Lancelot falls in love with Guinevere, who is due to be married to King Arthur. Meanwhile, a violent warlord tries to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.Lancelot falls in love with Guinevere, who is due to be married to King Arthur. Meanwhile, a violent warlord tries to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.Lancelot falls in love with Guinevere, who is due to be married to King Arthur. Meanwhile, a violent warlord tries to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
Featured reviews
Richard Gere should play detectives or cowboys but not Knights.This is the worst King Arthur movie i have seen in my life.He really is too American and besides the whole story is just bad.Before and after have been much better movies telling movies about King Arthur,Beides there should be less of an age gap between King Arthur and Lancelot.This movie is like a meal at McDonalds it feeds you but its not a good meal.
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.
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.
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...
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...
I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the old, medieval tellings of the legend, as well as researching the 'real' Arthur (who existed pre-medieval, around the 6th or 7th century) and I enjoyed this interpretation. The only really bad thing that stuck out was the costumes. Many were not historically accurate. In particular, the costumes of the knights were terrible! Same with the construction of the round table room. It looked like something out of Star Trek.
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 !
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 !
Did you know
- TriviaUnlike many of the previous Arthurian films that drew to greater or lesser extent from Sir Thomas Malory's (1415-1471) "Le Morte d'Arthur," this film clearly drew from the romances written by French poet Chrétien de Troyes (1130-1191), who actually invented the character of Lancelot.
- GoofsWhen Prince Malagant lays his sword on the round table, he doesn't pick it up when he leaves. That was intentional, a sign of his resignation.
- Quotes
King Arthur: May God grant us the wisdom to discover right, the will to choose it, and the strength to make it endure.
- How long is First Knight?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Hiệp Sĩ Thứ Nhất
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $55,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $37,600,435
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $10,856,442
- Jul 9, 1995
- Gross worldwide
- $127,600,435
- Runtime
- 2h 14m(134 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content