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.

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.

First Knight (1995)Plot In A Paragraph: Lancelot (Richard Gere) falls in love with Guinevere (Julia Ormand) , who is due to be married to King Arthur (Connery). Meanwhile, a violent warlord tries to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.YAWN!! This movie is the worst movie Connery has made since Sword & The Valiant. Yes I'm counting Highlander 2 in that. It is produced with a decent budget but a lot will have gone on its two main stars who are awfully miscast. As is the heroine. Both Connery and Gere are too old for the roles and Ormand is too young. Connery should make a brilliant King Arthur, all noble and dignified!! But he over acts at times and it just doesn't work, neither does Gere who has zero charisma and is totally unconvincing as Lancelot. It should be an interesting love triangle, but you are never really invested in it, and I just didn't care. First Knight grossed $37 million at the domestic box office to end 1995 as the 46th highest grossing movie of the year. One place better and one million dollars more than Just Cause. But considering this had a budget of $55 million compared to the $25 million of Just Cause. It's easier to see whIch one was considered a disappointment.

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