Rating: 
Summary: Almost a sin
Review: When i first heard of a movie called "First Knight" ("Lancelot" in my language) i knew that it would be a bad movie. But i love arthutr legend, so i had to watch it...
I think is one of the worst movies of all time (competing very close with clase B movies) the script is as simplier as a porn movie. The characters arent better. The color of each character is more obvious even than Starwars or any child movie. SEan Connery (one of my favourites actors) play the role of a (...) arthur, where is the king that united england? did arthur had such a strange hairstyle? why Lencelot look like a cowboy? While he fights he aparently is eating chewing gum...
I had a lot of errors more to describe, but i dont think it would be necesary. Is not a movie for a arthurin fan, is a movie for pople who likes American Pie and that Us speudo 80's rubish
Rating:
Summary: A sick [rehash] of the Arthurian Legend
Review: I have been a fan of Arthur for years. I have watched movies, documentaries, and read books. This movie has nothing remotely resembling the true tale of Arthur. There is no merlin, excalibur, quest for the grail, percival, morgan le fay...etc. They just thought if they used the names Arthur, Lancelot and Guenivere that this horrible movie would sell better. It is a silly plot with guenivere being captured repeatedly by the bad guy and saved repeatedly by the good guy. The worst part about this movie is the way Sean Connery plays this role. King Arthur is a hero and a king. This movie portrays him as weak and almost less than a man. He KNOWS all along what is going on with Lancelot and his wife and chooses to do nothing! If you want a real movie, buy Excalibur. It is as good as this movie is bad.
Rating: 
Summary: A very interesting and captivating epic
Review: "First Knight" is a version of the Camelot legend. I'm not familiar at all with the legend of Camelot, but I do know one thing, I really like "First Knight." Sean Connery plays the part as King Arthur, Julia Ormond is the Queen, and Richard Gere plays as Sir Lancelot.Lancelot is a wanderer who doesn't have a home or any place to stay, but he is satisfied living alone with just his superior sword-fighting skills. That is, until he meets the soon to be Queen and falls in love with her. Will Lancelot be successful in making the Queen change her mind about who she wants to be with, or will her top priority still be King Arthur? Don't get me wrong, "First Knight" is not only a love story. There is a lot of exciting fighting, mostly with swords, it's easy to tell the movie is an epic with the huge castles and the many knights on horses, and throughout the whole movie, everybody, especially the three main stars (Ormond, Connery, and Gere), all do a great job of acting to make the movie captivating and believable. The bottom line is, "First Knight" is an exciting epic about the story of Camelot, and all the while with all the fighting and other conflicts, there's an underlying love story to make it even more interesting. Even if you're not that crazy about epic films, give "First Knight" a chance. If you are a big fan of great epic movies, I recommend purchasing "First Knight" as soon as possible!
Rating: 
Summary: Not Exellent, Not Bad
Review: Some people believe that this is just another example of typical Hollywood junk, meant merely to entertain for a few hours (if that). I, for one, have no problem with movies like that, but was very pleased and surprised that this movie is one or two steps above that sort of thing. I choose to ignore the superficial stuff, like accents or accuracy, which made this move much better in my eyes. If you have a problem with this, however, you're going to find that Richard Gere's accent is simply not there and the Authurian legend was twisted almost beyond recognition. Not a crisis we can't overcome, although some critics seemed to think they needed therapy to aid them in their quest for spiritual wholeness. I'm not going to let a movie ruin my decade, however! Julia Ormond is of course stunningly beautiful, which almost takes away from her acting - almost. She is a great actress, and although the material isn't too deep in this film, she proves it yet again as the Queen Guinevere. Sean Connery is of course fabulous, if a little stale. It seems to me it doesn't take too much imagination to play this King Arthur. Richard Gere makes the film for me, and not because he's handsome and buff (which is always a plus). His acting is really good for the stuff he had to do, and I think he looked very into his character, the rough and honorable Lancelot. Much credit has to be given to the supporting cast, which was great. Not a cheesy actor amongst them, with the possible exception of the fellow who played the "villain", evil Malagant. Sort of your stereotypical bad guy. Oh, and watch out for the scene where he walks into a room full of knights, places his sword on the round table, makes a corny speech, and then walks out again... without his sword. I bet he beat himself up about that later on when he was attacking Camelot! The costumes are fabulous, and obviously more time was spent on Guinevere's beautiful dresses then was spent on the funny looking sets and models for Camelot. Weird adobe-like houses with bright blue roofs, crammed together. Hard to believe King Arthur became as powerful as he's said to be in the movie, since his entire kingdom is just big enough to fit on top of a hill. Oh well. A movie I would gladly buy simply because it's enjoyable and entertaining, not because it's deep or riveting or changed my life. Although, after watching this movie, I did seriously consider painting my roof blue...
Rating: 
Summary: afraid my quest for a good movie about Camelot goes on....
Review: because here is another clunker. Richard Gere is just awful as Lancelot. You know, the legendary Lancelot is a NOBLEMAN, not a street performer. He is FRENCH, not...well...American like Gere. These legends have stood the test of time because they are good, just as they are. They don't need to be updated--you ruin what they're all supposed to be about that way. I like Sean Connery, but isn't he a little long in the tooth to play Arthur? He might be a better age for Merlin. Nope, this is not my kind of Camelot.
Rating:
Summary: sean is the king
Review: this movie is worth seeing at least once if you like knights, forbitten romance, violence, sean, or richard hey what you waiting for
Rating:
Summary: Connery is great, Ormond is beautiful, the film is bad
Review: This is such a poor representation of the myth of Camelot that its hard to believe that the same man responsible for Forrest Gump did this. Richard Gere is much like Kevin Costner, in that he has to employ a very poor English accent for his part. I could care less. Neither actor pulled that off, but I never felt that was important to the films. Costner's Robin Hood is a good escapist, fun film, whereas First Knight is boring, tedious and uninspired. If a viewer wants to enjoy a truly great film on Camelot, he/she should watch Excalibur. It is far better in every way, except one. Connery is a great King Arthur. Its too bad he couldnt have had the inspired talent surrounding him necessary to make such a great tale into a likewise great movie.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent movie!
Review: I am a high school student, and we watched this movie in my English class when we studied about King Arthur. I loved it! While it does have a somewhat different storyline than the actual legend, I liked the movie's plot better. I especially loved its interpretation of the characters of Arthur, Guenevere, and Lancelot. Arthur is portrayed as a noble king, Guenevere as an independent lady, and Lancelot as a wanderer who is a little rough around the edges but is basically a nice guy. The movie focuses on the love triangle involving Guenevere, Arthur, and Lancelot. You feel for all three of them as you watch Guenevere and Lancelot try to sort out their feelings for each other when they know that they must not act on them. The movie's ending is different from the one in the traditional legend, but I liked the movie's ending better. Not totally accurate, but as long as you're not worried about that, a great movie!
Rating:
Summary: It's only flaws are ideology and some implausibility
Review: The story, acting, scenery, direction, action, and romance are all very well done. However the whole live for each other concept and forego any real sense of individuality is abhorrent. And why did the producers have to take what otherwise is a fabulous film and turn it into this socialist propaganda? Serve the kingdom, live for each other. Please. Lets all just move to Russia. Films like this can give some good people some bad ideas. I mean I know that you have to have the traditional good and bad guys but as is very often true in life the individual is left out in the cold. Apart from the collective. It's very difficult to not be a follower. But the movie is a real pleasure to watch although a little implausible in spots. Like when Lancelot rides into Malakand's camp all by himself. Then he manages to escape with the lovely lady in tow. Like that would really happen. The battle scenes were a sight to see. Gere really can muster up that intensity when he needs it. The costumes and sets were all superb. It is a great adventure story and I always enjoy watching but I get turned off by the political statements that it endeavors to make.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good, But Not "Excalibur"
Review: If I had not seen "Excalibur," I may have given this 5 stars. On its own, the movie is pretty good. The scenery is well done; Gere does the role of Lance A Lot quite well. (He makes him a strong and able knight who lacks discipline in certain areas, and is governed by sexual desire more than anything else.) Connery is great as King Arthur. (He is very well mannered and disciplined, he is a capable and effective king, when he discovers his wife's infidelity, he explodes, but he does regain his mental stability to probe the matter, and he spends his final moments fighting for his people.) Cross (the villain) is really wicked and cruel, but he does carry charm, and he is even likable at times! I suspect Merlin was deleted to remove elements of possible implausibility. The action is done well, but not hammed up. The melodrama between King Arthur, his wife, and Lance A Lot is done well. Don't get me wrong. The movie IS excellent. But I did miss many elements from "Excalibur." Merlin (Arthur's father figure) is missing; Arthur's stepfather and stepbrother are missing; Arthur's growth from a bumbling youth to a competent responsible king is missing; the strong friendship between Lance A Lot and King Arthur is missing; in "Excalibur," Lance A Lot is much more hesitant to betray King Arthur; I did miss Arthur's father in law; in "Excalibur," Arthur's wife and Lance A Lot are much more sorry for what they have done; I did miss the 2 touching scenes where Arthur forgives them; and I did miss Lance A Lot's degenration into psychosis, but his recovery and repentance to Arthur by serving him in his final moments. Richard Gere and Sean Connery were really good, but Nigel Terry and Nicholas Clay were FAR BEYOND POSSIBLE EXPECTATIONS. I know we must expect differences when we see different versions of the same story; but if we have seen the best version, 2nd best is doomed to be a little disappointing.
|
