First Knight

First Knight_720p(480P)

source: First Knight

Moviecut—First Knight

First Knight

In the fine tradition of schlock fantasy films like the Beastmaster and Deathstalker series comes "First Knight." Like those films, it features bad accents which rapidly fade, sets and matte-paintings that LOOK like sets and matte-paintings, and several machines that obviously run on electricity. It's a shallow retelling of Arthurian legend that eschews the things that make Arthurian legend exciting -- all the magic is trimmed away and it becomes nothing more than a soap-opera in tights. Even the directing is utterly clueless. The battle scenes are filmed in a "Cops" style shaky-cam that is not only jarring but slightly nauseating. The odd thing about First Knight is that it sports some top-shelf actors doing bottom-shelf acting. Julia Ormond is perpetually dazed as Guinevere, Richard Gere plays Kevin Costner as Lancelot, and in the worst shock of all, Sean Connery can't seem to muster up a single emotion or facial expression. A telling scene is when he interrupts L&G in the act of love, and merely stares blankly at them, looking more bored than anything else, which was basically the audience reaction as well. Even Arthur's death is so poorly acted and terribly filmed that it elicited laughs from the entire audience. If you're looking for a good retelling of Arthurian legend, see Excalibur. If you're not at all picky, or merely a rabid and indiscriminate Richard Gere fan, First Knight will at least hold you over.

Mighty and pretty spectacle about Lancelot , King Arthur , Guinevere and the famous romance in color magnificence . This spectacular production from Jerry Zucker that gave you ¨Ghost and Airplane¨ among others and only Columbia TriStar could bring it so magnificently to the screen including a majestic soundtrack and splendid cinematography . The classic story of romantic adventure come to life enriched in glamorous color and with such great stars as Richard Gere (roving spirit Lancelot), Julia Ormond (wonderful Guinevere), and of course the great Sean Connery (upright Arthur) in the classic love triangle . Restless Lancelot who lives by his wits falls in love with Guinevere, who is due to be married to King Arthur . Meanwhile, a violent warlord attempts to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table , as they set out in fight against the traitor Prince Malagant (Ben Cross), a Sir Mordred-alike . Whilst in the meantime the bride Guinevere and Sir Lancelot betray the king in their own way . Adding the apparition of knights of the round table as Sir Kay (Christopher Villiers) , Agravaine (Liam Cunningham) , Sir Patrise (Valentine Pelka) and Sir Mador (McCormack) , though there doesn't turns up neither Merlin , nor Morgana LeFay and all things supernatural are out of this flick . This is an overwhelming tale with adventures, villainy,romance and heroism in the grandeur of big screen although in television set is lost its splendor . This sweeping movie displays adventures , thrills , a romantic love story , breathtaking battles and epic confrontation with a terrific climax final for a mortal confrontation . Excellent main cast as an attractive Richard Gere , a gorgeous Julia Ormond , and exceptional , as always , Sean Connery as Arthur , an aged and war-weary king who is forced to go to battle one last time . Rousing battle scenes with impressive production design by John Box , though is also used computer generator . Excellent settings , the castles ,outdoors and tournaments or jousts are well staged . Handsome story well written by William Nicholson though contains some awkward narrative elements . Luscious costumes and gowns specially suited for Julia Ormond . Colorful wide-screen cinematography by stylish cameraman Adam Greenberg . Emotive and sensational musical score by the classic Jerry Goldsmith . However this epic film never takes off as it should despite of pomp and circumstance showed . The motion picture is imaginatively directed by Jerry Zucker working at the peak of his powers . Other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur are the following : MGM's first wide-screen film titled ¨Knights of the Round Table¨ 1953 ( by Richard Thorpe) , the musical ¨Camelot¨(Joshua Logan) , the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨(John Boorman) and recently ¨King Arthur¨(Antoine Fuqua). The picture will appeal to aficionados with chivalric ideals and historic movies fans , it is a fine production that will lose much on small television screen . This spellbinding film is freely inspired on legends and supposedly based on facts and famed personages . In spite of there aren't real documents about legendary feats King Arthur , allegedly in VI century he was King of Bretons and then were created in 12th century some writings by notorious French authors who romanticized the legend as Chretien of Troyes , Thomas Malory that wrote the Breton series with their knights looking for the Holy Grail . Besides Godofredo of Mormouth publicized in 1136 the History Regnum Britanniae and in XX century John Steinbeck wrote about the events of King Arthur . The story concerns when the Romans had withdrawn Britain and the Empire dissolved into chaos,then rules the king Arthur, he achieved to maintain the Christianity and civilization in the west of England ,though no exactly congruent with the VI century , time was presumed to have lived but the film is developed in a high medieval panoply .

First Knight is not a particularly good film of King Arthur. It tries to talk a more realistic approach, not focusing on the magic, but I think that it fails on that level. The King Arthur legend hasn't transferred to film that well. Firstly the film is well written or well directed. The casting was poor. Sean Connery was not a good choice for playing Arthur, they got a Scot playing an English King and even though I'm a Bond fan, Sean Connery is a particularly good actor after that. Richard Gere is the most wooden actor in history and just can perform. He shows no emotion and can't even be a good action hero, seeing that he doesn't tend to play action roles. He can't even do a British accent. The relationship between Guinevere and the two leads was not believable. I didn't like the fact an older actor playing Arthur and that the two characters are meant to be a similar age. It was also hard to believe the relationship with Lancelot because of Gere's performance. I also felt that Camelot was not grant enough. The whole point of the city was that not other city could match it for beauty and was a symbol of England's glory. The film was also not particularly loyal to the Arthur legends and this is another example of Hollywood butchering an English legend, similar to Robin Hood films. A good thing about this film is the sword fights and battles were well done. This film isn't worth watching, and is one of the reasons why I don't rate Richard Gere as a actor.

In my opinion, one of the worst movies ever. This movie shows how Europeans think the Americans like to see the middle ages. A Disney-like castle, weapons, machines and armory invented centuries later. If it would have been a pure fantasy-movie with no connection to reality it would be still a bad movie but perhaps not that bad. Richard Gere is totally missplaced as Lancelot (One of the funniest scenes was the one on the battlefield in slowmotion that looked more like a shampoo commercial than a historical movie). All in all totally stupid.

I am a regular Hollywood movie buff, and heavily rely on IMDb user ratings, before watching any movie than relying on any other sources, and I prefer to watch movies which are usually rated at least 7 out of 10. So when I had a chance to see the movie First Knight, I was in a doubt whether to watch this movie with a low rating of 5.6/10, even with great actors like Sean Connery and Richard Gere, or to skip to some other movie. Luckily I decided to give it a shot, and oh what a movie it was. I really love the medieval age and other historic movies, and this is a gem added to the list. As reading some other reviews revealed earlier, that this is an adaptation of Arthurian legend, and not a true story, so I didn't bothered about the facts in the movie. It scores really high in terms of acting, fight sequences, chemistry between actors, and especially keeps you engrossed throughout the movie. As a "movie", the story works well and has all the elements balanced. If you are a fan of historic movies, please don't trust the IMDb ratings for this movie. Just sit and watch this movie on a nice evening, and you won't repent it.

I have watched this movie countless times over the years and it never fails to impress. Unlike lwjoslin, I don't purport myself as a historian. But then, the story of Camelot, King Arthur, Guinevere, and the rest are NOT historical figures in any true sense. They are all fictional characters in a fictional setting. So why write such a derisive review? To me, it seems clear that the reviewer is incapable of simply viewing this as pure escapist fare. He (or she, but I doubt it) most highly thinks very highly of himself. I hope that people were not put off by his diatribe. He, and those who may be influenced by his critique, need to remember that the entire story is fiction. It is not based, in any way, on historical fact. To make the comments he did, he must have forgotten that simple idea. It is fiction, and the story has simply been embellished in a new way. For me, this was a wonderful story of a wonderful time. It is a story which has been told many times on film within the past century, and has almost always been presented as a tragic event in an otherwise idyllic time. Why does he insist on tarnishing this telling by citing irrelevant facts? Do not be influenced by his trash. This is simply a wonderful, new twist on an old story, and it's very well done. Enjoy!