I recently saw this movie again. I had last seen it in the theater (1995) and was tremendously disappointed. Seeing it again, I find it isn't a bad movie. In fact, there is much to like about it. What ruined it for me is that this is a tale of King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. How can that ruin it?
The movie is loosely based on Lancelot, Knight of the Cart, a poem written by Chretien de Troyes in the 12th Century. De Troyes introduced Lancelot to the Arthurian Legend and was also the first to call Arthur's castle "Camelot." Prior to de Troyes, there is no mention of either in Arthurian literature. He based his poem on an older tale of Guinevere's capture by a fallen knight named Malagant. The movie takes liberties with the story but that is to be expected. So, there is a basis in Arthurian legend to tell this story. It is the execution that fails.
This tale is told without magic. There is no Lady of the Lake, no Merlin, no Morgan le Fey, no Mordred, no Holy Grail, and no Excalibur. Camelot has been purged of its fantastical elements. Will that leave us with a more `real' King Arthur? No, we have traded one set of fantasy for another. King Arthur was a figure from the Dark Ages and the one battle that is certain was that of Badon Hill around 500 AD. In 500, there were no cathedrals in England, the crossbow was centuries from being invented, no one spoke of `brigades' and `battalions,' windmills had not yet come to England, stirrups did not exist, roofs were made of thatch (perhaps by one of Margaret Thatcher's distant ancestors), stone walls hadn't been built since the departure of the Romans, Britons did not practice the `Viking Burial,' and on and on. This is a 5th or 6th century story that has somehow found itself in the 14th century. So the movie fails because it uses Lancelot, Guinevere, King Arthur, and Camelot. If it had been Anselm the Swordsman, Lady Angela, King Rurik the Wise, and the shining city of Selidor, this film would have been greatly improved. But using Arthur sets certain requirements, especially if you are dispensing with the magical elements.
The other great failing was the death of Arthur. One wonders how Malagant managed to sneak his entire army inside the walls of Camelot without any of Arthur's knights noticing. Even if you leave the gate open, you'd think someone would notice when black-armored soldiers arrived in large numbers. Upon his deathbed, Arthur hands his kingdom and his widow to Lancelot. This is a man who only an hour before was on trial for his life at Arthur's behest. Strange that the other Knights of the Round Table accept this succession so readily.
The movie is loosely based on Lancelot, Knight of the Cart, a poem written by Chretien de Troyes in the 12th Century. De Troyes introduced Lancelot to the Arthurian Legend and was also the first to call Arthur's castle "Camelot." Prior to de Troyes, there is no mention of either in Arthurian literature. He based his poem on an older tale of Guinevere's capture by a fallen knight named Malagant. The movie takes liberties with the story but that is to be expected. So, there is a basis in Arthurian legend to tell this story. It is the execution that fails.
This tale is told without magic. There is no Lady of the Lake, no Merlin, no Morgan le Fey, no Mordred, no Holy Grail, and no Excalibur. Camelot has been purged of its fantastical elements. Will that leave us with a more `real' King Arthur? No, we have traded one set of fantasy for another. King Arthur was a figure from the Dark Ages and the one battle that is certain was that of Badon Hill around 500 AD. In 500, there were no cathedrals in England, the crossbow was centuries from being invented, no one spoke of `brigades' and `battalions,' windmills had not yet come to England, stirrups did not exist, roofs were made of thatch (perhaps by one of Margaret Thatcher's distant ancestors), stone walls hadn't been built since the departure of the Romans, Britons did not practice the `Viking Burial,' and on and on. This is a 5th or 6th century story that has somehow found itself in the 14th century. So the movie fails because it uses Lancelot, Guinevere, King Arthur, and Camelot. If it had been Anselm the Swordsman, Lady Angela, King Rurik the Wise, and the shining city of Selidor, this film would have been greatly improved. But using Arthur sets certain requirements, especially if you are dispensing with the magical elements.
The other great failing was the death of Arthur. One wonders how Malagant managed to sneak his entire army inside the walls of Camelot without any of Arthur's knights noticing. Even if you leave the gate open, you'd think someone would notice when black-armored soldiers arrived in large numbers. Upon his deathbed, Arthur hands his kingdom and his widow to Lancelot. This is a man who only an hour before was on trial for his life at Arthur's behest. Strange that the other Knights of the Round Table accept this succession so readily.
I did not like Sean Connery as King Arthur, which is strange since I usually like Connery in everything. He comes off as a kindly, old idealist who is suddenly beset by a jealous rage that he rationalizes as justice. He is a weak character, which should not be said of Arthur. Richard Gere's Lancelot is a rogue who happens to be the world's greatest swordsman. I haven't read Troyes but somehow this seemed all wrong for Lancelot. This was the second of Julia Ormond's hat trick of big movies (Legends of the Fall, First Knight, and Sabrina). She looked to be headed to stardom and then vanished.
