First Knight

The three leads make a decent fist of it, but they're somewhat let down by a script that fails to sparkle and a less-than-perfect balance of action and emotion. Read full review

Aside from Gere, First Knight acquits itself honorably enough. Read full review

This expensive, star-heavy retake on the Arthurian legend works well enough as Hollywood Gothic hokum: Connery is his usual reliable self as the renowned first among equals; Ormond is quite excellent as a thoroughly modern maiden torn between love and duty; and Gere's fearless Lancelot may be about as medieval as a roller disco but still has charm and athleticism (less Lancelot du Lac than Lancelot du Lacquer). Read full review

The movie is entertaining enough in its own way, and Sean Connery makes a splendid King Arthur, but compared with the earlier films this one seems thin and unconvincing. Read full review

Sean Connery is perfect for the King Arthur role. Too bad he isn't given more to do than stand around looking regal. Read full review

The great Cornish king becomes merely a corny one as the tale devolves into a compromise between the principles of Camelot and of Hollywood. Read full review

Excali-BORE, Gere as Lancelot lost-a-lot; inaccurate. Read full review

First Knight lurches between swashbuckling spectacular and Idyll soap opera. There's swordplay to the hilt, but the story itself never quite gets in Gere. Read full review

First Knight isn't sparkling enough to be a legend, isn't grubby enough for realistic drama or bad enough to completely dismiss. Call it a near-myth. [07 Jul 1995, p.6]

Despite desperate efforts to sell this umpteenth recycling of the Camelot legend as a Sean Connery vehicle, it's Richard Gere's film and he's not much of a Lancelot. Read full review

A somewhat double-edged Arthurian romance. There's a sharp side, with Sean Connery the noblest of kings, Julia Ormond an impressive Guinevere, and some genuinely epic imagery; on the blunt side, the tragedy is Camelot-via-Tinseltown: Richard Gere's Lancelot is far from convincing and the armour is just too shiny. [31 Dec 2005, p.49]

The romance is unexpectedly chaste, and the violence muted. [07 Jul 1995, p.23]

It's not that First Knight is a terrible, embarrassing piece of junk; it's just a film of stunning averageness and not really good or bad enough to make any kind of a lasting impression which, depending on your point of view, may be even worse than a total failure. Read full review