Executscan Expected more

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Istvan Kolnhofer Where to start with a historical action-adventure-romance based on a legendary myth, directed by..... Jerry Zucker. I don't think they could have chosen a worse director. Ok they could have, but Zucker woefully lacks the vision to helm a blockbuster like this. And it shows - from the drab lifeless cinematography, to the awkward casting of Richard Gere, to the redundant costumes, and a production design that shows the foam and screws the set was put together with. We can go on and on.. from Jerry Goldsmith's half-assed score, to the awful dialogue, and a villain that encapsulates every cliche in the book... including a DIRTY FACE! Because how would we know that Malagant is the villain if they didn't make his face greasy and smear it with dirt????Right off the bat, the movie opens with a 20th century American Lancelot, swordfighting to show off for villagers, or for money? Can't be sure... the scene serves no other purpose than to show that Richard Gere is a master swordsman, as long as his sword looks lighter than a feather. Everything about this scene seems phony and fabricated. Not a single moment rings of 6th century authenticity. This movie can't even decide with millennia it is set in, with weapons from the 19th century, costumes that look 16th century, etc... SO HORRIBLE. lol I get it that this movie isn't for historic authenticity.. but come on, at least display the slightest modicum of attention to historic detail. Its like they got a huge budget, spent it all on Sean Connery and Richard Gere, painted a giant foam castle, and then had to make do with props and costumes already available. I doubt that's the case, but that is what the movie looks like! Recycled from other movies. Richard Gere as Lancelot could go down as one of top 5 worst casting choices EVER. The man is a mediocre actor, and an even more insufferable movie "star" who coasts on his milquetoast leading man looks. He has the charisma of a retarded puppy. Didn't anyone see King David? Were lesson NOT learned from that casting???The ONLY redeeming values this movie has, is Sean Connery as Arthur and Julia Ormond as Guinevere. Both sparkle in their poorly written roles, and you could tell than in a better movie, this could have been top career performances from them, but they get buried in the mediocre production and Richard Gere's anachronistic presence. I cannot think of a more disappointed movie, its so bad. Skip this entirely and just stick to EXCALIBUR, a masterpiece, or even Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur, which is at least a pretty good action movie with some cinematic flair. But this FIRST KNIGHT is a turd of the first order.

Mihai Toma When peace finally seemed to have set foot on the land of Camelot, one of the king's knights sets on a path of his own, threatening the new status of the realm. Meanwhile, a lonely person who had an extraordinary talent in wielding swords appears in the picture, rescues the kings future bride but also falls for her, beginning an attempt to make her change her mind in terms of marriage.It's a lovely story set in the mythical land of Camelot, full of action, romance and drama. Its main characters are well developed and described, contributing with every action to the unique atmosphere that this movie creates and maintains. The movie's biggest flaw is by far its slow pace, which tends to induce a bit of boredom from time to time, but nothing which can affect the overall impression. You might even say that it is quite predictable in some ways, but the way I saw it (many times actually), it turned out to be a satisfying course of actions which ultimately lead to a sad but conclusive finale. The actors play a couple of excellent roles, making the whole plot even more credible. It's that type of movie which proves that you can create a very good movie of this kind without using magic or special effects, fact which makes it even more appealing from my point of view. Mixing the right amounts of action, romance and drama, accompanied by a very good idea and a couple of great actors is a recipe for success and this film is the exact evidence of it.

ironhorse_iv I think this movie is deeply underestimate. Directed by Jerry Zucker, the movie is take a new interpretation of the Arthurian Legend, giving the film, a new look into the old tales. Some of the film foundation comes from tales like Wace's Roman de Brut, Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, and others. The movie takes most of its story from the tales from writer Chrétien de Troyes whom credit for adding Lancelot, and the Holy Grail myth to most Arthurian tales. The movie is mostly based on Troyes's 'Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart' poem where Lancelot fall in love with Lady Guinevere. While, the poem has them, Courtly Love, (AKA love of honor & merit), the movie makes it feels they love each other with passion. The film opens with Lancelot (Richard Gere), as a vagabond and skilled swordsman nomad who travel town to town, to challenge anybody for a duel for money, rather than a noble Knight. On his way back from one such visit, he comes around Guinevere (Julia Ormond), the ruler of Leonesse, whom just decide to marry King Arthur of Camlet (Sean Connery) partly out of admiration and partly for security against Malagant (Ben Cross), who been terrorize her land. When she is kidnap by Malagant, he seek to rescue her. On the way back to Camlet, both falls in love with each other, and soon enough, an affair blossom that would hurt her kingdom and King Arthur forever. Can Lancelot and Guinevere keep their love, a secret or will King Arthur find out? Watch the movie to find out. Without spoiling too much. The romantic sub-plot wasn't that bad. It wasn't too cheesy. I really believe the morals of honor, and the misunderstood of love. I have to say, Richard Gere works his charm and I really didn't think he need the English accent. Julia Ormond is beautiful, and courageous. She is fine actress. You can see her torn between her love for King Arthur and Lancelot. There are a few things, I didn't like. The movie has this type ending if you are a good and true and honest person, you get killed and the guy who you did everything for, runs off with your one true love. Certain people were really upset by that. Still, Lancelot knows what is right and wrong with this. He didn't want to undermine it. Also, by not, having Lancelot, not being a knight in the beginning, the movie somewhat hurts the 'Significance of the Cart' part of the poem. The cart is significant to the story because it proves just how far Lancelot will go to rescue Guinevere. He does not think about his reputation being destroyed when he chooses to ride on the cart. By ruining his reputation, Lancelot also tarnishes the reputation of the king he represents; but his love for Guinevere outweighs all other issues that may arise from his actions. The action, we do see is amazing. I love the whole obstacle course scene. Still, some of the gauntlet is a little bit too dangerous & unrealistic. Lot stabbing swords. Come on, even with the provided protective gear that would kill you. I doubt anybody in real life was willing to get kill just to win a kiss from Guinevere. The action battle scenes are just entertaining to watch. I love the sword fight cinematography. The Battle at Leonesse was brutal and the Battle for Camlet was just amazing shot. The act of defiance against all odds, never surrender. This is probably my favorite final battle because there are so many movies where the two main people will fight the entire time whereas in this one they are realistically separated by other combatants. I love Lancelot's Blade Spam-and-disarm technique. Richard Gere really put some work into those sword fights. While Guinevere is distressed in Damsel, pretty much for the entirety of the film, she does put up a good fight during her abductions. Ben Cross is just chilling in this role. Sean Connery is wise and he really commands the movie. Just watch his speech before the Battle for Camlet. Awesome stuff. The smart dialogue is very memorable. What I did like about the movie is how absence the magical elements are, the film doesn't even have the magician, Merlin. I don't mind the demystification of the story as much as other people do. The score by Jerry Goldsmith was great. It's amazing what he got done in three days. Still, it's a bit short, but alright. Also the movie was beautifully shot. The Pyre at sea is how I like to go. Overall: Watch First Knight. It's not as bad, as certain people make it out to be.

Wuchak There were three medieval/British Isle films released in 1995 -- "Braveheart," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight." Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" is certainly the most epic of the three, but I found it overrated; which isn't to say I don't like it, I just don't feel that it's as great as the hype would suggest. I liked "Rob Roy" slightly better than "Braveheart;" it's very adult-oriented, violent and grim, however.I feel the best of the three, believe it or not, was "First Knight," a believable take on the King Arthur/Camelot legend starring Sean Connery as Arthur, Richard Gere as Lancelot and Julia Ormond as Guinevere. They get tangled up in a bit of a love triangle.As I said, this is a realistic portrayal of the story so, thankfully, you won't see any of that silly magical jive with Merlin, Excalibur, etc. This explains why so many panned the film, but I don't get their beef, aren't there enough cinematic depictions of the Camelot tale for them to enjoy, like "Excalibur"? I'll put it this way, "First Knight" is to the Arthor/Lancelot legend what the film "Troy" is to the "Helen of Troy" chronicle.The film caught my fascination right away with the character of Lancelot. He is portrayed as an expert swordsman, drifter, loner and all-around lost soul. The beginning of the picture reveals something integral to understanding his character: Lancelot takes on an intimidating dude in a swordfight contest at a village he just drifted into. After Lancelot prevails, the big guy asks him for advice on how to be as skilled a swordsman as Lancelot. Lancelot tells him that he needs a couple of obvious sword-fighting skills, to which the man confidently replies, "I can do that." Then Lancelot tells him the last quality he needs: "And you must not care whether you live or die." This is a powerful scene; Gere plays the character very convincingly (in fact, if you hate Gere, this film will give you a new-found respect for him). This character-defining episode reveals HOW Lancelot is the only one able to prevail against an incredible and decidedly deadly weapons gauntlet later in the story. And, speaking of that gauntlet sequence, it's fabulous.The rest of the film is just a solid medieval/British Isle adventure, with the requisite forest scenes and all.One small criticism would be that, although I enjoyed the heroic episode wherein Lancelot rescues Guinevere in Malagant's cave fortress, its pretty implausible. But these are larger-than-life figures, right?Reviewer Craig Connell pointed out another notable aspect of the film: It stresses character nobility and even the importance of prayer."First Knight" more than satisfied my hunger for a medieval British isles flick and surprised me with the intriguing character of the suicidally brave Lancelot.If one doesn't have hang-ups regarding the absence of Merlin, Excalibur and the magical baggage that goes with 'em this is a quite entertaining film.GRADE: B