SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Freedom060286 I liked this version of the King Arthur legend much more than most of the others. The cast is outstanding, with Sean Connery as Arthur, Liam Cunningham as Agravaine, John Gielgud as Oswald and best of all, the beautiful Julia Ormond as Guinevere. Richard Gere seemed a bit awkward by times as Lancelot, but overall he performed well enough.The cinematography was brilliant, and the locations gave the movie a realistic feel, especially the beautiful countryside in Gwynedd, North Wales. Some historians think Arthur may have been a Brythonic- speaking Romano-Briton with a kingdom in west England or Wales. The Welsh Tudor king of England Henry VII named his first son Arthur after the legendary king.Overall, First Knight was much more enjoyable than Excalibur, with it's better cast, better cinematography and without the supernatural elements and the incest in the other movie.

vze3vhtf I have read a number of negative reviews of this film, including the criticisms that Gere is miscast, & that it's not historically accurate (even though it is about fictional characters-???)While these people are of course entitled to their opinion, I think they miss the point here:' F.K. ', was NEVER intended to be a remake of, ' Camelot ' (1967), or, ' Excalibur ' (1981). Rather, it is its OWN story, with its OWN identity, which just happens to also utilize the characters of Arthur, Lancelot, & Guinevere. In fact, you get the vibe that this is an, ' Alternate-Reality ', version of that realm, sans the sorcery, and with Gere as a kind of California-Slacker-Type-Hero, which he actually plays very well.So when taken on its OWN terms, it is an example of exquisite film-making.M

Catharina_Sweden I thought it interesting that they draw upon older and nowadays almost forgotten Camelot stories in this movie. It made the movie original, without going too far from the sources. One thing was totally wrong though, and I think this fact almost wrecks the whole movie. In the beginning Lancelot is pictured like some poor show-man, almost a con artist, who gives sword-shows for money in public places. This is something that the "real" Lancelot (I mean the Lancelot we all know) would never have done. As everybody knows, he was born a prince and got a magical upbringing with The Lady of the Lake. When he reached manhood, she brought him to King Arthur's court. At this time he was already a knight in armour. There can never have been a time in Lancelot's life, when he had to give shows for money in public squares (however successfully). This started the movie on completely the wrong note, and I almost stopped watching then and there!Also, Richard Gere is wrong for the role. First, he is too American. The first request for someone playing the leads in a Camelot story, must be their Brittishness... Also, Richard Gere is not handsome enough - although I HAVE found him attractive in other kinds of roles, such as well-tailored lawyers and businessmen in the city. But he is not handsome in the way we think of Lancelot as handsome: extremely muscular, fit and manly, and at the same time unearthly, spiritual and saint-like... Richard Gere in this movie looks like any peasant!Julia Ormond was also the wrong choice for Guinevere. The only thing that was right about her was her slim and straight figure. Her face is much too ordinary, and there is no glamour at all around her. Sean Connery is perfect as King Arthur, though. VERY British, handsome, manly, regal and fear-inspiring when he is supposed to be fear-inspiring. Also a great actor, as ever.Also, I did not like that they changed the ending. In this movie, it was hinted at that Lancelot and Guinevere could have each other - now when the King was dead. This is nowhere in the original sources. And the love triangle is supposed to be a tragedy, not a happy ending! "First Knight" is a darker, bleaker and more realistic take on Camelot, but there are still things that make it worth watching: the wonderful castle in itself, and the whole medieval world with lavish gowns, armour, horses, battle-scenes etc..

SnoopyStyle 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.