayal, adultery and abuse of trust, where the only character worthy of our sympathy is old King Arthur, in his excess of goodness, sense of justice and righteousness. Even though he is an old man, he honors his word to his bride's father and marries her (obviously a woman much younger than he is) to protect her and her feudal lordship. Committed to building an ideal kingdom, he ostracizes Malagant, who disbelieves in the project due to his own ambition and cruelty, just as he cannot see how he opens himself up to Lancelot, a total stranger, creating conditions for Lancelot to abuse him and betray him, seducing the young and ungrateful queen. A very ugly story, but one of strong humanity, where we learn what happens when we are too good. Despite only appearing to us almost half an hour after the film has started, there is no doubt that Sean Connery is the great actor in this film. He was just the man to bestow strength and nobility on the old British sovereign. Moreover, his charismatic and aristocratic presence, and the impeccable way in which he acts and works his character, is reason enough to justify a revisit to this film, which has become quite popular on television. However, the rest of the cast is totally wrong. Either the actors weren't able to understand the characters, or (and I bet that was it) director Jerry Zucker was totally incapable of directing them and understanding how he should do it. Julia Ormond is very beautiful and elegant, but she doesn't seem to know what she's doing in this movie. Ben Cross is a shadow of himself and makes for an absurdly poorly written and poorly conceived character. Richard Gere is pompous, smug, braggart, irritating and perverse. Production values ​​are high, and the film looks expensive. The cinematography is incredible and very beautiful, especially the night scenes, with torchlight and fire. The sets and costumes are very detailed, elaborate and visually impressive. The weapons and armor of Arthur's knights, with the blue and silver, are beautiful, and Camelot is one of the most beautiful medieval scenic cities I've ever seen in a movie. The big problem with this is that we are seeing a blatant anachrony! If the film addresses the figure of King Arthur and that king existed sometime before the Year A Thousand, the city of Camelot would never have that elaborate visual aspect. Weapons and armor, likewise, would be much more primitive, simple and functional. It's all very nice, no doubt about it, but it's fake like the kiss of Judas! One more word for the soundtrack, which is a bit vulgar and dubious in taste, almost melodramatic.

Yeah, this is pretty bad. I saw one reviewer call the armor Arthur's side wears "something that comes out of Star Trek" and another call the bad guy's armor "leather ala Road Warrior," and both are... Yeah, this is pretty bad. I saw one reviewer call the armor Arthur's side wears "something that comes out of Star Trek" and another call the bad guy's armor "leather ala Road Warrior," and both are fairly accurate descriptions. Nothing really look period, it all looks a lot more sci-fi then medieval. And the casting too seems wrong, Gere was too old, and the age difference between Connery and Ormond was a little too vast be really believable in the context of the legends it's based on. Not to mention that Gere is a little too American. And then, moving on, there is a gauntlet that came straight out of American Ninja Warrior... or more apt for the time, American Gladiators, either way it did a great job of sucking even more believablity out of the film to the point where it really wouldn't shock you if you saw a robot or two and a couple of blasters. It didn't look right, it didn't feel right, and I guess, at some level, it might work as a romance... except it also lacked charisma so I'm not sure how appealing it is there either. It's kind of King Arthur if the legends personified everything bad about 1990s movies.