What do you think?
Rate this book
First Knight
A retelling of the story of Lancelot and Guinevere includes each character from the original legend and finds the doomed lovers and their king in battle against the murderous Malagant
281 pages, Paperback
First published June 30, 1995
4 people are currently reading
606 people want to read
About the author
Elizabeth Chadwick
50Ìýbooks3,187ÌýfollowersBest selling historical novelist Elizabeth Chadwick won a Betty Trask Award for her first novel The Wild Hunt. She has been shortlisted for the UK's mainstream Best Romantic Novel of the Year Award 4 times and longlisted twice. Her novel The Scarlet Lion about the great William Marshal and his wife Isabelle de Clare, has been selected by Richard Lee, founder of the Historical Novel Society as one of the landmark historical novels of the last ten years.
When not at her desk, she can be found taking long walks with the dog, baking cakes, reading books (of course!) exploring ruins, listening to various brands of rock and metal music, and occasionally slaving over a steaming cauldron with re-enactment society Regia Anglorum.
When not at her desk, she can be found taking long walks with the dog, baking cakes, reading books (of course!) exploring ruins, listening to various brands of rock and metal music, and occasionally slaving over a steaming cauldron with re-enactment society Regia Anglorum.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
February 3, 2021
dedicated with affection to Manuel Alfonseca for teaching me and illustrating me about the complexity of the wonderful tricky myth.
Ladies andgentlemen "The First Knight" this novel is an adaptation of a script written by William Nicholson, Lorne Cameron, and David Hoselman. Of course also the film directed by the Zucker brothers with a magnificent cast is one of my favorites. In fact my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca /author/show... in his last book in the saga of the Hounds of the Transition /series/1836... /book/show/3... (in this case, they are all in English) I use it to introduce one of the characters a historian named Arturo. In part this has been one of the reasons why he dedicated this criticism to him, and not only that for having completely clarified and explained to me my doubts of the Artúrico cycle, especially the part that fascinates him (as if he were the Father of Indiana Jones) the search for the Grail (which in this novel does not appear, since it is based more on "The Knight of the Wagon" /book/show/1... /author/show... as the shrewd reader and who knows a little the artric world, and not by what he has seen in the films, and in the comics the writers opt for the French version, than for the English version. This topic will be discussed later). In fact, the Professor himself who has touched different genres has mostly approached the youth sector, although as he often tells me, if a book is good it will be appropriate for all ages, but to what the Professor himself was going he has already written his own novel in this case that of a traveler in the time he lived in his flesh the search for the Grail /search?q=Le... , and in the end he ended up witnessing it. I refer to the novel"The Adventure of Sir Karel of Northumbria" /book/show/3... (this novel I think unfortunately is not translated into English). It is logical that my friend is more interested in that part of the artric cycle, that, elsewhere, since the search for the grail is actually the mystical adventure, the ultimate end of man, which is his salvation, and this can only be achieved by searching for God, believing in him, and loving him following his commands. It is true that the search for the Grail will end up wearing down and eroding the arthric epic. Hence King Arthur was not, precisely enthusiastic about this project, but as is often ignored in these anti-Christian and secular times historical moments pass, and happen, and the only eternal thing is God, and salvation and these knights have been forged in the ideals of cavalry. In other words, they are Christians and it is normal for them to search hard for the Grail at the price of endangering lives and souls. It's also a good way to test your limits, and faculties and know how long before I'm the perfect gentleman? Or the perfect Christian? It is true that this issue will not appear in this novel, although like the film if Christian spirituality underlies, which the Knights of the Round Table were imbued with and which the progressive, secularist, and anti-Christian world tries to appropriate it (this will be discussed later). I say this, because the film Excalibur spoke of the Grail, but not as the relics of Christ. In fact, Christ seemed to be replaced by King Arthur in a Wagnerian and pagan vision. The fact that he opted for the music of the composer Karl Orff, is also not coincidental, although El Carmina Burana also has strong Christian resonances. After all, they are songs of worldly monks, but songs of monks. An example of Medieval Goliard poetry. In fact, much of my mistakes in understanding the arthric world were because of Boorman's film, and my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca corrected my historical mistakes. Also this film and that of Richard Thorpe's The Knights of the Round table influenced and distorted my vision of the artric world, but despite the inaccuracies of the"First Knight" essentially right to show the Christianity of the Arthric epic that inspired them, apart from creating a national monarchy, but faithful to the Church and his Holiness the Pope (I say this to answer the Protestants and those who defend a Celtic vision of the arthric myth, ignoring the consequences of the Council of Whitby, and that Celtic Christianity was different from the moral ruin it suffered after the Saxon conquest, as Anya Seton shows us in"Avalon"). That's why he dedicated the review of this novel to my friend Manuel Alfonseca.
This book finds out about its existence thanks to my friend Tree Son, whom he sent a hug. It didn't discourage me, that he would have put a bad note on this adaptation of the novel. It was one of my favorite films (the gunmasters were the same as"The Promised Princess" /book/show/2... and then they would work on Peter Jackson's "Lord ofthe Rings" trilogy) and I wanted to read it. Hence I added it to the list of novels I wanted to read from Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. I was unaware that this adaptation had been written by Elizabeth Chadwick. I heard about Elizabeth Chadwick because of the novels she wrote dedicated to William Marshall /series/5142... or William the Marshal as the Spaniards know him and to which Georges Duby (master historian dedicated a book) /book/show/2... I don't really know if many of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ' users know it, but William Marshall made a cameo appearance in one of my favorite novels in"Ivanhoe" /book/show/6... as a good portion of users will know. At least those who have read Sir Walter Scott's wonderful novel at the Ashby de la Zouche tournament, where he winked at one of the characters in another of his novels "The Antiquary" /book/show/6... (in this case Arthur Wardour, as the part of the tournament was inspired by a manuscript possessed by this fictional character created by the author). In the tournament we see Sir Wilfrid Ivanhoe unbalance four knights, but there is one who fails to decay William Marshall (Mareschal). I believe, it is a way of distinguishing the only knight worthy of King John Without Land, since Marshall will save England from being absorbed by France. It is true that Philip II Augustus stripped him of everything in Bouvines, but despite the excommunication Louis VIII was unable to take the throne from John without Land, and it was due to william Marshall's energetic defense. That's why this character is so interesting. So counting as an adapter of the novel with the presence of Elizabeth Chadwick was a guarantee.
When I wrote the review of"Baldur's Gates II Shadows of Amn" I talked about the difficulties of moving from film to literature, and video games to literature, and I said it was difficult to succeed. Good novels don't always have adaptations that do them justice. It's usually much easier to pick up a bad novel and turn it into a great movie. There have been so many cases in history. It is even more complicated to make a great film /book/show/7... a great novel, although there have been cases such as "The Third Man" /book/show/4... or Arthur C. Clarke's "Odyssey2001" "TheHallucinatory Journey" by Fleischer, Stephen Boyd, and the lush and beautiful Raquel Welch was very wellwwed by Isaac Asimov /book/show/8... /author/show... /author/show... /author/show... however he has his difficulties. Brilliantly he has already addressed the subject of the difficulties of the novelization of the films Orson Scott Card /author/show... in his book"How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy?" /book/show/3... and we have this in his screenwriter William Nicholson. Excellent writer author of jewels such as the shadowlands script (at least Richard Attenborough's version) /book/show/7... /book/show/8... &qid=DYYsftUk90&rank=1 (it is true that Nicholson wrote the play that inspired the two screen adaptations of the love story of C.S. Lewis and Joy Davitzman) and author of the nefarious and anti-Catholic Elizabeth, Golden Age, but is also the author of jewelry such as Gladiator, or the Miserable. However I have read william Nicholson I think of his novel "Seeker" /book/show/1... or "Wind Singer" /book/show/2... and you think or it is poorly translated, or they are two of the worst books I have ever read. Badly written, and pointless. Proving that not always a good screenwriter is a good director, and that film and literature have different languages.
However, as a screenwriter he is exceptional and this for me is his best job, even though Gladiator has been his most successful film. Personally, it seems to me to be a crude copy of the Fall of the Roman Empire, and his scripts of Shadowlands and The First Knight are much better. However, there are subtle differences between William Nicholson's script and Elizabeth Chadwick's novel (I'm surprised William Nicholson didn't try to adapt it, and tried to turn The First Knight into a novel). In the film we see some notes informing us that England is in Civil War due to the conflict between Arthur and Malagant (the villain of "The Knight of the Wagon")
it is observed that Malagant is a former knight, who has left the Round Table and wants to do things on his own, and that in his opinion Arthur prevented him from doing them. Hence his hatred and antagonism towards him (this will be understood, because and foolish of me. I hadn't noticed until I read Chadwick's novel.) What the writers of this film tried was to do a religious allegory. In Bunyan /author/show... style, in fact this film/novel is greatly influenced by John Milton's genius and his "Lost Paradise" /book/show/1... /author/show... and tells us allegorically Satan's rebellion against God. As we see Nicholson and his other collaborators have opted more for the allegorical genre than for the myth. King Arthur personifies God, just as the Charlemagne of "The Song of Roland" /book/show/1... in my opinion it is no coincidence that the knights of the Round Table are twelve. In fact, I was what I believed, that the knights of the Round Table were twelve like the apostles of Jesus Christ, but no matter how beautiful this interpretation is, it is totally wrong, because knights are more, or less depending on the time. But it's a success that Nicholson and his teammates left an empty chair. The one with the Betta Malagant, and I'm saying why. When Merlin (it's a shame he didn't appear in this film, in fact, this film had an actor who could have been an exceptional Merlin. We mean actor John Guielgud, which was already Merlin, or at least the old version of Merlin in Merlin's miniseries, while her adult version was played by the ever-interesting actor Sam Neill, it is also worth remembering that Guielgud played Prosper in Shakespeare's "The Tempest" /book/show/1... In this film the actor played queen Geneva's faithful and elderly adviser Oswald) creates the Round Table leaves an empty chair that only a gentleman could occupy. In this case that gentleman is not Lancelot, but Galahad the natural son of Lancelot had with Elaine. That's why I thought it was genius to leave an empty chair from the writers. Before returning to the thread of storytelling and as mentioned to Charlemagne. To say that very few novels have dared to put together the arthric cycle, and the Carolingian cycle, as far as I know, I know two very brave and fruitful attempts. I'm referring to "Three Hearts, Three Lions" by the magnificent writer Poul Anderson /book/show/3... /author/show... (continues)...
Ladies andgentlemen "The First Knight" this novel is an adaptation of a script written by William Nicholson, Lorne Cameron, and David Hoselman. Of course also the film directed by the Zucker brothers with a magnificent cast is one of my favorites. In fact my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca /author/show... in his last book in the saga of the Hounds of the Transition /series/1836... /book/show/3... (in this case, they are all in English) I use it to introduce one of the characters a historian named Arturo. In part this has been one of the reasons why he dedicated this criticism to him, and not only that for having completely clarified and explained to me my doubts of the Artúrico cycle, especially the part that fascinates him (as if he were the Father of Indiana Jones) the search for the Grail (which in this novel does not appear, since it is based more on "The Knight of the Wagon" /book/show/1... /author/show... as the shrewd reader and who knows a little the artric world, and not by what he has seen in the films, and in the comics the writers opt for the French version, than for the English version. This topic will be discussed later). In fact, the Professor himself who has touched different genres has mostly approached the youth sector, although as he often tells me, if a book is good it will be appropriate for all ages, but to what the Professor himself was going he has already written his own novel in this case that of a traveler in the time he lived in his flesh the search for the Grail /search?q=Le... , and in the end he ended up witnessing it. I refer to the novel"The Adventure of Sir Karel of Northumbria" /book/show/3... (this novel I think unfortunately is not translated into English). It is logical that my friend is more interested in that part of the artric cycle, that, elsewhere, since the search for the grail is actually the mystical adventure, the ultimate end of man, which is his salvation, and this can only be achieved by searching for God, believing in him, and loving him following his commands. It is true that the search for the Grail will end up wearing down and eroding the arthric epic. Hence King Arthur was not, precisely enthusiastic about this project, but as is often ignored in these anti-Christian and secular times historical moments pass, and happen, and the only eternal thing is God, and salvation and these knights have been forged in the ideals of cavalry. In other words, they are Christians and it is normal for them to search hard for the Grail at the price of endangering lives and souls. It's also a good way to test your limits, and faculties and know how long before I'm the perfect gentleman? Or the perfect Christian? It is true that this issue will not appear in this novel, although like the film if Christian spirituality underlies, which the Knights of the Round Table were imbued with and which the progressive, secularist, and anti-Christian world tries to appropriate it (this will be discussed later). I say this, because the film Excalibur spoke of the Grail, but not as the relics of Christ. In fact, Christ seemed to be replaced by King Arthur in a Wagnerian and pagan vision. The fact that he opted for the music of the composer Karl Orff, is also not coincidental, although El Carmina Burana also has strong Christian resonances. After all, they are songs of worldly monks, but songs of monks. An example of Medieval Goliard poetry. In fact, much of my mistakes in understanding the arthric world were because of Boorman's film, and my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca corrected my historical mistakes. Also this film and that of Richard Thorpe's The Knights of the Round table influenced and distorted my vision of the artric world, but despite the inaccuracies of the"First Knight" essentially right to show the Christianity of the Arthric epic that inspired them, apart from creating a national monarchy, but faithful to the Church and his Holiness the Pope (I say this to answer the Protestants and those who defend a Celtic vision of the arthric myth, ignoring the consequences of the Council of Whitby, and that Celtic Christianity was different from the moral ruin it suffered after the Saxon conquest, as Anya Seton shows us in"Avalon"). That's why he dedicated the review of this novel to my friend Manuel Alfonseca.
This book finds out about its existence thanks to my friend Tree Son, whom he sent a hug. It didn't discourage me, that he would have put a bad note on this adaptation of the novel. It was one of my favorite films (the gunmasters were the same as"The Promised Princess" /book/show/2... and then they would work on Peter Jackson's "Lord ofthe Rings" trilogy) and I wanted to read it. Hence I added it to the list of novels I wanted to read from Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. I was unaware that this adaptation had been written by Elizabeth Chadwick. I heard about Elizabeth Chadwick because of the novels she wrote dedicated to William Marshall /series/5142... or William the Marshal as the Spaniards know him and to which Georges Duby (master historian dedicated a book) /book/show/2... I don't really know if many of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ' users know it, but William Marshall made a cameo appearance in one of my favorite novels in"Ivanhoe" /book/show/6... as a good portion of users will know. At least those who have read Sir Walter Scott's wonderful novel at the Ashby de la Zouche tournament, where he winked at one of the characters in another of his novels "The Antiquary" /book/show/6... (in this case Arthur Wardour, as the part of the tournament was inspired by a manuscript possessed by this fictional character created by the author). In the tournament we see Sir Wilfrid Ivanhoe unbalance four knights, but there is one who fails to decay William Marshall (Mareschal). I believe, it is a way of distinguishing the only knight worthy of King John Without Land, since Marshall will save England from being absorbed by France. It is true that Philip II Augustus stripped him of everything in Bouvines, but despite the excommunication Louis VIII was unable to take the throne from John without Land, and it was due to william Marshall's energetic defense. That's why this character is so interesting. So counting as an adapter of the novel with the presence of Elizabeth Chadwick was a guarantee.
When I wrote the review of"Baldur's Gates II Shadows of Amn" I talked about the difficulties of moving from film to literature, and video games to literature, and I said it was difficult to succeed. Good novels don't always have adaptations that do them justice. It's usually much easier to pick up a bad novel and turn it into a great movie. There have been so many cases in history. It is even more complicated to make a great film /book/show/7... a great novel, although there have been cases such as "The Third Man" /book/show/4... or Arthur C. Clarke's "Odyssey2001" "TheHallucinatory Journey" by Fleischer, Stephen Boyd, and the lush and beautiful Raquel Welch was very wellwwed by Isaac Asimov /book/show/8... /author/show... /author/show... /author/show... however he has his difficulties. Brilliantly he has already addressed the subject of the difficulties of the novelization of the films Orson Scott Card /author/show... in his book"How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy?" /book/show/3... and we have this in his screenwriter William Nicholson. Excellent writer author of jewels such as the shadowlands script (at least Richard Attenborough's version) /book/show/7... /book/show/8... &qid=DYYsftUk90&rank=1 (it is true that Nicholson wrote the play that inspired the two screen adaptations of the love story of C.S. Lewis and Joy Davitzman) and author of the nefarious and anti-Catholic Elizabeth, Golden Age, but is also the author of jewelry such as Gladiator, or the Miserable. However I have read william Nicholson I think of his novel "Seeker" /book/show/1... or "Wind Singer" /book/show/2... and you think or it is poorly translated, or they are two of the worst books I have ever read. Badly written, and pointless. Proving that not always a good screenwriter is a good director, and that film and literature have different languages.
However, as a screenwriter he is exceptional and this for me is his best job, even though Gladiator has been his most successful film. Personally, it seems to me to be a crude copy of the Fall of the Roman Empire, and his scripts of Shadowlands and The First Knight are much better. However, there are subtle differences between William Nicholson's script and Elizabeth Chadwick's novel (I'm surprised William Nicholson didn't try to adapt it, and tried to turn The First Knight into a novel). In the film we see some notes informing us that England is in Civil War due to the conflict between Arthur and Malagant (the villain of "The Knight of the Wagon")
it is observed that Malagant is a former knight, who has left the Round Table and wants to do things on his own, and that in his opinion Arthur prevented him from doing them. Hence his hatred and antagonism towards him (this will be understood, because and foolish of me. I hadn't noticed until I read Chadwick's novel.) What the writers of this film tried was to do a religious allegory. In Bunyan /author/show... style, in fact this film/novel is greatly influenced by John Milton's genius and his "Lost Paradise" /book/show/1... /author/show... and tells us allegorically Satan's rebellion against God. As we see Nicholson and his other collaborators have opted more for the allegorical genre than for the myth. King Arthur personifies God, just as the Charlemagne of "The Song of Roland" /book/show/1... in my opinion it is no coincidence that the knights of the Round Table are twelve. In fact, I was what I believed, that the knights of the Round Table were twelve like the apostles of Jesus Christ, but no matter how beautiful this interpretation is, it is totally wrong, because knights are more, or less depending on the time. But it's a success that Nicholson and his teammates left an empty chair. The one with the Betta Malagant, and I'm saying why. When Merlin (it's a shame he didn't appear in this film, in fact, this film had an actor who could have been an exceptional Merlin. We mean actor John Guielgud, which was already Merlin, or at least the old version of Merlin in Merlin's miniseries, while her adult version was played by the ever-interesting actor Sam Neill, it is also worth remembering that Guielgud played Prosper in Shakespeare's "The Tempest" /book/show/1... In this film the actor played queen Geneva's faithful and elderly adviser Oswald) creates the Round Table leaves an empty chair that only a gentleman could occupy. In this case that gentleman is not Lancelot, but Galahad the natural son of Lancelot had with Elaine. That's why I thought it was genius to leave an empty chair from the writers. Before returning to the thread of storytelling and as mentioned to Charlemagne. To say that very few novels have dared to put together the arthric cycle, and the Carolingian cycle, as far as I know, I know two very brave and fruitful attempts. I'm referring to "Three Hearts, Three Lions" by the magnificent writer Poul Anderson /book/show/3... /author/show... (continues)...
February 15, 2022
I was around fifteen when this movie came out, and I remember this one defining moment that sealed my plain hatred for Guinevere and Lancelot: it was the look on King Arthur’s face (played by Sean Connery) upon learning of their betrayal.
If anything, this novelization has only kindled that abhorrence anew.
Plus points, though, for Miss Chadwick’s way with words. I am amazed by how she has clearly and thoroughly described Lancelot's gauntlet scene and the oubliette at Malagant’s castle. But to be honest, she could have truly done better had she not novelized this; I think she was better off writing her own story on the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot affair instead. This derivative work feels somehow lacking the flair and substance (and historical depth) that are usually found in her writings.
If anything, this novelization has only kindled that abhorrence anew.
Plus points, though, for Miss Chadwick’s way with words. I am amazed by how she has clearly and thoroughly described Lancelot's gauntlet scene and the oubliette at Malagant’s castle. But to be honest, she could have truly done better had she not novelized this; I think she was better off writing her own story on the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot affair instead. This derivative work feels somehow lacking the flair and substance (and historical depth) that are usually found in her writings.
June 3, 2021
Lo leà cuando era adolescente y la verdad es que lo disfruté mucho. Uno de esos pequeños placeres culpables. Perfecto si te gustó la pelÃcula y solo quieres evadirte un rato.
March 10, 2023
Tengo sentimientos muy encontrados. Por un lado he vivido muchÃsimo el libro, pero es que el odio y la rabia que me provocaban Lanzarote y Ginebra era peor que el veneno. Le hubiera dado cuatro estrellas, pero pasan cosas al final que no entiendo, al igual que no entiendo a cualquiera a quien esto le parezca una bonita historia de amor y defienda la pareja Lanzarote-Ginebra
October 20, 2024
Parto dicendo che sono molto affezionata al film; quando ho cominciato a leggere mi aspettavo di trovare il film com'era, inquadratura per inquadratura, invece è molto di più: è praticamente una versione estesa della pellicola, con nuovi dettagli, nuovi dialoghi, nuove scene! Sono rimasta piacevolmente sorpresa. È scorrevole e avvincente quanto basta. Peccato per l'edizione in sé: la copertina è poco più di un foglio plastificato, va oltre la definizione di "copertina flessibile", non c'è che dire 😂
August 28, 2011
Having sat on my bookshelf for over five years(!), I finally got around to reading Elizabeth Chadwick's novelization of the 1995 film First Knight. I've always had a soft spot for the actual movie which is why I picked up the novelization in the first place after all. Reading it, there's things about the novelization I like. It fleshes out the backgrounds of the main characters and at times changes them about a bit (such as the event that makes Lancelot the man we meet). The novel also fleshes out the time scale over which the events take place which makes the romantic relationships between the character's more believable. That said, I was aware more in this novelization then I was with the actual film was the clunky and wooden dialogue. Stripped of the film's performances (particularly Sean Connery as Arthur) some of the dialogue doesn't work as well or at all for that matter. In fact, Arthur becomes more of a supporting character in the novel which is something of a disappointment. Overall then, this novelization of First Knight is a good novel of a good film but one wonders if it couldn't have been better.
September 1, 2012
The book is well written, but much more simply written than most of Elizabeth Chadwick's books. I had to set it aside for a while, as I received two meaty books from the Interlibrary Loan system (also Elizabeth Chadwick's books) that were each nearly 500 pages that I needed to read first. Once I got back to it, it was a very quick read. Really enjoyed it.
October 24, 2012
If you like the movie, you will most likely like the book as well. It followed the movie almost dead-on. There were a few added-in scenes that added a lot of perception to the movie. I enjoyed it.
Moral Note: Some innuendos, some talk of women's figures, and clevage. Clean language for the most part a few "hecks". Mild violence.
Moral Note: Some innuendos, some talk of women's figures, and clevage. Clean language for the most part a few "hecks". Mild violence.
May 13, 2013
This was an excellent book. I enjoyed Chadwick's version of the romance between Guinevere and Lancelot. I don't know why I waited so many years to read it!
November 13, 2013
Great to know that the movie and the book go hand in hand. I must say for once that I loved the movie as much as I loved the book.
February 16, 2021
Non ne apprezzo le parti sentimentali nonostante siano preponderanti. L'elemento cavalleresco ne esce comunque incontaminato e interessante.
July 31, 2023
One of my favourite books as a kid, and just re-read it now to see how it stands up�.yup—still one of the best!
October 18, 2023
I loved the movie, and I might love the novelization even more. This retelling is probably the only time I’ve ever actually liked Guinevere. Ever. lol Well done!
June 25, 2021
Este Libro es el relato único del legendario amor entre Lancelot Du Lac y Ginebra, Dama de Leonesse, repleto de todos los personajes queridos de la leyenda de Camelot.
Elizabeth Chadwick demuestra que sabe cómo tratar a los personajes, cómo escribir de una manera hermosa y conmovedora. Ha logrado crear una obra memorable, infundiendo vida y simpatÃa a los personajes de Ginebra, Arthur y Lancelot, a diferencia de la propia pelÃcula.
Recomendable Historia.
Elizabeth Chadwick demuestra que sabe cómo tratar a los personajes, cómo escribir de una manera hermosa y conmovedora. Ha logrado crear una obra memorable, infundiendo vida y simpatÃa a los personajes de Ginebra, Arthur y Lancelot, a diferencia de la propia pelÃcula.
Recomendable Historia.
December 17, 2021
I dislike the movie and would not have touched the novelisation if it wasn't written by Elizabeth Chadwick.
I really enjoyed the beginning, and the writing was good but as the plot developed it is clear that the author could not add her usual complexity to characters. The movie, script and as a result the book are too thinly characterised for what the plot was asking them to do. Even a good writer cannot do much with a mediocre plotline as well.
I really enjoyed the beginning, and the writing was good but as the plot developed it is clear that the author could not add her usual complexity to characters. The movie, script and as a result the book are too thinly characterised for what the plot was asking them to do. Even a good writer cannot do much with a mediocre plotline as well.
March 17, 2018
Really nice fantasy take on the Arthurian Saga. Lancelot is portrayed as charming, likable and having an interesting background. Guinevere is much the same, a classical romance saga.
February 22, 2023
Nicely written, good expressions and metaphorical language. It is for lovers of knights and romantic knight stories. For me, it was a drop too much, I liked the first half and then didn't finish. Whoop.
October 12, 2013
659 - 2013
Kadang, di film aku mendukung salah satu karakter di film simply karena pemerannya. Karena aku lebih suka Sean Connery daripada Richard Gere, aku jauh lebih simpati kepada Arthur ketimbang Lancelot. Padahal kalau melihat jalan ceritanya, kayaknya di sini Lancelot yang jadi tokoh utama sementara Arthur cuma sampingan saja (jangan tertipu cover filmnya). Endingnya juga tragis buat Arthur T.T
Kadang, di film aku mendukung salah satu karakter di film simply karena pemerannya. Karena aku lebih suka Sean Connery daripada Richard Gere, aku jauh lebih simpati kepada Arthur ketimbang Lancelot. Padahal kalau melihat jalan ceritanya, kayaknya di sini Lancelot yang jadi tokoh utama sementara Arthur cuma sampingan saja (jangan tertipu cover filmnya). Endingnya juga tragis buat Arthur T.T
September 8, 2014
2.5 STARS
"This is a unique account of the fabled love between Lancelot Du Lac and Guinevere, Lady of Leonesse, replete with all the beloved characters of the Camelot legend. The superstar cast in this major motion picture by Columbia Pictures is sure to bring this sweeping tale to vivid life on-screen, starring Richard Gere, Sean Connery and Julia Ormond." (From Amazon)
A simplistic storytelling of King Arthur and his legend.
"This is a unique account of the fabled love between Lancelot Du Lac and Guinevere, Lady of Leonesse, replete with all the beloved characters of the Camelot legend. The superstar cast in this major motion picture by Columbia Pictures is sure to bring this sweeping tale to vivid life on-screen, starring Richard Gere, Sean Connery and Julia Ormond." (From Amazon)
A simplistic storytelling of King Arthur and his legend.
June 20, 2009
Just bad. The plot seemed lame and the whole passion thing was bad. I couldn't feel what the characters were feeling, and their emotions were no excuse for what they did. They needed to do what was right.
July 6, 2008
I read this as a child. The writing is laughable, and the story makes me facepalm now. Still, I can't bring myself to throw it away.
September 7, 2009
I'm sorry...It might be a good book and it might be a good movie, but I just can't respect a book about someone who breaks up a relationship because they're too selfish to just walk away.
April 13, 2011
I've always been partial to the movie, and I really enjoyed the book adaptation. An engaging read with great characters and a really strong plot-line.
August 29, 2012
This is a unique account of the fabled love between Lancelot Du Lac and Guinevere, Lady of Leonesse, replete with all the beloved characters of the Camelot legend.
June 2, 2015
A story about the King Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle. I can't remember whether Arthur died in the movie. Both book and movie were good. :-)
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.