I genuinely enjoy this movie, even though it’s objectively flawed. This film holds a special place for me because I loved watching it as a child and teenager. It really sparked my imagination about what the Middle Ages might have been like. Of course, my perspective has changed over time, and with more education, I can now see the numerous historical inaccuracies present throughout the film on many levels. Still, like so much from our childhoods, it remains very dear to me. The script isn't worth praising; it’s essentially a poorly written melodrama of questionable taste built around Arthurian legends. The legend itself has strong Frankish roots and centers on a king who ruled Britannia, defending it from the Saxons during an early period of the High Middle Ages – which is important to remember because the term "Middle Ages" covers roughly a thousand years and encompasses a great deal of change. We see Guinevere enter into a marriage arranged for political reasons with an aging King Arthur, who’s at the height of his power but facing threats from Malagant. And we witness how a young Lancelot pursues, essentially harassing, the queen, seducing her and causing her to fall in love with him. Despite my fondness for this film and the good memories it brings back, I acknowledge that it’s weak and poorly made. The story being told is quite unpleasant – fundamentally a moral tale of seduction, betrayal, adultery, and abuse of trust. The only character deserving of our sympathy seems to be old King Arthur, due to his goodness, sense of justice, and righteousness. Even though he's an older man, he honors his promise to the bride’s father by marrying her (a woman considerably younger than himself) to protect her and her lands. Committed to creating an ideal kingdom, he rejects Malagant, who dismisses the project due to ambition and cruelty; and Arthur also fails to recognize how he's opening himself up to Lancelot, a complete stranger, allowing him to betray his trust by seducing the young queen. It’s a sad story, but one with strong human elements, showing what happens when someone is too good. Despite not appearing until almost thirty minutes into the film, Sean Connery is undoubtedly the best actor in it. He was perfectly suited to portray the strength and nobility of the aging British king. His charisma, aristocratic presence, acting skill, and character work alone are reason enough to revisit this film, which has become quite popular on television. However, the rest of the cast doesn’t measure up. Either the actors didn't understand their characters, or (and I suspect this was the case) director Jerry Zucker was simply incapable of directing them properly. Julia Ormond is beautiful and elegant, but seems unsure of her role. Ben Cross is a shadow of his former self, portraying an absurdly poorly written character. Richard Gere comes across as pompous, smug, arrogant, irritating, and perverse. The film's production values are high; it looks expensive. The cinematography is incredible and visually stunning, especially the nighttime scenes with torchlight and fire. The sets and costumes are detailed, elaborate, and impressive. The knights’ armor, particularly the blue and silver pieces, is beautiful, and Camelot is one of the most gorgeous medieval cities I've ever seen on film. However, there’s a blatant anachronism! If the film aims to depict King Arthur—and if he existed sometime before the year 1000—Camelot would never have looked so elaborate. The weapons and armor would also be much more basic and functional. It all looks lovely, no doubt about it, but it’s as artificial as Judas' kiss! One final note about the soundtrack, which feels a bit vulgar and questionable, almost melodramatic.

Source on TMDB