SYNOPSICS
First Knight (1995) is a English movie. Jerry Zucker has directed this movie. Sean Connery,Richard Gere,Julia Ormond,Ben Cross are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1995. First Knight (1995) is considered one of the best Action,Adventure,Drama,Romance movie in India and around the world.
After King Arthur of Camelot has fought several wars which has led to peace and justice for his land, he is turning his attention to thoughts of marriage, his chosen one being Lady Guinevere, who has become head of neighboring Leonesse following the death of her father. Peace and justice for Arthur and Guinevere are short lived as Prince Malagant, one of the knights of the round table, wants Camelot for himself and King Arthur deposed. Many in the land follow Malagant, whose quest also involves marauding Leonesse. As the King's betrothed, Guinevere becomes Malagant's target in achieving both of his goals. Meanwhile, Lancelot is a free-living peasant who often makes his way through life by demonstrations of his sword fighting prowess. His skill is largely due to his ability to assess his opponents, and not fear dying. On Malagant's first attempt at abducting Guinevere, Lancelot, by happenstance, is there to save her. He falls in love with her at first sight. Although attracted to the ...
More
First Knight (1995) Reviews
Exciting medieval story that deals with a love triangle between legendary characters as Lancelot , Guinevere and Arthur
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 .
The Best Kind Of "Popcorn Movie"!
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!)
Interesting Adaptation
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.
Brother To Brother
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.
A Wonderful, well-acted and produced escapist story
I have watched this movie countless times over the years and it never fails to impress. Unlike lwjoslin, I don't purport myself as a historian. But then, the story of Camelot, King Arthur, Guinevere, and the rest are NOT historical figures in any true sense. They are all fictional characters in a fictional setting. So why write such a derisive review? To me, it seems clear that the reviewer is incapable of simply viewing this as pure escapist fare. He (or she, but I doubt it) most highly thinks very highly of himself. I hope that people were not put off by his diatribe. He, and those who may be influenced by his critique, need to remember that the entire story is fiction. It is not based, in any way, on historical fact. To make the comments he did, he must have forgotten that simple idea. It is fiction, and the story has simply been embellished in a new way. For me, this was a wonderful story of a wonderful time. It is a story which has been told many times on film within the past century, and has almost always been presented as a tragic event in an otherwise idyllic time. Why does he insist on tarnishing this telling by citing irrelevant facts? Do not be influenced by his trash. This is simply a wonderful, new twist on an old story, and it's very well done. Enjoy!