IMDb user comments for
First Knight (1995) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 16:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

159 comments in total

---

33 out of 55 people found the following comment useful :-
The Best Kind Of "Popcorn Movie"!, 20 April 2007

Author: alexisbackintown from Waterloo, Belgium

I don't see why people are making so much noise against this movie. We all know this isn't a history class. We all know this isn't realistic in any way. It is NOT and it's NOT supposed to be! I've never heard people say : "The musical version of The Three Musketeers with Gene Kelly isn't faithful to the book". Frankly, who cares? If you want the true story, the realistic story, get a book or a documentary. What we have here is a true "popcorn movie", the kind of film you put in your DVD player for a nice evening of "no thinking, just enjoying". This is a Hollywood family movie, with 3 great stars, fancy costumes, beautiful scenery and great music. To me, this is some of the best entertainment! The kind of entertainment that cinema was invented for and that was so successful in the 40s and 50s. It seems to me that people today just can't enjoy that kind of entertainment anymore. And that is sad! So, please, stop complaining and just enjoy for Pete's sake! (lol!)

---

41 out of 72 people found the following comment useful :-
Sean Connery has the voice, the look and the chivalrous character of the legendary King Arthur..., 21 January 2004

Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

In 'First Knight' Connery has gentleness in his eyes, and embodies the best aims of the founder of the Knights of the Round Table... Arthur had his share of war... He had devoted his life to building a land of peace and justice... He looks forward to quieter days... He asks Guinevere to 'marry the king but to love the man.'

Julia Ormond glows and smolders to fine effect as the passionate Guinevere who is confused about her feelings for the king and his first knight... Guinevere tries to convince Arthur that her will is stronger than her heart... She assures the king that she may look at him differently but not with less love...

Richard Gere lacks the heroic stance required for such part... He is not colorful and flamboyant as Lancelot... He is simply Richard Gere... He lives by the sword, and fights for money... He is introduced as a wanderer, with no wealth, no home, no goals, just the passionate spirit that drives him on... Lancelot had never dreamed of peace or justice or knighthood... He rescues the Lady of Leonesse, and gives Arthur back his life itself...

Ben Cross is arrogant as the powerful Prince Malagant, a former knight of the Round Table, with hatred in his heart... He dares to kidnap a lady who is almost a queen... Malagant doesn't care how many men he loses so long as he wins... He offers the king what is not 'his' to give..

In Jerry Zucker's film there's no Merlin, no malevolent Mordred, no femme fatale, just the city of Camelot seen golden as ever, the knights brave and loyal, the battles almost breathtaking in their ferocity, and the scenic beauty so fresh, so pure, so green...

---

27 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting Adaptation, 8 December 2005

Author: Tom Covenant from Australia

Although many have criticised this film harshly, I believe it is unnecessary. It is an adaptation of the myth of Arthur, and is interesting. There is no magic, no Merlin :(, no Morgana, no sword in the stone - in fact, no referral to Arthur's past. This obviously changes the myth quite substantially. Merlin and the Sword were key players in the typical Arthur legend, but this adaptation is good because Morgana often confuses people.

It squashes what Camelot really is - an ideal - into about two and a bit hours of movie. Richard Gere is charming as Lancelot, a roving swordsman, and Lady Guinevere delivers an outstanding performance as the young woman torn between two loves. Sean Connery, is as always, fantastic. The best thing about this movie - to me - was that the love story was sensible. Instead of Guinevere and Lancelot cheating on Arthur, it becomes more of a love triangle, with deeper issues, as all three love each other (in different ways.)

All this said, it isn't the greatest movie despite some excellent acting - the movie had a weak plot and Maligant is not a very convincing villain. But, if you're bored, home sick, or just want to watch some light entertainment, by all means watch this film - just don't expect Peter Jackson quality.

---

21 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
King Arthur's tale made into uninteresting film., 24 June 2002

Author: Curt Clason from USA, San Diego

This is a painfully bad retelling of the Arthurian Legend. The bad guys use crossbow pistols and wear black leather ala Road Warrior, The good guys look like a high school production of Camelot. Camelot itself looks like part of Disneyland.

The story centers around Richard Gere as an unappealing Lancelot, Sean Connery as a doddering Arthur and Julia Ormond (Guenevere) who, despite being the high point of the film, is completely unable to convince us that she has any affection for the wizened Arthur.

Bad guys grimace, music sweeps heroically, rousing speaches and predictability ensue, followed by a forgettable conclusion.

Not worth it even for fans of the genre.

---

29 out of 51 people found the following comment useful :-
A beautiful and touching movie, 11 April 2000

Author: Justin Behnke from Fishers, IN

I am proud to say this movie is among my top 15 of all time, along with The Godfather I and II, Shawshank, Amadeus and It's A Wonderful Life. It is not a "chick flick", nor is it an empty-headed Richard Gere movie. This movie is a compelling love triangle between King Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, while also being an exciting action-adventure involving a traitor to Camelot who threatens to destroy it literally and figuratively.

Sean Connery is perfectly cast and superb as King Arthur. Richard Gere is often criticized as a poor choice for Lancelot because of his age, but come on! The whole story is a medieval fantasy. If Gere is 8 or 10 years older than he really should be in the movie, who cares? We're not telling a true story here. He seems a little awkward a choice in the beginning but ultimately gives a great, fantastic at times, performance. Julia Ormond is who really elevates this movie. She is stunning and radiant as Guinevere, the compassionate and brave Lady of Lioness. Every medieval word and mannerism she produces is believable.

Action fans will not be disappointed as this film has some amazing sequences, especially when Richard Gere runs the gauntlet. Zucker really lets go in the battles, also. Ben Cross plays a great villain.

The end of this movie is one of the more moving scenes I've ever seen. The performances by Connery, Ormond and Gere up to that point make what could have been silly or forced seem touching and beautiful.

First Knight is a great and underrated film, not to be missed. It's a simple story that doesn't require a lot of analysis or understanding of folklore and mythology to enjoy. Give it a chance!

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Richard Gere's ego on display, 21 October 2008

Author: Joe from Chicago

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Yes. A 1.

And as other commentators have noted, it feels like you are watching a medievalized version of Star Trek. Everyone is giving Patrick Stewart like performances, talking about democracy and human rights---

What is this, a 16 year old girl's vision of the Middle Ages?

I don't feel fear, I don't feel fear, I don't feel fear, this is the damn mantra repeated by Gere throughout the entire movie . . .

So--

Apparently Dare-Devil was a medieval American knight, who had memorized every line spoken by Commander Ryker---

The only thing good about this movie---it is hilariously bad.

To imagine a middle ages like this, no dirt, no toughness, no rape---

Just a Fabio-like fool running about, putting himself through a gauntlet of swinging blades to kiss the hand of the Queen---

Not to be taken seriously you say? Well, if I am not to take it seriously,I am sorry.

There are two hours here of silliness to laugh at and foppish villains who talk like Italian designers--

But I would say see this movie, if you want to laugh---

Because it is certainly funny.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Horrible, horrible movie, 19 May 2007

Author: tvaril from dallas, tx

I'm baffled by the number of people who actually liked this movie. How anyone can watch this crud is beyond me. Aside from the blatant attempt to cash in on the popularity of Arthurian legend (this story has nothing whatsoever to do with King Arthur, despite the use of some recognizable names), this movie is just plain terrible. There's nothing worse than a bad movie that passes for a good one. The campy "B-movies" of the '70s and '80s were bad and everyone involved with them knew it. First Knight could fall into that category, but it doesn't. It's just bad. The look of the film rivals some of the best after-school specials of the time period. When I came across it on TV, I thought it was an episode of J.A.G. until I saw Sean Connery. The script reminded me of coffee commercials and the acting aspired to such. What was up with that swinging sand bag and sword "gauntlet" thing? It looked like it should have been the thrilling climax to "Revenge of the Nerds VII: Nerds in Camelot." Avoid this stinker like the black plague.

---

8 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
What a stinker!, 13 August 2001

Author: hotspur95 from Scotland

I have just been laughing away to my self reading all the other reviews of this movie. Oh dear :) Yup, if you have any fore - knowledge of the Aurtherian legends, then this film will make you grind your teeth in dispair. I think my sister had rented it, I already knew it would be bad. I still watched to the end - with a grim, half wince, expression, as if witnessing a car crash. It is everything bad about hollywood - honestly - they should just donate the money to charity and kick the script writers in the shins. The fact that they had to butcher a fine story as well ... anyway... I'm sure you have read all the other comments ... I wonder if it will become one of those 'so bad, it is good' films, because some of it still makes me giggle. The fact that the uniforms the knights all wore looked more like Star Trek jerkins, and the 'Its a knock out' challange the Gere (who should be beaten with a pointy stick), are notable points of lunacy. Ok, I'm done :)

---

11 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
The worst film EVER made., 30 September 2001

Author: Jack_rabbit from United Kingdom

This film above all else illustrates perfectly the effect of corporate finance and star ego on the film industry. To take one of the greatest epic stories ever written and then to change it so completely that the only remaining similaritys are the names of the characters (but not the characters themself) makes you wonder why they bother to use the legend in the first place. The acting is crap and lacklustre, the plot is laughable, the sets pathetic, costume, sound, script there is not one decent thing about the film. The first time I saw it I actually walked out half way through, the only film that I have ever done that with. And I watched "Spice Girls the Movie". Recently however it was on tv and I watched the second half thinking "maybe it just needs time to get going" but my god it gets worse. Everyone who was involved in the making of this film should be made to work stacking shelves in Tesco`s for the rest of their lives, they should never be allowed to even watch a film, let alone make one, again ever as a punishment for inflicting this b**tardisation on the world.

---

18 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :-
Do you love bad movies? This is the one for you!,, 11 September 2006

Author: benbrae76

How on earth did Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julie Ormand, Ben Cross, Sir John Gielgud, and other actors of note, ever get roped into making this awful atrocious movie? The word "hokum" is undoubtedly a compliment in this case. Surely it wasn't for money? Nobody's that greedy or hard up. Or did they all think it was a good idea at the time? If so, they were badly mistaken.

The supposed Norman armour looked like something that was dreamed up for (and thrown out of) Star Trek or Flash Gordon. Actually the styles of (designer) armour on display here range from the bizarre to the unbelievable with shades of the ridiculous in between. Disregarding that they were all made out of modern material, uniforms were not worn by any military in Britain until Cromwell's New Model Army in the 17th century. Until then recognition of both friend and enemy alike was by banners etc., and was all a bit of a hit and miss affair (just like this movie in fact). On reflection I can't recall seeing a single banner in the entire film.

The fabled King Arthur wouldn't have been Norman anyway. He was supposed (debatedly) to have been a 5th or 6th century Ancient Briton, some say with Roman ancestry, and to have lived long before the Norman Conquest was even thought of. One theory even puts forward the view that he actually was a Roman who'd remained in Britain after all others had departed. Whichever of the many theories you prefer, you'd have to agree that he certainly wouldn't even have seen a Gothic building let alone lived in one.

The moralising (or should I say demoralising) script was not only absolutely dire but downright silly. Almost as silly as the gas fire in the middle of the Round Table.

I don't think that Britain was actually mentioned in the script, so perhaps if this re-telling of a powerful story had been set anywhere (a planet somewhere in the far reaches of Andromeda comes to mind) instead of in and around Camelot, and with a different set of characters, the movie might have been acceptable. As it is, it has to go down in the comedy mode. Except that it wasn't meant to be one.

Richard Gere as Lancelot has to be the one of the worst casting mistakes in movie history, that is if you discount John Wayne as Ghengis Khan (and the "Surely this must be the Son of God!" Centurian), or a 30 yr old Robert Taylor as Billy the Kid. And Sean Connery as King Arthur doesn't rate much better.

The only good comments I can make about the whole production is that there's a rather nice musical score lurking somewhere behind everything, and Adam Greenberg's cinematography is rather good. For those two points alone I've given it an extra star, but it's still an awful movie.

In conclusion, this has to be a Follywood production that cannot be missed...otherwise you'll never know how bad it is!

---

---

Page 1 of 16:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history