Cheap First Knight (DVD) (Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julia Ormond) (Jerry Zucker) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of First Knight

About Last Knight
After viewing "first night" I spent a great deal of time wondering just why they bothered to imply this story had anything to do with the King Arthur legends. Change the names of the three main characters and you have a generic and very bland fantasy story. The tale of Camelot has been retold countless time over countless generations and I am not complaining about the fact that the story was altered. What I am complaining about is the fact that the story itself was so blatantly disregarded. A new villainous character Malagant is introduced for no good reason, there are more than enough bad guys in the Arthurian legends without having to create a new one. I suppose that by creating a new character they writers were able to avoid having to think about motive or character development. Conspicuous by their absence are the likes of Sir Galahad, Morgan le Fay, the Holy Grail, Merlin, Excalibur, Percival, Mordred and dozens of other interesting and supporting characters.

Sean Connery makes for a great Arthur but one wasted here. I very much enjoyed the idea of Arthur as an old man who is tired of war and conquest who wants to settle down with a beautiful wife in the city he built. Unfortunately Connery is given so little to do in this movie, largely he stands around looking either worried or regal.

The villainous Malagant (Ben Cross) is simply evil in the worst sort of melodramatic way, he kills innocent women and children for his amusement, he dresses in black, he has an evil laugh, and his castle is even twisted and ugly. There is no real reason for him to act the way he does he is just there to give Lancelot something to fight.

I am not now and most likely never will be a fan of Richard Gere. His Lancelot is one of the least memorable performances of that role I can recall. There is no reason to like or sympathize with Lancelot. I am at a loss to understand why Guinevere (Julia Ormond) falls in love with him. To her credit Ormond does a good job at portraying a woman torn between two very different men. Unfortunately the movie itself robs Guinevere of ever having to make a choice between Arthur and Lancelot, Arthur conveniently dies and Lancelot is declared the defacto new king.

The movie itself looks spectacular but the writing and the casting of Gere leaves it lacking terribly.

A good love story...
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.