First Knight Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x524 | 1951.37 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x432 | 1256.64 MiB | divx | |
|
480x258 | 590.9 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x232 | 493.87 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Their greatest battle would be for her love.
Lancelot lives by the sword. In fact, they're next door neighbours, so teaming up to fight for money comes pretty naturally. Lady Guinevere, on her way to marry King Arthur is ambushed by the evil Sir Malagant. Fortunately Lancelot is lurking nearby and he rescues his future queen. They fall in love, but Guinevere still fancies the idea of wearing a crown, so she honours her promise to Arthur. Can Lady Guinevere remain faithful, or will this Pretty Woman become a lady of the knight?
| Sean Connery | King Arthur |
| Richard Gere | Lancelot |
| Julia Ormond | Guinevere |
| Ben Cross | Prince Malagant |
| Liam Cunningham | Agravaine |
| Christopher Villiers | Sir Kay |
| Valentine Pelka | Sir Patrise |
| Colin McCormack | Sir Mador |
| Ralph Ineson | Ralf |
| John Gielgud | Oswald |
| Stuart Bunce | Peter, King's Stableman |
| Jane Robbins | Elise |
| Jean Marie Coffey | Petronella |
| Paul Kynman | Mark |
| Tom Lucy | Sir Sagramore |
| Jerry Zucker |
5.50 out of 10 (12635 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Every girl's dream
posted on 24 Aug 2009What girl has not dreamed of a handsome knight sweeping her off her feet? What girl has not dreamed of being a princess? What girl... you get the point. But "First Knight" is in no way historically accurate. Of course, it is a love story and only that. If you ask me, the girl was kind of a tramp. Was I supposed to feel sorry for her? She was playing both guys. OK, I just had to get that out. The only realy thing I enjoyed in the film was Connery's performance. He's been kind of letting loose with some roles. But he was impressive. Gere was alright. The story isn't horrible. But I wouldn't really watch this film a lot.6/10
Memorable kiss, a movie for R. Gere fans
posted on 24 Aug 2009This is a movie for Richard Gere fans. Although it has some flaws, it presents a handsome, athletic Richard Gere in a romantic role. The nighttime views of Camelot are beautifully shot. And the kiss between Lancelot and Guineivere is one of the most passionate on screen kisses in years. When King Arthur says, "Look at me like you looked at him," it is heartbreaking. I think this is a chick flick, and for Richard Gere fans, it is definitely worth seeing. Others can move onto something else. It could have used better writing. Could have used better casting.
Were horses harmed in the battle scenes?
posted on 21 Aug 2009We hope no horses were harmed in the battle scenes.. something the film board in the UK and thousands of animal rights groups in the US opposeSean Connery is wonderful and Richard Gere continues his courageous support of Tibetan monksThe cinematography is beautifulThe script is averageThe plot is an eternal one"Your will chooses me. Your heart chooses him" is a good line.The ever burning fire in the middle of the round table isa beautiful symbol.The voice of the Guinevere actress is like music.
Ugh...
posted on 25 Jul 2009This film blows, plain and simple. Take, for example, the scene in the forest when Guinevere asks Lancelot where he learned how to make rain pour down a few leaves into her mouth...I thought the people in Leoness were just trying to hide in the church until the movie ended and they could safely come out, but NO! King Arthur forces them out and makes them suffer like everyone else who had to appear on screen. And what was up with the costumers and production designers on this film? Why did EVERYONE and EVERYTHING have to be draped in blue?
Even Merlin Couldn't Save This Handsomely Mounted Travesty
posted on 26 May 2009Fine color photography, and (mostly) sets cannot compensate for a ridiculous take on the Autherian legend. Lancelot as a amoral, lovable rogue? Give me a break. NOBODY could have done much with the part, and Richard Gere acquits himself as well as anyone. SURE, he could have affected a British accent, but it wouldn't have helped much (I don't remember anyone complaining about Connery playing a "Scottish Russian" in HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER). No, the REAL problem with FIRST KNIGHT is that the writers have taken a familiar story and moved it so far askew that it must occur in a parallel universe (where, perhaps, Madonna is celibate). The jarring age difference between Connery and Ormand precludes the kind of passion necessary to generate any tension in the love triangle. Connery never seems all that fond of Gere and Gere and Ormand are forced by the dictates of the story to generate much impact in their own feelings for each other (though that climatic kiss is pretty promising). What we have here is a handsomely mounted, stupefyingly revisionist, frequently boring and ultimately unsatisfying movie. For real movie fans, compare the "burning boat" ending with the much more satisfying one in THE VIKINGS. Now, THAT'S how it's done.
It's a fantastic film
posted on 05 May 2009I think "First Knight" is the best film I've seen in my life. I believe that it is the best performance of Sean Connery, that it's one of greatest actors (perhaps THE greatest one)in the world. The story is good, the screenplay is fantastic and the actors are all very good! Sean Connery is the best, but I think also Richard Gere have used all his talent to do this film. Julia Ormond plays very well her role and Ben Cross is perfect for his part. I can't understand because his average is 5.7. I think it isn't possible to give to this film less than 8!! (I think its right average is 10!!!!!!) So, can you explain me why you don't like it???Thank you,Gianluca
First Knight?-A better Title would've been "Sir. Lancelot"
posted on 17 Apr 2009First Knight-The Title of this film should've been"Sir. Lancelot" because this movie is not about King Arthur, nor does it follow the classic story of King Arthur. although King Arthur plays a major role in this film, this film is about Sir Lancelot.this film is about how Lancelot wins over the love and effection of the Queen, and wins the admiration of King Arthur,and how his love for the Queen is a forbidden betrayal of the King.I felt the Acting in this film is superb. However there are times that the story in the way its presented in this film slows down and gets dull at times, but the brutal battle scene is one of this films best highlights and is perhaps the single best battle scene of any medieval movie ever, and there is some really good action sequences as Lancelot goes to rescue the queen after she is kidnapped. The costumes used in this film are the best of any King Arthur movie ever!!! the computer generated Camalot,and the old english country side used in this fil are Beautiful to look at. The music score is one of this movies weakest points, the music in this film is very weak and uninspiring. All in All this is an entertaining movie. its short fall is the fact that the story speeds up and then slows down, and an very weak music score.-If you are in the mood for a really good Medieval story -I Highly Recommend "Robin Hood-Prince of Thieves" over this film. but First Knight is entertaining and worth watching. I give it 3 out of 5 stars - A slightly better than average film
Worst Movie
posted on 11 Apr 2009This is such a bad movie that it should be shown to Film schools students, for them never to do such trash. The Arthurian legend is totally perverted in a movie whose special effects are incredibly weak. The actors may be the worse part of the work : Richard Gere turns Lancelot into an old American gigolo, while Sean Connery seems to have spent more time playing golf than playing Arthur. As to Julia Ormond, she is the most forgettable Guenievre in the Film history. Not only does this movie betray the legend, but it is also ridiculous and boring.
Very very good!
posted on 27 Dec 2008Very good movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Any movie with Sean Connery, Richard Gere and Julia Ormond has to be good, and this definitely was. Sure it has some flaws in it, but that doesn't detract from some brilliant acting and enjoyable story line. The movie retells King Arthur and the round table in a very entertaining way, with fighting, romance, action, and very satisfying ending. Not as gory as Braveheart, and the battle scenes aren't as good, but the movie is just as good in a different, less serious way. Go and see it!
don't waste your time...
posted on 27 Nov 2008If you have read, or have even heard of, the Legend of King Authur then do not waste your time with this 'garbage film' for it bears no resemblance to "Le Morte D'Authur". If you like movies set in medieval times then do not watch this absurdity because it certainly has no historical merit.
Not the best version of Arthurian legend
posted on 22 Oct 2008This movie looked so promising on the commercials (despite having Richard Gere in it) but when I went to the theater, I found that ALL the good things I'd seen on the commercials were it. Don't get me wrong, I love the Arthurian legend, and I enjoy reading/seeing different versions and interpretations of it. This interpretation was not well done.There are so many intriguingly dark aspects of the legend--love, betrayal, magic, incest, lies, etc. I don't think the story benefits from being "cleaned up" because it robs the story of much of its depth. Richard Gere made a dismal and unbelievable Lancelot, and the movie fell far short of its potential.
Any Arthur is better than none
posted on 22 Oct 2008I liked the movie - well, except for Richard Gere as Lancelot; bad, bad casting. But Sean Connery's Arthur is as regal as one could wish, and Ben Cross is villainous enough by any standards. (Well, he does kill King Arthur, people! This is unlikely to get him nominated for sainthood.) Julia Ormond doesn't have much to do but look beautiful and be rescued now and again. The fact that her Guinevere prefers Richard Gere to Sean Connery proves the queen is no rocket scientist to begin with - did I mention what a hideous casting error Richard Gere was? Still, as I said above, any Arthur is better than none, and it is a pleasant enough tale of chivalry and swords. There are worse ways to spend a slow evening.
Sickening to the stomach.
posted on 19 Sep 2008The only reason I gave this 4/10 is because I appreciate unique interpretations of the Arthurian legend. Unfortunately, while unique, this interpretation made me want to lose my lunch. Richard Gere is perhaps the worst actor to cast as Lancelot (except for maybe Jim Carrey). Sean Connery as an elder Arthur is interesting, but is left with a flat character due to the poor plot-line. Ditto for the beautiful Julia Ormond as Guinevere. The story-line becomes even more unbelievable in the latter part of the movie, and the ending is not only stupid, but not even dramatic -- just sappy. If you decide to rent it, fast-forward to Connery's death-scene: the only good part of the movie. If you decide to watch the whole thing, bring an airline barf bag, or any handy waste-receptacle suitable for holding your intestinal contents.
Better than I expected
posted on 01 Sep 2008Well, after looking at the vote score and reviews for this film, I wasn't expecting much, but watched it anyway since my wife is both a Connery and a Gere fan. I must say I was pleasantly surprised: both by the plot, which was somewhat different from most Arthurian legend films, and by the acting. Anyone who criticises Connery's abilities should be forced to watch the death scene at the end: so often in films, the hero delivers his dying words, and then flops sideways in an overdone dramatic flourish. There was none of that here; instead, Connery has Arthur just drift away, staring into the beyond, and somehow, goodness knows how he does it, the life just vanishes from his eyes! An amazing piece of acting, and worth seeing the film for, if nothing else is.Beyond this, however, there is plenty for the viewer to enjoy. Of course, it's not Shakespeare, and isn't trying to carry a strong message. As pure escapist entertainment, I found it passes muster, and if this was its First Knight, then the run should be a long one. 7/10
Best Arthur/Camelot Movie I've Seen - Excellent Lancelot/Lovestory
posted on 08 Aug 2008Jerry Zucker is brilliant. I saw "Ghost" in the theater when it came out and it was my favorite movie for a number of years, and I eventually bought it on DVD. When I saw "First Knight" on video in the late 90's, I loved it and I eventually bought it on DVD too, and at the time I did not even know the same guy directed both movies! Jerry Zucker directed two of the greatest love story movies I've ever seen. I am surprised that "First Knight" has not been a bigger, longer-lasting and more talked-about hit. Not only is the relationship between Lancelot and Guenevere well done, but it is the best Arthur/Camelot movie I've ever seen. While it is not the traditional repeat of the sword and stone movie with Arther being the one main character, I think this great new vision of the story is brilliant. From an ordinary guy who watches a lot of movies: This one is great! Action, passion, fine acting and good chemistry!
Truth about Camelot
posted on 30 Aug 2009I find that this movie is a much more realistic version of the whole King Arthur thing. No magic, and it all could really happen. Don't get me wrong i love magic and all the other elements in fantasy (i am a fantasy novel writer) but i think it's nice to have a more realistic storyline once and a while. And i think many are more likely to believe this version than the others. Such as Merlin (again a movie i also love). Sean Connery was great as the King he brought so many more options with that voice. For me some of his lines in the movie were the most memorable ones i have ever heard. I feel Richard Gere was OK. Not the best but OK and Julia Ormond was not too bad either.