Yesterday,I watched this wonderful film for the first time. Now, after having seen some films with Richard Gere, it was not so easy to see him in a historic role. What feelings did you have? Could you see Richard Gere as Lancelot immediatly or was he still the man, you knew from other movies?
shareYeh, for sure he was cool in the film.
I can see him as both... I really liked him in this film, and I'm usually like "Richard Gere? Ew..."
I'm not psycho, just a little loopy...
*~Es~*
I completely agree with you! I have not difficulty to see him as a beautiful Knight! even if i'm also fond of him as a businessman in "Pretty woman" or in "Runaway bride" " :-)
shareThough this may not answer your question directly, I think there are very few films he's done where Richard Gere has been sexier, which I think is a prime requirement of this role...Lancelot has to be a man so sexy and charismatic that a queen would actually consider forsaking her title and her king and I think Gere waas a nice fit for the role. I think he was terribly sexy in this movie.
share[deleted]
Everyone so far seems to agree that Richard Gere made a wonderful Lancelot in this movie. Just for the sake of adding a different perspective (and not for the pleasure of hurting anybody), I must say that I was very disappointed by this movie as a whole, and by Gere as Lancelot in particular. I couldn't picture him as Lancelot, partly because the part was so strangely written, from a medieval and chivalric point of view, adn partly because I found Gere way too old to play a young knight. I have found him sexy and excellent in other movies, but definitely not in that one.
shareI just saw the film today, and throughout the movie I always felt Gere was most unrealistic as Lancelot. Sometimes it seemed he tried to speak with an English accent, and then other times he didn't. He seemed like a guy transported from our time into the past. On the other hand, Sean Connery seemed like he really was a king from the old days.
Part of the problem too was Gere's wardrobe. It didn't look like his costumes were ones that would have existed back then, but were merely produced to make him look good. I felt Guenever's costumes were also a bit over the top.
Yes, I think it was more his age that bothered me about his casting. He just looked too old for the part and because of it he seemed kind of like a fish out of water. (I'm watching it now)Reminds me of the I believe also poorly received Robin Hood with Russell Crowe, I tried to give it a chance, but it just didn't work. I will watch First Knight only to see Sean and Julia.
shareYes, I think it was more his age that bothered me about his casting. He just looked too old for the part and because of it he seemed kind of like a fish out of water. (I'm watching it now)Reminds me of the I believe also poorly received Robin Hood with Russell Crowe, I tried to give it a chance, but it just didn't work. I will watch First Knight only to see Sean and Julia.
shareI watched this movie again today and am still not convinced that Richard Gere was a very good Lancelot. Probably for the fact he's an American with a mostly or all English cast. I liked him in other movies but not this one. I also noticed too that he sometimes had an English accent and sometimes not.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I would say this is the worst performance I have seen by Richard Gere - he was totally unbelievable as Lancelot, accent or no accent. Sean Connery was predictably good as Arthur, but the prize must go to Julia Ormond for a magnificent job in a mediocre movie.
shareRichard Gere is NOT a badass, and a greater example of this will never be found than "First Knight". Gere's swordplay was laugh out loud, and that face when they did a close-up of him riding into battle just before he takes on the entire enemy army is just about the greatest piece of comedy ever filmed.
shareI wasn't really sure where to post this but decided that since this thread seems to deal with Richard Gere's veracity in playing Lancelot, I'd put it here. This movie was put out in 1995 when Sean Connery was 65, Richard Gere was 46 and Julia Ormond was 35. No "spring chickens" among the three. Next we were asked to suspend our belief or knowledge of the legend by a movie that has little to do with it except for the names of the characters. We no longer need to worry about Richard Gere's accent or fitness to be a Knight of the Round Table since in another setting he was French and not a peasant but Lancelot du Lac and this movie doesn't really say who he was. Just that his parents died in a church in a sacked village. So here we have a "love story" with people dressed in non-modern clothing set in some long ago time. What is important is that it is believable that Guinevere could fall in love with Lancelot AND Arthur...which she did for compelling reasons.
Now those of you who are quite young might say "How could someone who is 35 fall for someone 11 or 30 years older than she was?" Having married a man 16 years older than I when I was 24, I understand this. He was and still is "younger" in many ways than men my age. Love, in Arthur's case, was a matter of respect and care for a genuine person who loved her unconditionally and was prepared to give up everything for her security and that of her village. Love for Lancelot included the above AND the shared experiences of being saved, more than once, by someone who was less reserved in his adoration (the smoldering looks part.) Both men also accepted her independant spirit
Richard Gere is good at making caring look effortless and if you are a guy this is probably not apparent to you. It may look like overacting but for those of us who "get" what it means, we can understand just what Guinevere was feeling. Don't make such a fuss over whether it is "right" since there is no "right." It's not a documentary! Relax, enjoy the story.
I agree with most of what you say, ssmith 121, especially the part about age difference not being a factor. In fact, my main problem with this movie is not "how could she possibly fall in love with that old king", it's "how the hell can she even look at that only slightly younger Richard Gere/Lancelot when she's got Sean Connery/Arthur!" I thought the king's character was so much superior to that of Lancelot, I just couldn't imagine how the love triangle could occur. But I must admit that a lot of my disbelief probably derived from the fact that I hated what they did with the character of Lancelot, and only partly from what Gere did with the part that was written and given him.
I'm a Sidekick and proud of it.
Most of my problem with Lancelot comes from the casting. Richard Gere was a little too old, not in the best shape, and could not pull off an accent. Most of the time when I see Richard Gere in a role I think "so-and-so would have been much better in that role!" That said, I think he did all right with the part. I've read people comment on his lackluster swordfighting ability, but really I think that's more an editing problem. It's gotta be pretty hard to have one shot where it has to look like Gere is slaying for or five men. Overall; poor casting (Gere only), ho-hum direction (the slow motion moment is unintentionally hilarious, as is the Sean Connery "WHYYYYY?"), but Gere does the best he can.
"That is the whitest white part of the eye I have ever seen; do you floss?"
I guess my other point about the shared experiences as far as the rescues are concerned speaks to the "why she would choose Richard Gere/Lancelot over Sean Connery/Arthur" part. It is a very romantic thing to be "saved from the brink" of death...or kidnapping...or torture...or whatever she was going to have happen to her. Remember that her choice to marry Arthur was due to being very fond of him but not necessarily a flaming, exciting, romantic feeling. She had been putting off a decision to marry him because she was looking for something more. Sort of the reverse of the spot where Griffin tells Phoenix that he not only loves her, he likes her too. In this case, I believe, Guinevere's love for Arthur was a loving extension of "like." She wasn't even sure if she liked Lancelot but they had shared exciting adventures together and life with Arthur was going to be pretty sedate for someone who still enjoyed playing games with "the guys." I also have to admit that few men, actors or not, of any age, can pull off that smoldering look thing like Richard Gere...Bill Pullman came close in "While You Were Sleeping"...it's a teasing combination of romance and, almost, disdain that is very different from Sean Connery's more regal, open, heart-on-his sleeve behavior. As for the action scenes, sorry, I was probably turning the heel on the sock that I was knitting then because admittedly I'm not big on battles, fights, or even arguments. One sword fight looks pretty much the same as another to me. (<;
"No opinion negates another...it just enriches the discussion"
An American accent in 13th Century England? LOL! Why on earth didn't Gere learn a British dialect? When he's not miscast in films, he shines. Unfortunately, this was one of the biggest blunders in casting.
I did not like Richard Gere in this movie. And his long hair, it is just not right.
shareOK , so it WAS a casting blunder, but a really versatile actor could have done much better than that. Gere is only good in sophisticated, modern-day roles. He may be a charmer, but not a five-star actor.
Nutty P.
[deleted]