Thanks for checking out our Forgotten Fridays feature. This is something we want to try out to review some older films that maybe you have forgotten about or maybe never got around to seeing that we just want to share.
Today’s review is First Knight
THE GENERAL IDEA
At long last, the wars were over. Arthur, the great King of Camelot, had devoted his life to building a land of peace and justice. Now he wished to marry. But peace was not to last. The most powerful of Arthur’s knights, the self titled Prince Malagant, had long been jealous of the King’s glory. Now he found cause to quarrel with Arthur and left Camelot with hatred in his heart. And so the land was divided again, between those who rallied to Prince Malagant, seeking the spoils of war, and those who stayed loyal to the King.
And then there was Lancelot, a wanderer who had never dreamed of peace of Justice or Knighthood. Times were hard. A man made his living any way he could. And Lancelot had always been good with a sword. He was a fearless simple man who would compete for money and offer swordplay as entertainment.
Lancelot’s wandering path crosses with Guinevere who’s caravan is ambushed by Prince Malagant on her way to meet her fiance King Arthur.
THE GOOD
Lets just start with the cast. Was there ever a presence that deserved the title of King more than Sean Connery. His every word sounds like nobility and the strength of his voice deserves it. And this is no exception. Connery DEMANDS his presence and is every bit as fitting a King as the character deserves in this. When he speaks of bravery and brotherhood, you feel his sincerety, and when he speaks angry you shrink an inch.
And Richard Gere plays the carefree swordsman so charmingly that all women want him and every man wants to be him. It is no wonder that Guinevere is taken by him. He may come across as a brigand, but he has a code of honour that gives him the heart of a knight even if he doesn’t know it yet.
And Guinevere herself played by Julia Ormond is absolutely captivating. A beautiful woman who’s presence is approachable yet noble. When Lancelot denies his reward of a kiss from the Queen-to-be at the court festival he says it all when he announces, “I dare not kiss so lovely a lady. I have only one heart to lose” And this film made me crave to see Julia Ormond on screen again.
And lastly Prince Malagant. Pure tyrannical meglomaniac. Still ever jealous of Arthur, even with his own followers who fear him but do not respect him. He has an air of royalty but the castle ruins that make his headquarters represent the bleak comparisons of what he has and what he covets.
And then lets address the genre. This movie illustrates exactly how romance within an action adventure. Prince Malagant’s conflict is what draws all the players together but the romance is the subtle glue that binds it all into meaning. Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of romance, but it all works.
The action is great and believable and there is a LOT of it. When there is no action, there is enough character interaction to make it worth while to wait. The drama is hearty despite the light adventure feel the movie has.
THE BAD
Malagant’s jealousy is obvious and plays perfectly to his character but they were never quite clear on what brought him “to quarrel” with Arthur. It seems he wanted more which Arthur wouldn’t give him. But its never quite clear HOW Malagant become unworthy of his seat at the Round Table. We just have to accept that he exiled himself.
OVERALL
A fantastic adventure of King Arthur and Guinevere, and the Love Triangle of Lancelot, with enough gushy lovey stuff to make the passion of the action truely majestic. Everything matters. There is no fluff in this film.
Typically this is where we would write a “Out of 10″ rating, but since all of these Forgotten Friday reviews are going to be what I would already give a high rating to, I have made my own rating system.
TV – Make a point of watching it if you see it listed on TV.
Rent – Good enough to go out of your way to see it, but not enough to buy it.
Buy – So good. You will watch it again and again. Buy it!
So on a scale of TV, Rent or Buy I suggest BUY!
Ugh. Its a good review and I see where you’re coming from, but all I can ever see in this movie is derivative, corny, safe, middle of the road pap.
Whenever I see it on tv it reminds me of everything I hated in many mid 90s mainstream movies. Bright, energetic diversions with big name casting, but completely dull and unwatchable.
Oh, and the comparison with Sword and Stone is fair. Both adress different aspects of the same legend.
Likening it to comparing Airforce One to Airplane is as silly as comparing Herbie Fully Loaded and Death Race 2000 because they both have cars in them.
Cool idea about reviewing old flix. I think First Knight is an ok flix, definitely elevated by the presence of Sean Connery. I like Julia Ormond, she’s an underrated actress who could’ve been more famous than she is. The biggest problem I have with this one is Richard Gere. I’m not saying he’s not a good actor, he just seems ill-fitted as a British Knight. Not as bad as Costner as Robin Hood, though.
You can compare whatever you’d like, saying that they’re BOTH MOVIES following the SAME story line. From what it sounds like, First Knight doesn’t have that much action in it. IT SHOULD to some, if it’s about what, well, it’s about. Sword in the Stone is better to whoever because it delivered more out of the story it’s following than the other one did.
Rodney, you forget that you have no RIGHT to tell people what they can and cannot compare with ANYTHING. GRow up, quit arguing against people’s opinions and thoughts and leave it be man.
Sir Connery was good as Arthur and Julia Ormond is a goregous creature, but I found the movie pales in comparison to Excalibur. It was an OK movie, but as far as King Arthur stories go, Excalibur rules and has not been topped yet. For some reason I just wasn’t buying Gere as Lancelot. He is a very good actor, but his performance just didn’t do it for me. Like I said, not terrible, but not all that good either.
Julia Ormand was incredibly beautiful in this film. Even with little Dick Gere, I enjoyed this and Sir Sean. One of the best things I remember was during the shoot….little Dick was hit in the face with a sword and required for him to take several weeks off! Good pick!
I wont say First Knight is a forgotten film, its still a good movie you can find everywhere.
This was my least favorite of all the King Arthur movies I have watched over the years. The reason I say this…. It was clear they thought casting choice would override any deficiencies in a mediocre plot, well they were wrong. Instead of putting forth an incredible script, they cast this dream team of Sean Connery and Richard Gere who were immensely popular at the time. This movie just doesnt deliver for me.
I was a much bigger fan of Excalibur (1981) starring Nigel Terry.
There’s a reason this film is forgotten.
It’s absolutely terrible. Give me Excalibiur anyday over this.
And comparing this to sword and the stone is a much more valid comparison then airplane is to air force one.
at least they are taken from the same myth that involves some of the same characters.
Just sayin’
Anyway…
Is it possible to love First Knight and King Arthur yes it is. I’m sure there might be even some who also adore John Boorman’s Excalibur as well.
When the film first came out back in the early 90’s, I was skeptical of Richard Gere as Lancelot. I also thought it was a bold move on the filmmaker’s part to exclude Merlin. Merlin could have been re-interpeted as slight of hand magician or “spiritual advisor” to King Arthur. But that famous Arthurian legend does not even get an honorable mention.
I can understand why for the sake of the storytelling. It makes the film “less mystical”, unlike the Boorman film from 1981. So right from the start it separates itself and gives a fresh spin on the legend. In a way, with the possible exception of one scene (the “dungeon rescue” was a bit too much ‘Raiders Of The Lost Ark’ for me) the entire film takes the legend and gives it something of a grounding in reality.
Without Merlin, there is no Morgan Le Fay, so a new villain has to be created. So here is Malagant, who has been at conflict with Arthur for some while. His troops attack and plunder various villages, and stop any region to make alliances with Camelot.
The reason for Malagant’s dismissal from Camelot is indeed never given. That’s not a big an issue with me; I never had trouble with it. Consider: Malagant didn’t “believe” in the idea of Camelot, not when it comes to matters of faith, pride and the spirit of it. In fact, I read Malagant as more of a metaphoric like character. We seen the glory of Camelot; we get to Malagant’s castle, it’s hell, complete with a bottomless pit. Lucifer was thrown out of Heaven (and King Arthur is seen praying) Malagant is thrown out of Camelot. When Arthur’s jealousy overtakes him, he unwittingly leaves Camelot open to attack.
Sorry to go all “Film Comment” on the int’l friends here. That may or may not have been the intention; but some of the best things about films is that every now and then they leave doors open for interpretation.
The battle scenes and action are just enough to get the blood pumping; furthermore, there is reason and motivation behind it. The romance part of the film is also worthy of attention. It is one of two films of the early 90’s that had a nice blend of action, adventure, story and storybook romance (the other being 1992’s The Last Of The Mohicans). In other words, there’s something for everyone.
In defense of Richard Gere as Lancelot, the character, as written, starts out as an outsider looking in. He does well for himself, but he lacks purpose. A solo rescue is one thing; notice as a knight on a battlefield he is still trying to find his worth. He also concludes that “Camelot” is worth saving, he’s befriended the King and the Knights. They have treated him as an equal. He is no longer living for self. Due to his feelings for Guinevere, he considers leaving all that he has fallen in love with.
That’s one heck of a fleshed out character arc. Gere was also a surprise in it. It’s an odd thing, Richard Gere isn’t one of my favorite actors, but with a one exception, (King David) I can’t honestly say I despised any films he has been in. To me, he’s kind of in same ballpark as Kurt Russell or Patrick Swayze as an actor. He’ll be in some good films, or be good in bad ones. He’ll be under the radar, until he nabs a Pretty Woman or Chicago.
Yes, I will concede that his casting in First Knight was odd, but he’s a lot better than, say, Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (and Sir Connery had a cameo at the end of that as King Arthur!).
Guinevere- y’know, It was great seeing Julia Ormond again in last year’s Benjamin Button, but since we were really first introduced to the actress in Knight, it’s a shame she hasn’t done a lot more. (Yeah, I know. Sabrina), She’s still beautiful, and with curves. She is perfect in Knight. Flawless. No wonder why two guys are fighting for her attention in the film. And respect.
On a related note, I equally loved Antiqe Faqua’s “King Artur” (2003) which gave the twist (and early speculation) that the legends of the Round Table were based from Roman times. I also enjoyed that film, in spite of the fact that, set in a different time with different actors, “Tears Of The Sun” shared many plot points.
I’m a little surprised that a slight debate on comparing an apple to an orange in the guise of an animated film as opposed to a live action one, and in a different genre. I suspect if it continues…it would not shock me if Rodney or John put up a post regarding such a crazy debate.
Oops. Lookit that!
CONGRATS to all who have made it this far!
On to the next chapter!
“it would not shock me if Rodney or John put up a post regarding such a crazy debate.”
I really hope not. I really don’t feel like continuing to argue that neither Matt S. or I were trying to compare animated to live action. A simple statement of preference does not mean that we are comparing the two, it is stating which we enjoyed more. Deciding that we prefer animated movies based off the same mythos over some live action movies also based on the same mythos does not mean we are trying to compare the two. That is called jumping to conclusions that do not exist.
And Matt S., if I misrepresent you in any way, feel free to correct me.
“Yes, I will concede that his casting in First Knight was odd, but he’s a lot better than, say, Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (and Sir Connery had a cameo at the end of that as King Arthur!).”
Connery didn’t play King Arthur in Prince of Thieves, he played King Richard the Lionheart.
FYI Rodney,
Malagant became unworthy of his seat at the Round Table because he abducted Guinevere.
FYI Sarah, Malagant had already rebelled against Arthur, Formed his own army, rallied his own kingdom and fake title, and ruled over lands of his own BEFORE he abducted Guinevere.
Watch the movie please.
My main problem with this film is Gere. I can’t stand him and cannot believe that any woman would prefer him to the original James fucking Bond, The Man Who Would be Fucking King, the Guy Who Commands the Fucking Red October, (ok you get me)
I saw this in class in high school. It was alright, nothing special.
Nah disagree this movie was horrible. Only shining moment in this movie was Connery. Im a huge King Arthur legend fan and if im gonna watch a movie about this story it would have to be Excalibur.
Wow! That’s creepy, John- I was just recommending this to my girlfriend last night!
What’s more creepy is that it wasn’t John who wrote the post.
Okay, that’s not creepy enough.
Oh wait! I know!
The Seeler’s “5th suggestion”…
This isnt forgotten…this movies pretty known…ive watched it a lot…i thought everyone knew about this movie
I guess I may be in the minority here, but I thought this film was horrible. Gere was not convincingly dramatic here, but melodramtic, over-the-top – and dare I say just plain bad? Yeah – I’ll say it – he was terribly miscast and horriblwe in this film.
Ormond is beautiful, and nice to llok at … but she is a fair actress at best, and was clearly overmatched in scenes with Connery.
Finally, the one reason you find fault with the film is THE reason why this film fails. The conflict and jealousy never explained, makes this wholly painful to watch.
‘Tis just awful.
I know I didnt forget about this one… good review.
I used to love First Knight when I was little, but I watched it about a year ago and was really let down. I didn’t think it was even a good movie anymore, yeah the cast is pretty awesome, but the story (esspecially the dialogue) is not very good, and even downright bad at times, in my opinion. Too bad, really.
My favorite Arthurian adventure movie, that I can think of, is Walt Disney’s animated “The Sword and the Stone”. That movie kicks all sorts of ass!
Ya, I grew up on Sword in the Stone, it is pretty awesome. Just like Disney’s animated Robin Hood is one of the best Robin Hood movies!
You cant compare a silly animated flick with a dramatic film. The two hold no similarities at all outside the legends they are based on.
That being said, I love the films you both mentioned but you cannot compare them to live action dramatic versions on the same scale.
I honestly don’t see why there would be a problem with a person preferring a cartoon over the movie. Film is subjective, and therefore a person can say they like one over the other. How can somebody be “wrong” for thinking their favorite of a story is a cartoon adaptation.
I wasn’t really trying to compare the two, just wanted to say that I no longer care for First Knight, then, seperately, give a shoutout to “Sword and the Stone”.
I find it interesting that you claim the need to compare live action and animated films on a different scale. I, personally, have trouble comparing animated films to live action, but am intrigued to hear it from a site that regularly campaigns for PIXAR films to win “Best Picture”. Are you claiming that all animated films are incomparable to live action, or just specifically “The Sword and the Stone” to “First Knight”?
You can prefer a cartoon all you want. But to compare the two makes no sense as they have totally separate intentions, market to completely different audiences, and at best have a loose connection of story.
Its like saying I prefer Airplane: The Movie to Air Force One. Two completely different movies for a dozen different reasons, but they both have airplanes so that should matter right?
Nothing wrong with disliking this film, and nothing wrong with liking the animated film, but they cannot be ranked side by side. The very subjectivity of preference beats out any logic in comparing them every time.
And to answer your question about not caring if a movie is animated that it cannot be considered a “best film” is besides the point. My reference is specifically that the comparison was made to say which is the better “King Arthur” movie. Comparing the two would specifically would be pointless. Every reason you could give as to one being better than the other is purely the genre. The cartoon was silly and you liked that, but First Knight wasn’t silly. Is that a fault or benefit for either film? No.
I’m sorry Rodney, comparing Airplane to Air Force One is just a horrible example to try to use in making a point. Sharing the same mythos is entirely different that comparing two similar objects in a movie.
Not to mention that there were no comparisons made in either Matt S.’s or my post. We just stated that of those movies that deal with the same mythos, we like the cartoons. There is nothing implied by this to even showing we are trying to compare anything than what we like.
If I was given the choice to watch a movie based off of Arthurian legends and the two choices were Sword in the Stone or First Knight, I’d pick Sword in the Stone because I enjoy it more. End of story, not even comparing it.
If I was going to watch a Robin Hood movie, I’d probably pick the cartoon or Men in Tights… not comparing, just picking a preference.
I mean hell, you might as well be upset with my preference of King Arthur over First Knight as well under your standards, as they are both entirely different movies also based on the same mythos.
The Airplane and AirForce One comparisons are valid. They both revolve around the storyline of a tragic circumstance on a plane.
And yet the two cannot be compared.
To be more accurate, its like saying I prefer to Travel north/south which is irrelevant if someone is talking about traveling east/west. Its all about purpose and intention. Nothing specific about the direction.
I still find the comparison still quite weak. Sword In the Stone, King Arthur, First Knight… all deal with King Arthur. Robin Hood Men In Tights, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, Animated Robin Hood… all deal with Robin Hood. Airplane and Air Force One… similar plot structure in the vaguest of sense, have airplanes, have pilots, and so on and so forth. You can name off all the similarities you want between Airplane and Air Force One, that does not mean the similarities are anything valid to compare to the fact that these other movies share the same mythos and characters.
Now if Ariplane, Air Force One, and say Passenger 57, just to make it three movies, all shared the same mythos of the same terrorist group taking the same plane with same character’s… then sure you could compare that two relation of different Robing Hood movies and Arthurian legend movies… but as is, id does not make any sense.
But you can compare King Arthur and First Knight if you want. They are both action adventure drama type movies.
What you are asking me to do is compare GENRES against each other because they all draw inspiration from the same legend. That is where the comparisons end.
Its like comparing a comedy, to a documentary, to a drama, to a children’s animated feature, to a horror. They all have their purpose and as that type of film they can have qualities for THAT GENRE, but to say a horror film based on a nursery rhyme is “better” than a Disney animated film based on a nusery rhyme.
Actually, as already state we never asked you to compare anything, you chose to do that on your own. We just stated what we liked. And I found the animated version of these mythos to have action and adventure. In fact, of the Robin Hood’s.. they are all very similar if you really feel the necessity to draw on comparisons. Far more, in fact, similar to each other than your Airplane/Air Force One comparison.
I much prefer King Arthur if I am going to watch an Arthurian legends movie. I could never get into Richard Gere as Lancelot. However, the overall story telling was quite entertaining, which makes the movie watchable… not to mention Sean “Fucking” Connery as Arthur! I’d like to see a similar story told to that of First Knight done as a sequel to King Arthur; though, it’s been a while since I have seen King Arthur and can’t remember if that telling of the story had Lancelot die which would make a sequel about the betrayals difficult.
Lancelot died in King Arthur.
Lame nuts. Then in a sequel his zombie could come back and steal Guinevere away from Arthur!