Rating: 
Summary: A few complaints...
Review: This is the heart of Camelot, not these stones, not these timbers, these palaces and towers. Burn them all and Camelot lives on, because it lives in us. Camelot is a belief that we hold in our hearts.
-King ArthurPrince Malagant (Ben Cross), a rebel knight from the Round Table, seeks to expand his empire and take over the lands of Guinevere (Julia Ormond). With her subjects at the mercy of Malagant's evil forces, Guinevere leaves her home to marry King Arthur (Sean Connery) and ask for his help and protection. But en route to Camelot, Guinevere's escort is ambushed and though Guinevere is almost carried away to Malagant, she is rescued by Lancelot (Richard Gere). A loner who lives by his sword, Lancelot is attracted to the soon-to-be queen, and Guinevere too feels herself drawn to him. What follows is the tale of a forbidden love which will bring about terrible consequences which might affect the outcome of the battle between good and evil. *PLOT* - For those who love anything to do with Arthurian legends, this is a great film. But for those who are finicky about details, this is NOT the film for you! Besides having the legend of Arthur completely altered, none of the other famous characters besides Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinever from the stories of Arthur are present! Where's Merlin, Morgan La Fay, Mordred, Sir Galahad, Lady of the Lake, etc.? And though the Knights of the Round Table are listed in the credits (example Sir Gawaine, Sir Gareth, etc.), after watching the movie you won't be able to put names with the faces of any of the knights! This is in fact one of my biggest complaints with the movie, one of the few movies featuring the Knights of the Round Table and we're not even given a chance to know any of them! And on top of everything, the plot surrounding the romance between Lancelot and Guinevere was a bit too predictable! Lancelot starts lusting after her immediately after their meeting, and throughout the movie there's no real romance! I just felt that it was just a bit too unbelievable. Why in the world would Guinevere 'fall in love' with a man who even admits he has no real honor? *ACTING* - Sean Connery is the real star of the film. With his Scottish brogue, great acting, and in general possessing the air of a king, casting Sean Connery as King Arthur was simply perfect. (a little trivia, Sean Connery also played a famous king in history when he played the uncredited role of King Richard in Kevin Costner's "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves"). Whenever I finish watching "First Knight", I can't help but think Guinevere a fool to betray Arthur's love. I certainly have no complaints with Julia Ormond's acting. I thought she was marvelous, and she also has a lovely British accent which complemented her role as Guinevere. Unfortunately, as I said before, the romance didn't fall right. And Richard Gere doesn't quite fit the bill as Lancelot. Too American and too modern, and besides that, his acting wasn't top notch. Plus, I couldn't believe he was really in love with Guinevere because love requires respect. Besides not respecting Guinevere's wishes for him to leave her alone, he also doesn't respect that she is engaged to King Arthur. I also thought that the whole thing surrounding his promise that 'Guinevere will someday as him to kiss her' was stupid. *ACTION* - Ah, the action is what really saves this film from being a total waste of time for movie lovers! Lots of excitement, "First Knight" is full of exuberant energy! The battles are well done, and the swordplay is loads of fun to watch! Though epic battle scenes and swordplay from the "Lord of the Rings" cannot EVER be beaten, "First Knight" is still enjoyable. Best fight is definitely the last part, especially between Lancelot and Malagant. *PG-13 RATING* - The movie is rated PG-13 for violence and some innuendos. The violence is nothing too gory since the battle scenes are pretty quick. But the fight between Lancelot and Malagant might make some people a bit squeamish. The same can be said about the innuendos, though not bad at all compared to more recent films, the dialogue is obvious and suggestive at times. There is one scene though towards the beginning where parents might want to skip for younger audiences. *OVERALL & RECOMMENDATIONS* - Overall, what you can expect from "First Knight" are loads of action and some nice swordplay. Unfortunately, don't expect too much to learn more about the Arthurian legends or find a beautiful and believable romance. Other movies I can recommend are: -LADYHAWKE- (1985) One of the best medieval movies ever made! A wonderful tale with better action and a more beautiful love story. Director Richard Donner and starring Matthew Broderick, Rutger Hauer, and Michelle Pfeiffer. PG-13
-MERLIN- (1998) TV miniseries with a stellar cast follows the life of the famous wizard, Merlin. A much more accurate look of the legend of Arthur. Director Steve Barron and starring Same Neill, Helenna Bonham Carter, Miranda Richardson, and Martin Short. NR
-LOTR: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING & THE TWO TOWERS- (2001-2002) An epic movie of grand proportions, the best battle scenes ever put on film. And when "The Return of the King" comes out in 2003, that will also be highly recommended I'm sure! Director Peter Jackson and starring Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, and Christopher Lee. PG-13
Rating:
Summary: A GREAT SPIN ON THE LEGEND!
Review: "First Knight" may never reach the heights of acclaim like "Excalibur," but this re-telling of the legend of King Arthur is, in my opinion, just as good as "Excalibur" if not better. Sean Connery IS the fabled king of Camelot, and Julia Ormond is vibrant and beautiful as Guinevere. Richard Gere as Launcelot is the only part of this film that keeps it from getting five stars. The rest of the film, however, is great. Add it to your collection today! Grade: A-
Rating: 
Summary: About Last Knight
Review: After viewing "first night" I spent a great deal of time wondering just why they bothered to imply this story had anything to do with the King Arthur legends. Change the names of the three main characters and you have a generic and very bland fantasy story. The tale of Camelot has been retold countless time over countless generations and I am not complaining about the fact that the story was altered. What I am complaining about is the fact that the story itself was so blatantly disregarded. A new villainous character Malagant is introduced for no good reason, there are more than enough bad guys in the Arthurian legends without having to create a new one. I suppose that by creating a new character they writers were able to avoid having to think about motive or character development. Conspicuous by their absence are the likes of Sir Galahad, Morgan le Fay, the Holy Grail, Merlin, Excalibur, Percival, Mordred and dozens of other interesting and supporting characters.
Sean Connery makes for a great Arthur but one wasted here. I very much enjoyed the idea of Arthur as an old man who is tired of war and conquest who wants to settle down with a beautiful wife in the city he built. Unfortunately Connery is given so little to do in this movie, largely he stands around looking either worried or regal. The villainous Malagant (Ben Cross) is simply evil in the worst sort of melodramatic way, he kills innocent women and children for his amusement, he dresses in black, he has an evil laugh, and his castle is even twisted and ugly. There is no real reason for him to act the way he does he is just there to give Lancelot something to fight. I am not now and most likely never will be a fan of Richard Gere. His Lancelot is one of the least memorable performances of that role I can recall. There is no reason to like or sympathize with Lancelot. I am at a loss to understand why Guinevere (Julia Ormond) falls in love with him. To her credit Ormond does a good job at portraying a woman torn between two very different men. Unfortunately the movie itself robs Guinevere of ever having to make a choice between Arthur and Lancelot, Arthur conveniently dies and Lancelot is declared the defacto new king. The movie itself looks spectacular but the writing and the casting of Gere leaves it lacking terribly.
Rating: 
Summary: Good if you want a love story...
Review: but not so good as Arthurian legend. The story is simply changed too much. Although Connery, Gere, and Ormond are excellent choices to play Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere respectively, I just couldn't get into it. The love story between Lance and Gwen isn't even the same as in the traditional legend. But, as I said, if you don't care if it strays from tradition and you are looking for a good love story, this film is a good bet.
Rating: 
Summary: THE BEST
Review: This is one of the best movies Hollywood ever put out, not for the love story but for the good against evil! The phrases and prayers said, the lack of sorcery, witchcraft, profanity, and nudity make this movie great! I have never seen King Arther cast in such a good light, basically as a God-fearing Christian man, a true leader! Hollywood meant this to be a love affair story, but the love story takes second place over the fight of good against evil! Everyone was cast perfectly, the scenery beautiful, and the plot believeable. One of the great phrases comes from King Arthur and sums up what this awesome movie is about,"There is a peace ONLY to be found on the other side of war"!! I would rate this a 10 if I could!
Rating:
Summary: Sean Connery Does It Again!!!!!
Review: Sean Connery does an awesome job as King Arthur. I didn't like how Lady Guinevere went for Lancelot instead of him. Stupid choice on her part. King Arthur wouldn't have died if it weren't for her. But otherwise it was a great cool movie that was worth the lack of sleep from staying up late to watch it. Sean Connery steals the show! Sean Connery rules.
Rating:
Summary: overall its a good movie, but......
Review: I think that they didn't cast it well. Julia Ormond is ok, but Richard Gear is terrible. personally I find Gear annoying and a slimy kisser playing Lancelot, the movie makers give you no reason to like him and Gwenevere together. There is no...I can't find the word for it, they just don't click. Throughout the movie I keep wondering why Gwenevere would pick Lancelot over Arthur(Sean Connery) who is a lot nicer, loves her, and is very good looking even though he is above middle-aged. However it is not bad to watch, a bit of a tear-jerker at the end, and good music by Jerry Goldsmith. If I could I would give it a 3&1/2 star rating. You don't need to buy it, just go to your local video store.
Rating:
Summary: good flick
Review: If you are looking for an accurate re-telling of the
Arthurian legend, this is not it. However, if you are
looking for an entertaining movie to watch, this will
do. Not too heavy, just something fun to watch in an
afternoon.
Julia Ormond is fabulous. She is the best actress today,
plus she is incredibly beautiful. I wish she was in more
movies.
Richard Gere is sorely miscast. He's too much of a wimp
for the role.
Overall a fun movie, with surprisingly good fight scenes.
Worth the watch, especially for the lovely Ormond.
Rating:
Summary: A classic
Review: Very good
Good artists, good story
Is a fine movie for a saturday afternoon.
Thanks
Rating:
Summary: Not Much For the Arthurian Legend
Review: This movie was definately entertaining. The story does move too far from the tradition of King Arthur for my taste, and yet the question remains whether it could be done with out the Athurian Legend. The movie is well rounded and entertaining. Gere does not do justice to the characte of Lancelot, but it was not just his acting. Lancelot is protrayed as just an ordinary rogue who happens to become a knight of the round table by accident, and not chivalry. If you can get passed this, then the movie has good action scenes and is definately worth watching.
|
