First Knight (1995)

Where to start with a historical action-adventure-romance based on a legendary myth, directed by..... Jerry Zucker. I don't think they could have chosen a worse director. Ok they could have, but Zucker woefully lacks the vision to helm a blockbuster like this. And it shows - from the drab lifeless cinematography, to the awkward casting of Richard Gere, to the redundant costumes, and a production design that shows the foam and screws the set was put together with. We can go on and on.. from Jerry Goldsmith's half-assed score, to the awful dialogue, and a villain that encapsulates every cliche in the book... including a DIRTY FACE! Because how would we know that Malagant is the villain if they didn't make his face greasy and smear it with dirt????Right off the bat, the movie opens with a 20th century American Lancelot, swordfighting to show off for villagers, or for money? Can't be sure... the scene serves no other purpose than to show that Richard Gere is a master swordsman, as long as his sword looks lighter than a feather. Everything about this scene seems phony and fabricated. Not a single moment rings of 6th century authenticity. This movie can't even decide with millennia it is set in, with weapons from the 19th century, costumes that look 16th century, etc... SO HORRIBLE. lol I get it that this movie isn't for historic authenticity.. but come on, at least display the slightest modicum of attention to historic detail. Its like they got a huge budget, spent it all on Sean Connery and Richard Gere, painted a giant foam castle, and then had to make do with props and costumes already available. I doubt that's the case, but that is what the movie looks like! Recycled from other movies. Richard Gere as Lancelot could go down as one of top 5 worst casting choices EVER. The man is a mediocre actor, and an even more insufferable movie "star" who coasts on his milquetoast leading man looks. He has the charisma of a retarded puppy. Didn't anyone see King David? Were lesson NOT learned from that casting???The ONLY redeeming values this movie has, is Sean Connery as Arthur and Julia Ormond as Guinevere. Both sparkle in their poorly written roles, and you could tell than in a better movie, this could have been top career performances from them, but they get buried in the mediocre production and Richard Gere's anachronistic presence. I cannot think of a more disappointed movie, its so bad. Skip this entirely and just stick to EXCALIBUR, a masterpiece, or even Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur, which is at least a pretty good action movie with some cinematic flair. But this FIRST KNIGHT is a turd of the first order.

When peace finally seemed to have set foot on the land of Camelot, one of the king's knights sets on a path of his own, threatening the new status of the realm. Meanwhile, a lonely person who had an extraordinary talent in wielding swords appears in the picture, rescues the kings future bride but also falls for her, beginning an attempt to make her change her mind in terms of marriage.It's a lovely story set in the mythical land of Camelot, full of action, romance and drama. Its main characters are well developed and described, contributing with every action to the unique atmosphere that this movie creates and maintains. The movie's biggest flaw is by far its slow pace, which tends to induce a bit of boredom from time to time, but nothing which can affect the overall impression. You might even say that it is quite predictable in some ways, but the way I saw it (many times actually), it turned out to be a satisfying course of actions which ultimately lead to a sad but conclusive finale. The actors play a couple of excellent roles, making the whole plot even more credible. It's that type of movie which proves that you can create a very good movie of this kind without using magic or special effects, fact which makes it even more appealing from my point of view. Mixing the right amounts of action, romance and drama, accompanied by a very good idea and a couple of great actors is a recipe for success and this film is the exact evidence of it.

I am not sure why this film received such a low grades, I do not think it deserved.Plot writers tried to reincarnate story of King Arthur and he knights of the round table. So little is historically actually known about it that all the film plot I consider pure fiction.Like all the movies of this kind it has rather good plot, which really caries us well into the film. It is interesting and dynamic although a little bit more made for the children then for the adults.Acting by Sean Connery is outstanding. These types of roles suit him so well, he truly shines so well in it. Other actors a little bit to be desired, I am sure that C.Z. Jones would fit better then Julia Ormond did.All in all if you have small children and you are int Anglo-Saxon history, this is a must see for you, otherwise you really should find time to see it anyways. ;)

This is a well wore story. This one doesn't add much to it. The only interesting thing new is the actors involved. Sean Connery is the elder King Arthur. Julia Ormond is Guinevere whose own realm is under constant attack by Prince Malagant (Ben Cross) a former Knight of the round table. Richard Gere is Lancelot who keeps rescuing Guinevere.This film isn't grand enough to be a spectacle. The CG is primitive and limited to far away scenes. It isn't gritty enough to be realistic. It is just good enough to be watchable. It's more a romance melodrama.The acting is above par. When you have Sean Connery as King Arthur, you can't get much better than that. Richard Gere as Lancelot is more of a problem. He doesn't have the heroic act down. He's more smarmy than sincere. And Julia Ormond is regal without the heat.