First Knight (1995)

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

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.

After seeing this, I wondered why I did? This kind of touches on the real love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere but fakes it away from reality and tries to glorify the death of King Arthur in a battle that never took place. Easily the best quality in this movie is Julia Ormund as Guinevere. She is poised, attractive and hot. Those brown eyes sparkle. She looks as good on a horse as any woman ever has.The problems are - Richard Gere, who looks wooden as Lancelot and acts like a piece of pine wood for much of the movie. His action scenes are poorly done as well. Overall, this one is just Gere being cast in the wrong role. He should have been the court jester.Sean Connery - he is too old to play Arthur and while he speaks well, it is hard to believe a young Guinevere would want to marry a man who is her father's age. The only way I would recommend watching this one is if did a nudist version as Julia Ormund would look great in the buff when she did this one. It is overblown, and the final scene with the salute to the dead King Arthur was already done, when Spock died in one of the Star Trek movies. The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Few viewers will need this movie.

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

I love this movie,Richard Gere (Lancelot) was the hero, that won the heart of Julia Ormond (Guinevere).In this movie she was to marry the King.Which she did even though she loved the first knight.When they met he was just a common man that fought for money. That is my mom's take on the epic tale of King Arther and Lancelot. Mine I love this movie as well, it is one of the best renditions . About the legend of Camelot, I have seen it has adventure lust. And forbidden love , between Lancelot and Guinevere! But this tale of the sorted love triangle, has a dark side like all movies. It has a villain Ben Cross (Maligant) a cruel black hearted monster. Whose sole purpose was to dethrone the King and claim Camelot as his own! Until his untimely demise , by the sword of the first knight!