Review: First Knight

Set to be married to King Arthur of Camelot (Sean Connery), Lady Guinevere (Julia Ormond) has her carriage attacked in a plot by Prince Malagant (Ben Cross), a former Knight of Arthur’s Round Table who is attempting to oust Arthur from the throne and take his place. Guinevere is rescued by a roving mercenary named Lancelot (Richard Gere). Although she is fond of Arthur, Guinevere is mostly marrying him out of loyalty and security, and there’s an immediate romantic spark between Guinevere and this rootless wanderer Lancelot. Accompanying Guinevere to Camelot, he meets Arthur who in gratitude shows him around Camelot, and eventually asks him to join the Knights of the Round Table. Meanwhile, the attraction between Lancelot and Guinevere only grows stronger which can only lead to trouble, whilst Malagant is plotting and scheming for an attack.

This Jerry Zucker (one third of the team behind the comedic classics “Flying High! [Airplane!]” and “The Naked Gun!”) flick from 1995 has some obvious flaws, but I’ll always have a soft spot for it because I think it at the very least presents a view of the Arthurian Legend that is mostly in-keeping with how I like it. No doomy and gloomy sex romp like “Excalibur”, and no cockney boofheads like in the later “King Arthur”. This is a light romantic adventure, and fairly solid for it.

First though, let’s talk about how much I loathe Richard Gere. Cast as Lancelot, Gere and his patented insufferable smug smile grate from the opening scene (It’s almost as annoying as Jennifer Aniston’s Rachel mannerisms and voice that she brings to every role). With his too modern-sounding American accent to boot, he’s badly miscast in a period/fantasy setting. That’s a shame because as scripted by William Nicholson (“Gladiator”, “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”, “Everest”- the latter two being very underrated films), this for me is the screen’s best interpretation of the Lancelot character. This guy probably means well, and when he meets Arthur and is accepted into the fold by him, he wants to be loyal, but…Love. Feelings. Boobies. He’s a man after all. You get the feeling that this is a guy who after years of being a rootless wanderer without much purpose or place in life, finds something in Camelot, but he also has feelings he can’t repress. That is all due to the screenplay however, as Gere just isn’t a comfortable fit here at all. I don’t know if he was busy cobbling at the time, but imagine Daniel Day-Lewis in the role, he would’ve been perfect. I would have to imagine Julia Ormond would’ve had an easier time with Day-Lewis than with Gere, since it’s probably hard to enact romantic scenes with a guy who only has eyes (and a smug smile) for himself.

I also have to say that Ben Cross’ Prince Malagant, is not a particularly memorable villain, nor one befitting a King Arthur film. Also, what’s up with Malagant being both a Prince and a Knight? That’s weird. Ben Cross is a capable actor who gives an OK performance, but is utterly lacking in menace or scenery-chewing panache, either of which would’ve helped considerably. In fact, I kept waiting for Malagant’s lord and master to turn up. Nope, this guy’s the villain, and he’s just not impressive enough. He’s also not in the film enough, which is a shame especially considering it’s far from a brief film. So that’s a disappointment, though interestingly enough the film still manages to mostly work despite these two major flaws. One of the chief reasons for this is the characterisation of Guinevere, enacted by a sorely underrated Julia Ormond. When I first saw this film at age 14-15 I thought she was destined for stardom after this. It didn’t happen (and she seems to be spending more time off-screen fighting the evil of human trafficking, so good for her on that), and I don’t think the romantic flop remake “Sabrina” was the reason for it. Sometimes it just doesn’t quite work out. Nicholson has scripted a Guinevere who is both feminine, strong-willed, and a bit of a tomboy without overdoing it into corny cliché. Ormond is simply radiant, classy, and just a touch modern enough that she doesn’t give off passive ‘trophy wife’ vibes. You get the impression that should anything happen to Arthur, she could easily take over. As for the love triangle, for me this is the best interpretation of it. Nicholson makes sure that the intentions of Lancelot and especially Guinevere are as honourable as possible under the circumstances. She isn’t married to Arthur when she meets Lancelot and there’s an immediate attraction. Lancelot doesn’t even know about Arthur when he first falls for Guinevere. He probably cares a bit less about it than does Guinevere, but when he does meet Arthur…he can’t help but feel some guilt. Meanwhile, Ormond probably has better romantic chemistry with Gere than Sean Connery’s Arthur, but given the circumstances, that’s probably as it should be, even with Gere seeming miscast to me.

Sean Connery isn’t my favourite King Arthur, that’d be Graham Chapman in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (I’m not kidding, either). However, Connery is easily a very close second. Whether Connery was too old for the part at the time or not, he’s pretty close to what I’d imagine Arthur to be. Connery (in a rock-solid performance) gives us an Arthur who is so good and noble that it’s easy to see why Guinevere is so reluctant to leave him, despite an obvious attraction to Lancelot. Look out for one of Sir John Gielgud’s several ‘farewell’ performances in a cameo as a trusted advisor to Guinevere. It’s not a great role, but it’s still Sir John Gielgud doing a classy job. No one’s gonna gripe about one of the all-time greats appearing in a film, are they? Also, “Game of Thrones” fans may not be prepared for the sight of a young-ish Liam Cunningham with a full head of hair. I’m still trying to deal with it myself. I also wasn’t able to take to what looked to be the most plastic-looking shoulder guards I’ve ever seen. It’s almost enough to have me wishing for the far too shimmery-looking armour in the very gauzy “Excalibur”. Veteran composer Jerry Goldsmith (“The Blue Max”, “A Patch of Blue”, “The Omen”, “Gremlins”) doesn’t contribute one of his best scores here, but his work is still OK.

This is not a great film, and Zucker is clearly no great director (his best film to date is probably “Ghost”). He does however get off one great shot of Arthur literally seeing fire in his eyes before it dissolves into a shot of the round table. That was choice. Otherwise, he’s very workman-like, and that’s OK I suppose. As much as I love “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (and it’s surprisingly not bad as an Arthurian tale, for all of its irreverence), the perfect Arthurian film has yet to be made in my eyes. The film is too long, there’s no mention of Merlin (among others), has a barely serviceable villain and a miscast Richard Gere. It’s a solid film, as the basic story elements are pretty well-handled and it definitely gets the tone right. Still, a more compelling villain, the inclusion of Merlin, and no Richard Gere would’ve made this pretty terrific. Julia Ormond is incandescent, it’s such a shame her flame blew out so quickly, big-screen career-wise.

Rating: B-