First Knight - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

First Knight Reviews

Page 1 of 149
½ March 25, 2018
You can't get passed the costumes which are too modern. There's nothing that feels medieval about this movie, it looked more like a show of self-imbued designers. I remember feeling ripped off exiting the theater after seeing this movie (I was an unconditional of Sean Connery before it)
½ November 15, 2017
Solid Athurian legend story with Lancelot as the central character played by Richard Gere. I always liked this movie. Part romance, part action, it does a really good job of creating the old knights and princesses world. Plus it has great sword fighting.
July 25, 2017
A very enjoyable little love story. Not brilliant, but worth watching. I liked it !
July 19, 2017
If you are a Sean Connery fan, this is one of his best performances. The musical score is fantastic.
July 9, 2017
Just of my favorite films... huge fan of Camelot films, plus Sean Connery is awesome in almost anything he does.
½ May 31, 2017
I saw it couple of years back and I saw it again yesterday. First time it was Ok movie but with getting maturity I really loved it. It had a magic in it specially superb performance by Julia ormond. I am not a fan of Richard and thought anyone else could have been a better choice but still he is good here. Sean connery was boring or say was just there for name sake . He did not help the movie at all. overall a good movie. A sweet romantic journey.
Super Reviewer
½ May 8, 2017
Arthurian lore is deep with fascinating mythology that has been explored many times in many different ways. First Knight uses that lore and twists it into a romantic drama of sorts, to mostly mixed results.

With the new King Arthur film just around the corner I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at some of the many adaptions of the lore that we have gotten in film and television. First Knight is an okay film if it were some random medieval story with different settings and characters, but it rarely lives up to the deep mythology it's based on.

In First Knight we find Lancelot, a wanderer who's struggling to find a place in the world for his skills with a sword and with women. After Guinevere, soon-to-be bride of King Arthur, is nearly kidnapped, Lancelot steps in and saves her life. Naturally, he falls in love with Guinevere, and there you have the central plot thread of the film. Richard Gere plays Lancelot about as well as you could imagine he would. It's a similar character to that of Sean Connery's James Bond from the 60's, mostly just showing off his looks and skills, rather than doing something of significance. Of course, I bring that up because Connery plays Arthur, albeit a much, much older King Arthur than we usually get, especially considering Guinevere is around 25 years younger.

A lot of the film's plot is pushed forward by the romance. Not dissimilar to Braveheart being centered around William Wallace's love for two women, First Knight is clearly a romance first and foremost. The main difference is that Braveheart chooses to have the romance inspire a remarkable story, where First Knight is solely focused on Lancelot's strive for Guinevere's heart. It's not necessarily the wrong way to tell a story with Lancelot & Arthur butting heads, but it's certainly not the most interesting one. It's hard not to fall for Richard Gere's charm as Lancelot and Julia Ormond's innocent and beautiful Guinevere, but it's far from a great medieval war film.

There really isn't much war to this film anyway. The main conflict comes by way of Prince Malagant, someone from Arthur's side who went Rogue for reasons that typically influence someone to go Rogue, power, greed, among other things. These battle sequences are trivial at best, even when they try to be big and bold. It all just seems silly in the end. I think to sum it up best is to say that King Arthur doesn't use his sword, not once.

+Solid romance

-But there's no reason to have that swallow the story


½ July 30, 2016
Personally I think this version of King Arthur story is a waste of Sean Connery' s real talent. But the soundtrack has to be one of the most classic!!
June 19, 2016
I love Sean Connery, and this is probably one of his best films, even though it's not a masterpiece.
December 17, 2015
Sean Connery... 'nuff said.
August 23, 2015
This is a very different take on King Arthur and his knights. First of all you should know that there is no magic, no Merlin, no Dragons or Holy Grail.
But what it does have is one of the better love triangles I've seen on film. It is between Arthur, Lancelot and Lady Guinevere. The drama starts with Lancelot. This iteration of his is very different; he is not very noble or holy at all, he's more of a Han Solo type. Moving from town to town with no care in the world, but he falls for Guinevere who has been promised to Arthur. Unlike Twilight or other crap teen romance films, Guinevere is very much her own person. While she does have to be rescued a couple times, she does quite a bit for herself. These people are conflicted between their love, honor, beliefs, their will etc.

While all of this is going on, a rather generic villain is making a fuss of things, burning the countryside and such. But with him comes the conflict of ideals (every man for himself vs brotherhood) and weather Lancelot realizes it or not, he is part of the villains ideology. And that's what this film is about, conflicts between love and ideology. But it's done in a subtle way that's not hitting you over the head with it.

The acting is very solid, but to a modern audience, it can come off as tacky. It's more inspired by theater and as such they all do a great job.

It's fun for the entire family. Check it out.
April 24, 2015
Gere as Lancelot,what they couldn't get Bobcat Goldthwait for King Arthur?
½ March 28, 2015
As a great fan of Arthurian legend, this is a bit disappointing. However, taken on its own, as just a portion of the story, it is somewhat satisfying. This focuses more on Lancelot than Arthur (as the title suggests), and plays a bit loosely with the legend. Very good acting by the principals. My issue is the cavalier manner in which Gere portrays Lancelot. A bit too laid-back and carefree. Still pretty good.
January 17, 2015
Headlined by Richard Gere and Sean Connery, First Knight sounded like a hopeful adventure film.

The story of King Arthur is one that I've seen in many variations of with the best being in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, though that was because it was for comedic value. But when it came down to First Knight, I didn't really care too much about the story. I just wanted a solid medieval action film that wasn't too derivative. The key difference between First Knight and many other tales of the Arthurian legend is the fact that this time the story strips away the tales of magic and sorcery to emphasise the humanity and conflict in it all. This doesn't make its story great, but it makes it different in certain ways.
While First Knight manages to put some effort into characterizing King Arthur, the problem is that the hero of the story is actually Lancelot and the treatment that the story gives to him is slim. He is reduced to being just another star vehicle character for Richard Gere who fits the role without having all that much to work with. Overall, the feature is mostly slim on characterization and practically any story elements regarding characters instead of the bigger picture are little more than melodramatic cliches which are nothing but hollow. First Knight is not a deep film, but there are times where it unnecesarrily tries to be and it fails to be of any benefit to the story or the characters because in the end, it is really all about the spectacle instead of the characters or the narrative. Considering that the film is strictly visual and tries to milk that for 134 minutes without originality, it only really has the power to succeed as a guilty pleasure, yet it takes itself very seriously which may get in the way of that being a potential result for viewers.
While I don't really mind the the story, the problem I find with First Knight is the general tonal issues. When I say that, I mean that the look of the film fails to match the feel of it. Despite the fact that the action in the film wants to be dark and gritty, the film gets too caught up in being a big budget adventure type film to grasp the right atmosphere. The musical score by Jerry Goldsmith is one of the selling points for this because it is lighthearted in nature and fails to match the intended harsh reality of the story. The tone of the film goes along the lines of Kevin Reynolds' Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in the sense that it is light and seems like a commercial adventure tale, but the fact is that First Knight had the potential to be a lot more because of the fact that it had more style and a more direct approach to the harsh reality of the violence that is medieval history. There are some moments where the atmosphere is grasped thanks to the musical score having some brief moments, but the majority of the time it fails to match the aesthetic aspects of the film. Still, the musical score in the film is well composed and the visual elements of First Knight are very satisfying.
While the lighting may occasionally be a bit dark, First Knight benefits from some solid scenery and production design which establishes the timeframe of the story and setting with ease. While the cinematography is of mixed quality because it occasionally films things well for long periods of time and at others is a bit shaky or edited somewhat quickly, the majority of the film is captured well. First Knight doesn't precisely grasp a large scale like it wants to, but the budget is in the correct place. The main thing I wanted out of First Knight was some good action scenes. While they weren't exactly gritty enough to be as dark as the film could have been or didn't follow an adventurous style like the general mood of First Knight did at times, the action in the film is mostly choreographed well and serves as the most entertaining aspect of the feature.
And the cast of First Knight add a decent touch to the film.
Richard Gere is a decent lead. Although the slim characterization of Lancelot leaves him with little to work with, his handsome charm and physical capabilites make him a decent lead. The film is more of a vehicle for him than anything and it doesn't demand his best abilities as an actor, but he engages in solid swordplay in the film. Richard Gere grasps his weapon with confidence in First Knight and engages in battle fearlessly, as well as the fact that he maintains his standard charming demeanour with the other characters.
Sean Connery's performance is a very welcome aspect of First Knight. Taking on the role of King Arthur, Sean Connery makes an easy fit for the role because of his natural sense of charm and sophistication. He stands with a confident stature in the role and delivers his lines with gusto which makes him the finest cast member of the film. There are some moments in First Knight that demand him to step up and deliver some true dramatic strength, and he manages to do that without problem. He easily fits the profile of the part in the physical sense alone, but he manages to actually bring a sense of honour and spirit to the character. With Sean Connery's Academy Award winning talents on board, director Jerry Zucker can walk away from First Knight knowing that he managed to create at least one strong character for First Knight thanks to Sean Connery who interacts with the universe of the film wihthout problem.

So there is good production values, decent action scenes and a strong performance from Sean Connery to boot in First Knight. But the tonal inconsistencies and lack of originality blunt it over the course of its long running time.
Super Reviewer
January 2, 2015
Nice adventure / action movie with Richard Gere. Some romance/drama here aswell and its much like Kevin Costner's Robin Hood kinda. Well made and great actors. Story is decent.
½ December 24, 2014
While not the most historically accurate film, First Knight still makes for an entertaining modern update to the King Arthur tales.
½ December 24, 2014
Diese romantische Version der Artus Saga von Jerry Zucker, ist nicht unbedingt erfolgreich geworden. Denn die Liebesszenen werden langsam nervig und es geht nicht voran. Auch die Schauspieler mühen sich einen ab, dass die Geschichte klein wenig dramatisch wird. Aber auch dies kommt nicht wirklich rüber. Sicher spielen Connery, Gere und Ormond gut, und auch Cross hat seine Präsenz. Aber es lässt einem mit der Zeit kalt, weil es einem nicht mitnimmt.
Fazit: Gute Darsteller in einem oberflächlichen Film, der mit angezogener Handbremse läuft!
November 28, 2014
Gere is wholly unconvincing, but Connery is a great Arthur
November 2, 2014
great movie to watch
Page 1 of 149