The first time I saw this film long, long ago, I must admit that I wasn't impressed. Most of this is that I am a history lover and taught history....and the anachronisms in the film and fact that King Arthur never actually existed left me frustrated. Well, time has passed and I thought I'd give this one another try. After all, I know I had to get over myself and just watch the movie as a normal person and not some history nut!

Now that year have passed and I am focused more on the story itself, I see that the film is better than I remembered BUT it still has a glaring problem. This version of King Arthur (Sean Connery) is an incredible milquetoast...an old, uninspiring and uninteresting man. Heck, it was easy to see why Guinevere preferred Lancelot, as the King was a bit of a putz. It's really hard to imagine Connery playing such a dull and passive character. Purely from a romantic point of view, it's hard to imagine anyone falling for the old guy. Plus, towards the end, the King just seems a bit...well, flacid.

Overall, a lovely looking film with gorgeous music and sets. But the film, while interesting, is uneven. The scenes with Lancelot and Guinevere are nice...but not enough to make this a must-see film.

This is a well wore story. This one doesn't add much to it. The only interesting thing new is the actors involved. Sean Connery is the elder King Arthur. Julia Ormond is Guinevere whose own realm is under constant attack by Prince Malagant (Ben Cross) a former Knight of the round table. Richard Gere is Lancelot who keeps rescuing Guinevere.

This film isn't grand enough to be a spectacle. The CG is primitive and limited to far away scenes. It isn't gritty enough to be realistic. It is just good enough to be watchable. It's more a romance melodrama.

The acting is above par. When you have Sean Connery as King Arthur, you can't get much better than that. Richard Gere as Lancelot is more of a problem. He doesn't have the heroic act down. He's more smarmy than sincere. And Julia Ormond is regal without the heat.

I have no problem whatsoever with the Arthurian legend, as a matter of fact I love it. Which is more than I can say for this wretched attempt at a retelling.

Starting with the redeeming qualities, it is beautifully filmed, with lovely costumes, cinematography, sets and scenery, and while he has been much MUCH better Sean Connery manages to steal every single scene he's in as the suitably charismatic King Arthur.(note: if you want any charismatic actor to play a charismatic character, look no further than Connery-he may have been in some clunkers but he is always worth watching). Everything else I am afraid fails, and miserably.

The script is not witty, charming or playful, it is cheesy, too 1990s and contrived. The story takes a while to get going, the direction is unfocused and the score is generic(was that really Jerry Goldsmith, the composer behind The Secret of NIMH, Legend and The Wind and the Lion?). Other than Connery, the other acting is not good at all, the worst being Richard Gere. What on earth was he doing; if you found Kevin Costner too American and I know people did(including me admittedly, at least Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves had Alan Rickman),Gere plays Sir Lancelot with a Philadelphia twang(???). Julia Ormond is ravishing to look at as the constantly imperilled Guinevere, but her looks don't match her acting which is bland, while Ben Cross is ridiculously pantomime as Prince Malagant.

Overall, watch it if you want but sorry I don't recommend it. 2/10 Bethany Cox