Watch it at Amazon
34 out of 56 people found the following review useful: The Best Kind Of "Popcorn Movie"!, 20 April 2007 Author: alexcuvelier 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!)
42 out of 73 people found the following review 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...
28 out of 46 people found the following review 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.
30 out of 52 people found the following review 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!
22 out of 38 people found the following review 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.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Hugely disappointing, 13 December 2005 Author: Bjorn (jbjorns) from Iceland
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This retelling of the King Arthur legend is a huge disappointment in every respect. Sean Connery and Richard Gere are both very good actors but they're so hugely miscast here it's really ridiculous.Connery brings charm and elegance into everything he does, but here he misses simply because he's too old for the part. His relationship with Guinevere is never believable, sparks never fly and I really couldn't help but laugh at the crucial moment when Arthur becomes a broken man because of her "infidelity" with Lancelot.Gere doesn't fare any better as Lancelot. His romantic affair with Guinevere doesn't seem too out of place, I mean, Gere looks good enough. It's just Gere doesn't belong in a medieval film, at all. He was totally wrong for the part of David and here he's even worse. His smug, arrogant look suits him so well in many parts but not here, Lancelot doesn't come across as any kind of hero but rather as an opportunistic prick who'll stop at nothing to steal Guinevere from the King.Julia Ormond, who was so charming in Legends of the Fall, is completely on sedative here, doesn't seem to be trying her best at all. Ben Cross injects some form of life into his villainous role but the terrific John Gielgud is completely wasted in a minor part.Production values are tip-top and the movie looks and sounds great. It's got some great action sequences and Richard Gere does really look good with a sword (maybe he should play in Highlander movie some time), so many elements in the film work well. If only the script were better and the cast had been different the film could have been very good.John Boorman's 1981 film Excalibur covered the King Arthur legend much better, included the famous Excalibur sword, the wizard Merlin and the quest for the Holy Grail (all these elements are missing from First Knight). Check that one out instead.
5 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Nononono, 25 February 2007 Author: A_Little_Joker from Norway
Richard Gere in this kind of movie? Na-ah not good. The acting of the movie isn't really that good, although Connery is okay. There is so many movies about Arhtur, Lancelot etc and of those I've seen this is probably the worse. Gere ruins it all. He doesn't fit to this movie. Gross! Not a very interesting movie at all...The music was okay, but that was about it. Movie got boring quickly. Camelot looked like the Disney castle thing. The ending where Arthur is dead on a float against the sunset is beautiful, but that's about it.It could be better cast choices because as said, Gere is too... what can I say? Modern! His face is totally wrong for Lancelot...
5 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Not only stupid, but ugly, 6 March 2006 Author: margmusg
What woman would ever have trouble choosing between Sean Connery, even an old one (James Bond!), and Richard Gere (American Gigolo)? Guinevere's "dilemma" becomes ridiculous! Besides, the point of the Arthur tragedy is that Guinevere and Lancelot DO betray Arthur. Here, they just think about it and kiss once. (An abstinence-only Camelot legend?) On top of that, the movie is hideous. The costume designer should never be allowed to work again. Everybody wears some combination of blue and yellowish brown. Why would Arthur and his wife and his knights all wear the same colors? Why such ugly colors anyway? I agree with most reviewers that this movie is a terrible waste of some decent actors.
5 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Pretty standard Camelot fare, 12 February 2006 Author: zenbuckaroo from Thailand
The first time I saw the movie I liked it pretty well, but it did not hold up on a second or third viewing. Not much depth or texture to it. Sean Connery is a very good Arthur in love with a much younger Guinevere. His talents show up well when he has to show the dilemma of having to deal harshly with two people he loves who have betrayed him.Richard Gere is completely lost playing an Englishman, even one of centuries ago. He does a much better job playing a fighter pilot in training (Officer and a Gentleman), than he does as a knight of the round table.Julia Ormand seems to treat her role as Guinevere the way a manikin might. She looks pretty, smiles when the director tells her to and frowns when she is unhappy. She did nothing that convinced me she was in love with either of these two men.The movie is too much like most of the others. Camelot on Broadway is a better production with Julie Andrews and Richard Burton...you can do as the late JFK did and listen to the album and get a greater depth of enjoyment than seeing this production.Or see King Arthur 2004 which is much closer to the historical Arthur the the Camelot versions. Learn a bit of why there was an Arthur legend.
7 out of 12 people found the following review useful: - NOT for purists - Arthurian Bizarre Love Triangle, 15 February 2008 Author: mstomaso from Vulcan
In general, I enjoyed this film. I like the Arthurian legends, Sean Connery, Julia Ormond and Richard Gere. And I am not a purist of any kind. If you can not tolerate updating, improvisation and revision of your favorite myths and legends, avoid this film at all costs. Excalibur is a very minor character, most of the knights of the round table are treated interchangeably, Camelot is depicted as a libertarian/democratic utopia, and the events of the legend are somewhat rearranged. Gere does not even affect a British accent, let alone Medieval expression. And where is Morgana and her son? A few aspects of this radical revision of the legend of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot bothered me - I thought Gere did an admirable job as Lancelot, but also thought that he was terribly miscast. Gere is as American as cheeseburgers and has limited physical acting ability. However, he managed to handle the action scenes quite well - with some help from the camera and director, and his accent and mannerisms did - if perhaps too much so - emphasize his difference from most of Arthur's milieu.Ormond steals the show. Connery brings his usual dose of regal manliness and that classic voice to a charismatic and powerful portrayal of Arthur, and Gere is anomalous, a little humorous and disorienting, but charmingly human. The film is nicely shot, though there are too many close-up exploitations of star-power. The editing and directing are fine, but note the comments about Gere above.The basics of the story are as follows - Guinevere (Ormond) is a young lady of Lioness whose marginal lands are threatened by upstart Prince Malagart. Malagart is out to prove that Arthur's way, and Camelot itself, are an aberration. Lancelot - a drifter with a knack for sword fighting - rescues Guinevere from an ambush launched on her wedding caravan and is immediately smitten. Whether out of love or honor, Lancelot helps her to regain her escort and he runs off into the woods and his itinerant lifestyle. Guinevere marries Arthur and Arthur plans to defend her lands. Lancelot resurfaces and gets himself placed at the round table, but his motives are suspect.All three of the protagonists are in love with each other for one reason or another and the battle scenes are not half as moving as the dynamics of their relationships.Recommended for romantics. Not recommended for purists or action fans.
Add another review
