The Web    www.100share.com    Google
 
First Knight
List Price: $2.99

Our Price: $2.99

You Save:

 


Customer Reviews:

  • First Rate
    First Knight, First Rate!

    Arthurian tales run the full gamut. From poor to exceptional, the various Camelot retellings share commonalities. King Arthur, Camelot, Lancelot, Excalibur, Merlin (usually), and Guinivere. There have been exeptional casts, but "First Knight" is an unusually wonderful ensemble.
    Sean Connery, Richard Gere and Julia Ormond portray Arthur, Lancelot, and the lovely Guinevere respectively. Connery makes a wise, fatherly Arthur with his love for the beautiful lady of Lyonesse his only blindness, and Gere gives an outstanding performance as a 'hero' torn by his passions. Julia Ormond projects joy, passion, and pertubation as the love triangle between Lancelot, Arthur and Guinever grows more complex. From a young mistress destined for marriage with Arthur, to a woman inflamed with passion for one she cannot have, Ormond projects joy, pertubation, and desperation from a pure heart. Gere is a cad in the beginning, making obvious advances towards the queen to be with no discernable results. Even as he joins the round table as knight, his inner struggle takes a toll during his rescue of Guinevere in the lair of Malagant. The only distraction other than his perfect hair is his lack of any Anglo accent, which Connery and Ormond deliver so seamlesssly.

    The turmoil in the film is not only between Lancelot and Arthur, but also the devious Malagant whose border raids into Lyonesse grow more bold as the wedding between queen to be and Arthur draws near. Malagant was at one point, a knight of the table, actually the first knight until his path for power forces him to leave the group. The commentary states that Malagant is the first angel/Satan image in the film as he leaves Camelot to be ruler in his own hell. At the same time, Arthur is Gods' servant, seeking His will before his very own, putting the needs of the kingdom ahead of his own. Lancelot is transformed from wayward wanderer into a devoted knight of the realm, taking over as Arthur falls in battle during the trial of Lancelot and Guinevere for treason. Biblical examples and themes run through the whole film.
    The beauty of the film is not only in the story, but also the scenery. Wherever the filming took place, it reflects the glory that `was' Camelot in our minds. The natural scenes are breath-taking, and the cave formations that Malagant uses as his headquarters (fittingly underground), are wonderful. Truly dream-like architecture characterizes the city that was Camelot, the ideal.

    My only concern is the documentaries used in the film. Only one delves into the Arthurian legends, while the others are based on the film itself. I guess I am more of a history buff than a medieval romantic.
    [...]

    ...more info
  • Charming and captivating
    I'm not much of a fan of this time frame, however, the acting and the screenplay was very well done. When King Arthur offers to release Gweneviere from the upcoming marriage, because he fears she doesn't love him (and still offers to protect her parents village from harm, regardless of her answer)... it's quite touching, and we see through this action and others that he is a good and honorable man who loves her very much. His vision and ruling of Camelot is portrayed with high respect and strength.

    When Lancelot repeatedly saves Gweneviere, we see how his love for her continues to grow as well. With two special, and so very different men in love with her, she is forced with some difficult choices and emotions... through it all, she is torn between the two, and this story is full of surprises and troubles of other kinds....more info

  • great movie
    from action to adventure, to fighting in medeval times! You can't get better!...more info
  • Fast response
    The title was in stock and shipment arrived in just a few days. Product was in good condition and was as described....more info
  • Camelot needs a new costume designer and head of security!
    After the brutal first few minutes of the film, I thought it was going to be a more realistic telling of the Arthurian legend; it turned out to be quite the opposite, but I still enjoyed it.

    The Good: The (unrequited) love between Lancelot and Guinevere is more understandable given that Arthur is depicted as being a contemporary of Guinevere's father, and easily old enough to be her father, if not her grandfather, whereas Lancelot is young and very heroic and dashing. Even so, there is genuine affection between Arthur and Guinevere, and she never breaks her marriage vows, either during the betrothal or during the marriage. I also like the way Lancelot is depicted. He is more human; he is not the font of virtue he is depicted as in other versions of the legend. His association first with Guinevere and then with Arthur has an enobling effect on him, making him a better man at the end of the film than at the beginning. Also, the evil knight Malagant is played wonderfully by Ben Cross.

    The Bad: Where in the world did they get those hideous royal blue uniforms? They look like something out of a Star Trek movie (or TV series). It is unusual that costuming makes or breaks a film, but these awful costumes almost single-handedly destroyed the film and any credibility it might have had. I was trying to watch the film and I kept being distracted by how terrible those blue uniforms were. The other thing was, Camelot seriously needs a new head of security. First, they nearly let Guinvere be captured on her trip to Camelot to be married, then they let her be effortlessly kidnapped from Camelot, whisked away as if by magic, then they let Malagant's army waltz right into the city without a fight. Hello? King Arthur wouldn't have lived long enough to have gray hair if he was this sloppy about security.

    Still, I felt the good outweighed the bad in this interesting retelling of the Camelot legend....more info
  • Charming and captivating
    I'm not much of a fan of this time frame, however, the acting and the screenplay was very well done. When King Arthur offers to release Gweneviere from the upcoming marriage, because he fears she doesn't love him (and still offers to protect her parents village from harm, regardless of her answer)... it's quite touching, and we see through this action and others that he is a good and honorable man who loves her very much. His vision and ruling of Camelot is portrayed with high respect and strength.

    When Lancelot repeatedly saves Gweneviere, we see how his love for her continues to grow as well. With two special, and so very different men in love with her, she is forced with some difficult choices and emotions... through it all, she is torn between the two, and this story is full of surprises and troubles of other kinds....more info

  • About Last Knight
    After viewing "first night" I spent a great deal of time wondering just why they bothered to imply this story had anything to do with the King Arthur legends. Change the names of the three main characters and you have a generic and very bland fantasy story. The tale of Camelot has been retold countless time over countless generations and I am not complaining about the fact that the story was altered. What I am complaining about is the fact that the story itself was so blatantly disregarded. A new villainous character Malagant is introduced for no good reason, there are more than enough bad guys in the Arthurian legends without having to create a new one. I suppose that by creating a new character they writers were able to avoid having to think about motive or character development. Conspicuous by their absence are the likes of Sir Galahad, Morgan le Fay, the Holy Grail, Merlin, Excalibur, Percival, Mordred and dozens of other interesting and supporting characters.

    Sean Connery makes for a great Arthur but one wasted here. I very much enjoyed the idea of Arthur as an old man who is tired of war and conquest who wants to settle down with a beautiful wife in the city he built. Unfortunately Connery is given so little to do in this movie, largely he stands around looking either worried or regal.

    The villainous Malagant (Ben Cross) is simply evil in the worst sort of melodramatic way, he kills innocent women and children for his amusement, he dresses in black, he has an evil laugh, and his castle is even twisted and ugly. There is no real reason for him to act the way he does he is just there to give Lancelot something to fight.

    I am not now and most likely never will be a fan of Richard Gere. His Lancelot is one of the least memorable performances of that role I can recall. There is no reason to like or sympathize with Lancelot. I am at a loss to understand why Guinevere (Julia Ormond) falls in love with him. To her credit Ormond does a good job at portraying a woman torn between two very different men. Unfortunately the movie itself robs Guinevere of ever having to make a choice between Arthur and Lancelot, Arthur conveniently dies and Lancelot is declared the defacto new king.

    The movie itself looks spectacular but the writing and the casting of Gere leaves it lacking terribly....more info

  • About a hard time in King Arthur's life...
    For movie buffs that have been brought up on the usual chronicles on the legend of King Arthur, the story of this movie would be a digression. While the other stories center on Arthur, his conquests and his governing his subjects, this movie's story focuses more on the Guinevere's ambivalence towards Arthur and Lancelot; to some this may be a storyline unheard of.

    Guinevere is sent to Camelot to marry King Arthur. Her party is attacked on the way by Malagant (called Meliagaunce in the legendary stories ); and Lancelot, now a wayfarer, saves her. She then reaches Camelot shortly before Lancelot reaches there. As fate would have it, things happen to make them meet and come together. Now, she is in a very sensitive position - her heart is torn between her love for Arthur and her attraction towards Lancelot. What happens then forms the rest of the movie. King Arthur, played well by Sean Connery, is much older than Guinevere. Lancelot is played by Richard Gere.

    The battles, sword fights, chases on horsebacks etc, are well choreographed and shot. In fact they help keep the pace and the realism of the movie, considering the fact that not much of and about castles or keeps are shown in the movie.

    It has a planned story line, believable role play by Sean Connery (King Arthur), Julia Ormond(Guinevere), and Ben Cross (Prince Malagant who is always dressed in black to denote that he is the antagonist); well shot chase/battle scenes, and an admirable musical score by Jerry Goldsmith. Speaking of music, all the theme music in this movie are wonderful, to listen in the movie, or listen as they are, removed from their context. All in all it is a movie worth watching and appreciating.

    If you ever get a chance to see it I recommend it. Great for vacation watching....more info
  • Blue Cheese
    Yes, it's King Arthur color-coordinated, and it's cheesy pretty much beyond belief. Nonetheless, these cardboard characters are still fun to watch. And, from a literary perspective, it's kind of neat to see the film-makers take the trouble to include a cart a la Chretien de Troyes and the conflict between Logres (Arthur's England) and Gorre (the traditional land of the evil Meleagant -- here titled Malagant and made a former Knight of the blue formica Round Table). Yes, it's hard not to make fun of this movie -- well, maybe that's part of the pleasure. My guess: it's going to get even campier and more hilarious as time passes....more info
  • THE MISSING MERLIN
    Okay, I have to admit that I'm not an expert on the various interpretations of the King Arthur legend. Having seen films such as EXCALIBUR and MERLIN, my knowledge of the legend is based on these two films. So imagine my surprise when we get a story that adheres hardly at all to the legend that I am familiar with. Where's the sword? Why is Arthur so old? Where in the world is Merlin, Mordred, Morgana, etc.? Although I have admired the works of Sean Connery and Richard Gere over the years, I did not find them convincing in the roles of Arthur and Lancelot. Julia Ormond comes off fairly well as Lady Guinevere, but she rides into battle with the army? Ben Cross is cliche in his villainous role, and John Gielgud shows up in one of those "let's get Gielgud in the movie and it will be classier." While the movie does have some dazzling cinematography and a wonderful Jerry Goldsmith score, it didn't do a whole lot to encourage me to like it on its own merits. I found it dull at times, and Gere's lack of a British accent and sometimes Brooklyn one, didn't add to the credibility. If you're going to revise or update a legend so well known as King Arthur's, you need to be careful how far you go. If you didn't know anything about this legend, then maybe you could enjoy this pompous movie. But for me it was just another swordfight and romance movie....more info
  • FIRST KNIGHT BEST MOVIE EVER!!!
    I wasn't really looking forward to seeing this movie, but my friend and I decided to watch it just for kicks. Now it's quite hard to impress us, as we get bored easily, but this movie captivated us from the very start. I know some people are mad that it's not "historically correct" and "they should be speaking Latin" and to that I say, WHO CARES!!!!!! This movie had a diabolical plot that kept me guessing from the beginning,and the characters are even better! 2/3 of movie- goers have no clue what the "correct" outfit for Arthurian times is, and I think the clothes they had were perfectly fine. The setting for the movie was beautiful, and each actor was perfect for their part. Do yourself a favor and go rent this movie for any occasion, for it appeases all people. It has drama, romance, comedy, and violence, good elements for any movie seperately, but when pieced together give the movie a fresh, hot spin. This is my all- time favorite movie!...more info
  • One of Sean Connery's best
    When you think of Sean Connery, what role could be better for him
    to play than that of King Arthur. A wonderful movie with some terrific acting. This movie brings to life the legendary tale of
    King Arthur and the knights of the round table. Just as King Arthur is about to send Sir Lancelot (Richard Gere) to his death,
    the evil knight Malagent invades Camelot and gives Arthur an ultimatum: serve me or die. To find out what happens, you will
    have to see for yourself. A spectacual film....more info
  • Forget the Arthurian legends and this is a very good film.
    As I watched First Knight, I couldn't help but think that if this film had been freed of the constraints of the original Arthurian tales, it would have been a complete success.

    But for the original Arthurian tales, the casting of Richard Gere probably wouldn't be as problematic. But for the original tales, the final siege of Camelot would be more believable.

    Instead, we do feel a tinge of oddness at Gere's attempt to play Lancelot du Lac, who in Arthurian legend is very much a French aristocrat trained in all the chivalric ways, not the ranger-like, orphaned free spirit he is here. It's too bad we do get distracted by the mismatch between character and actor, because he has some truly great moments with Julia Ormond (strong and pleasingly complex as Guinevere), hot looks, internal torment and emotional cat-and-mouse in that classic Hollywood tradition. No need for Keira Knightley-style bared stomachs and bow and arrows here. The conspicuous absence of important Arthurian characters like Gawain, Gareth and Mordred, of course, also distances this film from Arthurian legend so much that the Camelot setting becomes pretty much cosmetic, with only the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle being the intact element. And even then, the film treats this relationship far differently from the original tales (the complete opposite of what happens in the legends, in fact).

    If you're a purist for Arthurian legends, you will definitely be distracted by these elements. However, distance yourself from the original tales and you'll find a classic Hollywood love story with unusually effective emotional layers, good performances, and absolutely stunning cinematography coupled with impeccable editing, the work of two masters -- director of photography Adam Greenberg (cinematographer for Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Ghost, among others) and editor Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now). The group shots in this film are eye-popping, recalling Akira Kurosawa's style, and director Jerry Zucker keeps the narrative flowing with nary a wasted moment.

    I duck one star because of the King Arthur baggage. To a certain extent, I feel that if you're going to change the story so much, you may as well call it something new, rename your characters and so on. That is a small criticism, however. First Knight, viewed on its own merit, is a highly well constructed, old-fashioned romance adventure with balanced strengths and, again, a beautifully light touch in the emotional and acting departments. It's really something to watch the familiar story of the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle come into life this satisfyingly, and just for that, First Knight would already deserve high marks....more info
  • Could have been so much better
    The casting of Connery as an old Arthur was not bad. He was at least effective in the role the script provided him. Julia Ormand was a wonderful Guenivere. And Cross as Maliagaunt was especially great as the villain. I consider him to have stolen the movie outright from the others. I thought Gere was not the right pick for Lancelot, and further, it seemed he merely gave a pay-the-rent type performance.

    The movie does get points at least for using as inspiration a source other than Sir Thomas, for a change, in favour of one of Chretien de Troye's tales. The whole of the Maliagaunt kidnaps Guenivere plot was right out of Chretien. It is not without some irony that where it is closest to Chretien, it is best. It does take things in different directions with different characters which seems more whim than artistic decision. The other Arthurian characters are either minimized, or not utilized at all. Maliagaunt is used most effectively, Arthur and Guenivere work fairly well, while Lancelot is just too card-board tragic as scripted. Those are the only characters that get the film time, really.

    One of the oddest things about the movie was that they sent Arthur off in a pyre, burned up like a viking! No way the king will "return" after that, thereby killing the nationalistic resonance of the legend.

    The visual look of the film is more of a pristine sort of, fantasy look. It isn't very gritty at all, with all the bright costumes, and bright architecture. There seems nothing dirty in the realm. And apparently, in some cases they didn't use real swords, that is, real prop swords even. If one pays attention there is a moment in the climactic battle where Lancelot is holding a sword, then merely a hilt, then his sword reappears again!

    This film as far as I know is the only English language film that seems to have taken any inspiration from Chretien (there is a much better adapted French language one, script-wise). It is fairly acceptable for family viewing, (something which, generally, can not be said about EXCALIBUR) the good are fairly good, and the bad are really bad.

    Judging from younger relatives, if they can sit through and enjoy Harry Potter, this might not be a bad introduction at least to other realms of fantasy....more info

  • Good cast with the exception of Gere
    First Knight probably has the best look to it out of all the other movies about the charcters of Camelot. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is superb. Sean Connery and Julia Ormond are probably the best Kind Arthur and Guinevere ever as well. Richard Gere however just doesn't work as Lancelot. He looks clumsy with a sword, he's sort of laughable too. He lacks the edge of Viggo Mortenson in Lord of the Rings or even the charm of Heath Ledger in a Knight's Tale. Even just looking at the cover of the dvd, it's obvious that something is wrong with the picture and it's not Connery or Ormond. Gere lacks the heroic look that is needed for Lancelot. I can't say that he at least doesn't have some chemestry with Ormond though.

    The film still wouldn't of been great without him as Lancelot I must admit because the movie still has it's problems. It's predictibale for one thing, everyime Guinevere is in trouble you just know Lancelot is gonna come to rescue. Meanwhile it would of been nice to see Arthur get some action instead of being smothered with the predictability that something is gonna happen between Lancelot and Guinevere that will betray Athur's trust in them....more info
  • Good if you want a love story...
    but not so good as Arthurian legend. The story is simply changed too much. Although Connery, Gere, and Ormond are excellent choices to play Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere respectively, I just couldn't get into it. The love story between Lance and Gwen isn't even the same as in the traditional legend. But, as I said, if you don't care if it strays from tradition and you are looking for a good love story, this film is a good bet....more info
  • I love Blu ray
    I have a weakness for Sean Connery. Watching him in Blu Ray is devine. Now I have to wait for the blu ray releases of the early Bond movies. But no kidding. First Knight is a good movie. The performance of the actors is OK. I personally don't like Richard Gere and I think Julia Ormond could be included in more scenes. It's good entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.
    The image quality is excellent for a movie of this age. Sound is very good. All in all a good blu release....more info
  • Fun adventure.
    First Knight is a entertaining version of the Arthurian legends, but there are a few detractors. Sean Connery is hardly in the film at all, giving Richard Gere as Lancelot WAY too much time on screen. And Sean Connery's name is listed first. Go figure. And Richard Gere as Lancelot is a pretty bad choice. I would have picked Viggo Mortensen or Kevin Costner. However, this is still a fun swashbuckling movie which can hold it's own against other of this genre. It's a great movie to watch with lots of popcorn....more info
  • THE BEST
    This is one of the best movies Hollywood ever put out, not for the love story but for the good against evil! The phrases and prayers said, the lack of sorcery, witchcraft, profanity, and nudity make this movie great! I have never seen King Arther cast in such a good light, basically as a God-fearing Christian man, a true leader! Hollywood meant this to be a love affair story, but the love story takes second place over the fight of good against evil! Everyone was cast perfectly, the scenery beautiful, and the plot believeable. One of the great phrases comes from King Arthur and sums up what this awesome movie is about,"There is a peace ONLY to be found on the other side of war"!! I would rate this a 10 if I could!...more info
  • Gorgeous film of love, maturity, betrayal and forgiveness
    This well-acted and told story features Richard Gere as the handsome, adventuresome loner, Lancelot; Julia Ormond as strong, principled Guineviere; and Sean Connery as noble King Arthur. Ben Cross perfectly portrays the self-righteously arrogant, destructive villain, Malagant. The settings move between the forests of Great Britain and the exquisite golden and slate blue castle of Camelot. The brilliantly written script contains various references to Christianity. The plot vividly portrays the struggle between forces of violent, oppressive domination and the defense of the innocent, which entails self-sacrifice. This story is my favorite. I've enjoyed it each time, and gain new insights with each viewing. If you enjoy romantic, historical adventures, you will surely savor this outstanding film ...more info
  • Good but not great
    This movie was the average movie on King Arthur, you know, story, battle, romance. But above all that, I didn't think it lived up to the new King Arthur[the one with Clive Owen], and I did not like the Lancelot in this movie. Most of all the dialoge was fitting for the film and the battle between Lancelot and uthat one dude [I forget his name] was awesome.
    This movie is rated PG-13 for some brutal medival battles, and the rating is well deserved! Though they were not crazy with the blood it still had it's far-share, like when Lancelot slit the bad dude's throat at the end. There was no language and the kissing was kept mild.

    overall: Good but not great...more info
  • Sean Connery Does It Again!!!!!
    Sean Connery does an awesome job as King Arthur. I didn't like how Lady Guinevere went for Lancelot instead of him. Stupid choice on her part. King Arthur wouldn't have died if it weren't for her. But otherwise it was a great cool movie that was worth the lack of sleep from staying up late to watch it. Sean Connery steals the show! Sean Connery rules....more info