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.

Richard Gere should play detectives or cowboys but not Knights.This is the worst King Arthur movie i have seen in my life.He really is too American and besides the whole story is just bad.Before and after have been much better movies telling movies about King Arthur,Beides there should be less of an age gap between King Arthur and Lancelot.This movie is like a meal at McDonalds it feeds you but its not a good meal.

Arthurian lore is deep with fascinating mythology that has been explored many times in many different ways. First Knight uses that lore and twists it into a romantic drama of sorts, to mostly mixed results.With the new King Arthur film just around the corner I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at some of the many adaptions of the lore that we have gotten in film and television. First Knight is an okay film if it were some random medieval story with different settings and characters, but it rarely lives up to the deep mythology it's based on.In First Knight we find Lancelot, a wanderer who's struggling to find a place in the world for his skills with a sword and with women. After Guinevere, soon-to-be bride of King Arthur, is nearly kidnapped, Lancelot steps in and saves her life. Naturally, he falls in love with Guinevere, and there you have the central plot thread of the film. Richard Gere plays Lancelot about as well as you could imagine he would. It's a similar character to that of Sean Connery's James Bond from the 60's, mostly just showing off his looks and skills, rather than doing something of significance. Of course, I bring that up because Connery plays Arthur, albeit a much, much older King Arthur than we usually get, especially considering Guinevere is around 25 years younger.A lot of the film's plot is pushed forward by the romance. Not dissimilar to Braveheart being centered around William Wallace's love for two women, First Knight is clearly a romance first and foremost. The main difference is that Braveheart chooses to have the romance inspire a remarkable story, where First Knight is solely focused on Lancelot's strive for Guinevere's heart. It's not necessarily the wrong way to tell a story with Lancelot & Arthur butting heads, but it's certainly not the most interesting one. It's hard not to fall for Richard Gere's charm as Lancelot and Julia Ormond's innocent and beautiful Guinevere, but it's far from a great medieval war film.There really isn't much war to this film anyway. The main conflict comes by way of Prince Malagant, someone from Arthur's side who went Rogue for reasons that typically influence someone to go Rogue, power, greed, among other things. These battle sequences are trivial at best, even when they try to be big and bold. It all just seems silly in the end. I think to sum it up best is to say that King Arthur doesn't use his sword, not once.+Solid romance-But there's no reason to have that swallow the story-Silly5.4/10

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.