Editor's note: For lack of inspiration (read: anything interesting going on in my life at the moment), I figured I'd do some movie reviews. Over the summer, by occasionally taking advantage of MovieLink's daily "99 cents or less" special movie, I got to see some films that I otherwise would not have been inclined to watch. I figured I'd feature some of those movies first, starting with today's: First Knight.
I remember first seeing First Knight, Jerry Zucker's take on the Arthurian legend, on one of the plane flights that brought me back to the US in 1996. My memory of it was fairly positive, and through StreamingSoundtracks, I became a fan of its score (the choral sequence for the final battle, in particular, is spectacular). So I had good vibes when I saw it available on MovieLink.
The story, briefly: Lancelot (Richard Gere) is a likeable rogue swordsman whose courage catches the eye of King Arthur (Sean Connery) and his new bride, Guinevere (Julia Ormond). Arthur invites Lancelot to fill a vacancy among his Knights of the Round Table—a vacancy left, incidentally, by Prince Malagant (Ben Cross), who is generally being a nuisance, burning villages and such. Not surprisingly, a love triangle forms between Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere, and Malagant comes knocking when it's most inconvenient.
Man, is this an awfully mediocre movie.
The cinematography is pretty, if not breath-taking, with nice shots of, um, wherever it was filmed (which was no New Zealand). The fight sequences are downright laughable—I guess I've been spoiled by too much Lord of the Rings and kung fu movies. Avalon, Arthur's brilliant capital city, looks like a majestic jewel from a distance, but the sets within the castle walls are pretty poorly done.
The script bludgeons this film into bargain bin oblivion. Sometimes the dialogue literally had me wincing. There's very little subtlety and nuance, and this comes out in forgettable performances from Gere and Ormond. The script actually introduces some interesting theological elements, with Arthur and Malagant representing the opposing viewpoints, but it then proceeds to botch it with stilted dialogue that reads like an introductory philosophy text. The love triangle, central to the entire film, is a sloppily contrived quagmire. You can't help but feel bad for Sean Connery, who, along with Ben Cross, manages to pull a decent performance out of this mess.
In fact, Sean Connery is the only person who ever really seems to be in character, bringing a certain majesty and fatherly benevolence to the role of Arthur. I imagined him going back to his trailer between takes, shaking his head and wondering how he got talked into being a part of the project. Probably money. Lots of it.
Rating: 1 out of 4 stars.
You could have wrote about the good movie you saw... maybe next time. :)
I like the psalm, that is a nice touch
Yeah, I saw the first part and wondered why you only finished half of it, but then I on accident scrolled down the bottom and discovered the rest of it. Very nice.
The movie reminds me of a song:
Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
I suggest using real stars for your ratings. Nicely done. Complete with two adjectives i didn't know. A good first try. Rating of your review: 4 out of 5 stars.
p.s. i like the little BROWN boy
very good job, indeed. ;-) i've seen that movie myself and it is quite awful. i can vouch for the accuracy of thine review.
PS - if you view your site in firefox, the text-fields are white-on-white, making it impossible to see what you're typing (probably due to the background image?)