Rating: 
Summary: appalling
Review: You might think you want to get this film but believe me; you don't! Just get Excalibur instead! Why does Hollywood insist on dumbing things down?!?!? Did they think they could better a story that has endured for over a millenium? UTTER DRIVEL. Can you imagine the outcry if another nation's folk traditions/legends etc. were treated with this kind of contempt...
Rating: 
Summary: Legend Forever
Review: As you can see, I am a Chinese. I happened to see this movie on TV. Although I am not a professor on European history, I learnt something about the Legend of King Arthur before. However, I have to say, this movie, First Knight, gave me a new idea about this legend figure. Undoubtedly, it is not the true history. However, as far as I am concerned, I think it is a good movie, which did impress me a lot. First, and the most important, is the theme of the movie. I consulted the encyclopedia and found that Lancelot, to some degree, was an amorous but mean person. His behavior eventually divided Camelot. However, in the movie, everything changed. Lancelot was still an amorous person, but he was not a mean person. He loved Guinevere, but after understanding Arthur himself and the order of Camelot, he changed and was ready to sacrifice himself. He became a knight not only because of Guinevere actually, but also the order of Camelot and the will to seek for freedom. Actually, the movie does not only tell us a love story, but the spirit of freedom as well. This deepened the main idea of the movie. On the other hand, Guinevere¡¯s understanding of love is also very meaningful. As she said, the true love must be based on trust. If you love some one, you must love him or her with your body, heart and soul. From my point of view, the theme of a movie is the most important factor to me. I think the theme of this movie is significant. At last is the movie itself. If you choose to watch movie in order to experience the fierce battle field in medieval age, probably that is not a good decision. For one thing, the movie itself does not focus on the battle field, but the atmosphere of the war and the dialogues among person, which helps to highlight the theme of the movie. For another, the scenery and the background of the movie are marvelous. To make a conclusion, if I am in Lancelot's position and situation, probably I will do the same thing that he did. Although someone thought that Lancelot should be a better person, I disagree. I do not want to see a fantastic hero, but a sincerity person. Some others thought the movie should pay more attention on other knights. In my opinion, the main characters are Lancelot, the king and queen but not others. Considering the beautiful scenery of Camelot and the perfect performance of Sean Connery, I want to give the movie my highest recommendation. "Yet some men say in many parts of England that King Arthur is not dead, but had by the will of our lord Jesus into another place; and men say that he shall come again, and he shall win the holy cross. I will not say that it shall be so, but rather I will say, here in this world he changed his life. But many men say that there is written upon his tomb this verse: Hic iacet arthurus, Rex quondam rexque futurus." (Latin for "here lies Arthur, the once and future king.") (Excerpt from Le morte d'Arture, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2004) The movie does not tell the history, but it will remind the legend of the king.
Rating: 
Summary: dry, slow and not much fun
Review: this one follows into the love triangle of King Arthur, Lancelot and Lady Guinevere....not much exciting really..although there are some good moments and the passion can be put off to the side as dry and not great also..Gere, Connery and Ormond have their moments but the story itself from Willaim Nicholson is silly, but Camelot is beautiful...dry, I say..NOTE: look closely at the part where Gere is being knighted as one of them...you'll see a familiar face if your a Buffy or Angel fan, Alexis Denisof is one of the knights of the round table..dont miss it
Rating: 
Summary: First Knight Review
Review: I saw this movie in school yesterday for the first time. And if you do not have it.i reccommend putting it on your Christmas List. I would not recommend it for children under seven due to the violent parts in it. Overall I thought it was a great movie and I definetley want to get it for christmas and if not that see it again
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood disease
Review: Who should she choose? The guy old enough to be her father, or the guy old enough to be her Grandfather?
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly good
Review: First Knight is a movie that got quite a bit of buzz, and at first I was quite skeptical over it. It is among the few medieval movies out there and few Arthurian based films at that. I think the idea was original, as far as making a movie about this. Most directors are timid when it comes to opening a new genre. So I have to applaud this film for that. This is a romance, not an action flick. So as a guy, that turned me off, initially. But being how I'm fair in giving each movie a chance, I saw it. And it was surprisingly good. At least the romance didn't have cliche Hollywood sex in it, they actually tried to give the characters some sort of moral fiber, especially Julia Ormond's character, Guinivere. The action on the other hand is so-so entertaining. I guess I was hoping for more sword play or more/longer battles. Something memorable like that. Although the romance is surprisingly good, it may turn you off. Depending on whether you're interested in the storyline or you just want action, action, action. I prefer the storyline, so the romance is just fine for me, but for others it may be boring. And it is a little, I think they spend a little too much time with Lancelot doing everything in his power to charm over Guinivere. Sean Connery is Arthur, fitting, and he does well enough. I did like the love triangle in this movie, because Arthur is the third corner who is kinda out in the dark when it comes to knowing that his bride to be, Guinivere, is falling in love with Lancelet, who is Arthur's new friend. And therefore, when Arthur learns of this, the betrayal is complete. Romance with betrayal usually stirs up good drama and suspense. From the other reviews you probably know the plot already. And it's an OK plot. Malagant is a great villain, a little cliche at times, but very believable. His hatred towards Arthur and his desire to own Camelot makes the plot interesting. I would've liked to have seen Malagant and Lancelot go at it more during the course of the film than just have them have at each other in the end. Now I give this film 4 stars, because it has some errors in it that rightly should subtract a point. I found Richard Gere to be a poor Lancelot. He makes a good skirt chaser, but as far as sword fighter, he is a poor action star. He seemed slow, and I bet the majority of his action moves was done by the stunt man anyway. His sword fighting moves were not convincing, it seemed as if his opponents half the time were either too stupid or predictable. And for a great swordsmen, he doesn't show off nearly enough of his skills in the movie to prove to everyone he really is all that great. All he does is do some sort of crazy juke with his blade and knocks his oppenent's weapon away. What is this, Barry Sanders with a sword? In fact I almost laugh everytime I see Gere do it in the movie. Another complaint I have is the other knights of the round table. Why even have them if you aren't going to give them any significant roles and they are nothing more but props? I would've loved to learn more about the other knights, but the movie obsesses over Lancelot's lusting of Guinivere, when that time can be used to bring in more characters and create more interest to the viewer. Instead, there are three primary characters and everyone else might as well be scenery. The reason why this is a let down for this movie is because anytime you depict a legend through a movie, it's never smart to just choose three members of that legend and just ignore the rest. Because those of us that have some knowledge on Arthur and his knights know that there were other interesting characters of the Round Table than just Arthur and Lancelot. I know I'm being picky here but I have to mention it, and that is I thought it was a little cliche to have Lancelot always having to save dame in distress Guinivere. How many times does he end up saving her life? Three, four times? I can understand the first time, but then after that, it got a little too predictable. I would've rather seen Lancelot prove himself to her without having to save her life a bunch of times. But it's the "knight save princess" fairy tale that a lot of people get all glossy eyed over. The final complaint is the end. The burial. They send him out on a raft and then torch it, letting him sink into the sea. Now I know this was used for dramatic purposes, but remember, the Arthurians were devout Christians, who believed in what's called "Christian Burial" not cremation. So that's inaccurate. Overall, despite these picky points on my part, this film is still a good movie. The movie is good, but it drops the ball on not including the other knights, and it over plays its hand with Lancelot's constant begging for Guinivere to smooch him. If this movie had chosen a better Lancelot, included more of the Knights of the Round Table, and cut down some of the cliches I would've awarded it five stars. Instead it gets 4. Which is OK, it's a good movie and it is worth seeing. But I can't say it's the FIRST movie on my list. Grade: B
Rating: 
Summary: First Knight is fresh, but is that enough?
Review: First Knight is a movie that offers exactly what you expect from its title: tons of heroic actions, lots of battles and sword fights, kidnappings, ambushes, the standard bad guy and, of course, a woman around whom evolves the whole story. Unfortunately it doesn't have what it takes to rise above the pack - something which is probably true for "Exculibur". The screenplay focuses on two quite different battles: We have the battle for the heart of Guenevere, who is claimed by the young, handsome and fearless Lancelot and the old but wise King Arthur. We also have the battle for the kingdom of Camelot, that is claimed by a fallen knight, called Malagand. The novelty of the story lies in the fact that it stresses more the former than the latter of those two battles. Guenevere has to choose between the man that she lusts and the man whom she respects and knows that can help her people. Apart from such clichés of a classic love triangle, First Knight contains lots of action scenes. Judging its battles, Lancelot doesn't even come close to the enviable rawness of movie like Braveheart. Furthermore, there are a number of scenes totally lacking any truthfulness: Lancelot gets in the bad guy's hideout, who at the time is having his lunch, and without any obvious difficulties manages to save Guenevere (actually, not for the first time), before Malagand's best boys realize what exactly is going on. On the other hand, which was the last film where you saw a general (as King Arthur in this case) watching carefully his men fight, providing them with strategic directions and by this way, affecting the outcome of the battle? I like it when little things like that are added to the screenplay, since they enhance a movie's credibility. As far as performances are concerned, First Knight hits the mark. Sean Connery, with a suiting gray beard, is the ideal choice for King Arthur. He is totally convincing as the elder but at the same time full of experiences king, who now desires to live a peaceful life. Still, the best moment of Connery's performance comes almost at the end, when he calls his unarmed people to fight for their freedom. Malagand, the former Round Table Knight who now wants to conquer Camelot with his own army, is portrayed, with an obvious tendency towards exaggeration, by Ben Cross. He is the classic bad guy who, as all similar roles would require, resorts to often met grimaces and one liners ("Burn Everything!!!"), but does so really effortlessly, not bothering us at all! Richard Gere may not be that convincing as the next leader of a kingdom, but, without any doubt, breathes a much needed freshness to the role of Lancelot. My only objection lies in the role of Guenevere. Julia Ormont has clearly the natural beauty necessary to convince us as the object of assertion between two men. Also, in the film's opening sequences she shows a very dynamic character, raising our expectations even more. What a pity... After that point and until the end, the writers let her do nothing more than simply watch Lancelot save her, in the most unbelievable ways, from her numerous pursuers. Without being the most realistic depiction of the Camelot myth ("where exactly is Exculibur? did they forget Merlin? an American as Lancelot?" are only some of the possible questions posed by the hardcore fans), First Knight is a movie that remains entertaining despite its 134 minutes of duration.
Rating:
Summary: Pathetic
Review: Typical big-buget Hollywood cookie-cutter production that seeks to bring in the masses with big names in the previews before word gets out on how appalling the film really is. The Arthurian genre has been reduced to an expensive but unconvincing stage backdrop for modern characters with modern values wearing tights and shiny armor. Connery, Gere, and Ormond were obviously strapped for cash when they did this one. This is obvious by all of their boring "stick to the script" performances. This movie isn't even worth renting or having as a gift. I couldn't even watch it to the end. Don't waste your time on this Hollywood fodder: it's not even worth one star.
Rating:
Summary: What has Hollywood done?
Review: I usually enjoy the talents of Sean Connery and Richard Gere very much, but this movie needs more than their names on the marquee to make it good. I know there are different versions of Arthurian Legend, but this story doesn't come close to telling the Arthur story. Other than naming characters Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere, this movie bears very little resemblance to the known stories of King Arthur. While I know screenwriters are allowed to be creative with their ideas, why name the characters Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere if they are going to completely change the story? This movie is all right if you are in the mood to watch a romance set in medieval times (or if you are a HUGE fan of Sean Connery or Richard Gere). But if you are wanting the story of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, and Guinevere, this movie is absurd and not worth watching.
Rating:
Summary: Buy this if you love romatic heroes
Review: (Sigh...) This movie is a great classic of romantic heroes and dastardly bad guys. It's scenery, filming, and acting are worth watching (except for maybe Julia), but I must admit the story is quite "cheesy" at times and some of the computer-generated scenes are slightly unbelieveable. However, Sean Connery and Richard Gere are soooo romantic (sigh) I still watch this movie repeatedly. I do not recommend it for children under the age of 10 or 12 because there is A LOT of violence in the battle and pillaging scenes, some of which involves children. The profanity is very mild, but there is some. It does deserve it's PG-13 rating.
|
