Several films set in medieval Britain were released in 1995, including "Braveheart," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight." While “Braveheart,” starring Mel Gibson, is the longest of these at three hours, I didn't think it lived up to the considerable praise it received; that’s not to say I disliked it, just that the hype seemed overblown (only about half of it felt worthwhile). I actually preferred "Rob Roy" to “Braveheart,” as it has a mature feel with violence, grit and darkness. “First Knight” offers a believable interpretation of the King Arthur/Camelot story, featuring Sean Connery as Arthur, Richard Gere as Lancelot and Julia Ormond as Guinevere, who become involved in a love triangle. Ben Cross portrays the villain, former knight Malagant. The film presents a fairly realistic version of the traditional folklore, similar to “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” (1991), but without any witches or Alan Rickman’s campy performance. Don't expect anything involving magic like Merlin or Excalibur. This might be why some people criticize it, but I didn’t see their point. Surely there are already enough versions of the Camelot story with supernatural elements available, such as 1981’s "Excalibur"? To put it another way, “First Knight” functions similarly to how the film "Troy" (2004) handles the Helen of Troy legend, although “First Knight” isn't quite as harsh. I was immediately drawn in by the character of Lancelot. He’s shown as a skilled swordsman, a wanderer, a loner and generally someone who feels lost. Early on, we learn something important about his character: he participates in a sword-fighting contest at a village he's passing through. After winning, the other contestant asks him for advice on how to become equally proficient. Lancelot explains that it requires certain skills, which the man confidently says he can master. Then Lancelot gives him the final quality needed: "And you have to not care whether you live or die." This is a powerful scene; Gere delivers a convincing performance (in fact, if you've never liked Gere’s acting, this film might change your mind). This defining moment explains how he’s able to overcome an incredibly dangerous weapons challenge later in the story, which I considered one of the movie’s best parts. The rest of the film is a straightforward medieval adventure with a noble folkloric tone and all the usual forest scenes you'd expect. What I mean by “folkloric” becomes apparent during Lancelot’s heroic rescue of Guinevere from Malagant's cave fortress, which stretches credibility somewhat. But these are larger-than-life figures, aren't they? “First Knight” more than satisfied my desire for a medieval/British Isles film and surprised me with the intriguing portrayal of Lancelot’s self-sacrificing bravery. If you can accept that it doesn’t include Merlin, Excalibur or any other magical elements, this is an entertaining and well-made heroic movie. Beyond the surface story, there's a fascinating allegorical layer: King Arthur represents God, Camelot symbolizes Heaven, Malagant embodies Lucifer, his dark cavernous ‘castle’ is the Underworld, Guinevere stands for humanity caught in the struggle between good (Arthur) and evil (Malagant), and Lancelot represents worldly temptation. The film runs 2 hours, 14 minutes and was filmed in Wales & England. GRADE: B

Source on TMDB