A Real Camelot?
Added 6/10/2009
Curious attempt to tell the story of Camelot without the mysticism of Morte D'Arthur. The movie is stripped of the story's historic magic and told as a non-supernatural event. All-in-all it was nicely done.
The fault I find with this piece rests entirely on Richard Gere. I simply cannot buy him as a heroic character and certainly not as the charismatic Lancelot.
On the other hand... long live Lord Connery!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
First Knight (Special Edition)
Added 5/5/2009
I recieved my new product in a timely manner and was very satisfied with my purchase. The only thing I didn't like was not being able to track my purchase but other than that I was very satisfied with my purchase.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Unintentionally HILARIOUS!!!
Added 3/24/2009
If you were sitting in the next room, you would have thought that I was watching a comedy...absolutely cracking up, giggling, and rolling on the floor at the horrendous script, corny dialogue and weak acting in this movie. Julia Ormond is very easy on the eyes, and the only redeeming feature of "First Knight"---Sean Connery pretty much phones in his stock role of Noble Wise Old Man which he's done about a million times before in his long career, and Richard Gere...well, Richard Gere is the main gut-buster here. His acting has always been mediocre at best, just a hair better than the Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruises of Hollywood, but here his lack of talent is truly showcased in scene after scene, aided in no small part by the outrageously corny dialogue that he, Ormond and Connery are all subjected to.
Basically, this film is the Cumbiyah-version of the King Arthur legend, in which Camelot is this incredibly loving, altruism-based (almost Buddhist, though the word "God" is thrown around a fair bit) DEMOCRACY that just happens to have an enlightened despot, er, I mean, King Arthur. Gere's Lancelot is a fearless wanderer who spends most of the movie trying to woo Ormond's Guinevere away from her noble desire to not desire him because she's to be wedded to Connery's Arthur, the 30-40 year age difference between them be damned.
A corny, predictable formula movie like this can only have two possible redeeming features: sex and violence. Unfortunately this one fails on both counts...very PG-rated, no nudity or even heavy petting, and the fight scenes are amateurish at best, reminiscent of late 1970s medieval flicks, especially in comparison to the likes of Braveheart, Gladiator, etc. Julia Ormond provides the only visual pleasure, albeit a very clean scrubbed and pastoral-looking type that you're more likely to see in church, not much erotic energy going on there.
The 1980s film "Excalibur" was much more entertaining, in both the sex and violence departments, and far less ludicrous.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Camelot needs a new costume designer and head of security!
Added 9/2/2008
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.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I love Blu ray
Added 6/15/2008
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.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Real Camelot?
Added 6/10/2009
Curious attempt to tell the story of Camelot without the mysticism of Morte D'Arthur. The movie is stripped of the story's historic magic and told as a non-supernatural event. All-in-all it was nicely done.
The fault I find with this piece rests entirely on Richard Gere. I simply cannot buy him as a heroic character and certainly not as the charismatic Lancelot.
On the other hand... long live Lord Connery!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
First Knight (Special Edition)
Added 5/5/2009
I recieved my new product in a timely manner and was very satisfied with my purchase. The only thing I didn't like was not being able to track my purchase but other than that I was very satisfied with my purchase.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Unintentionally HILARIOUS!!!
Added 3/24/2009
If you were sitting in the next room, you would have thought that I was watching a comedy...absolutely cracking up, giggling, and rolling on the floor at the horrendous script, corny dialogue and weak acting in this movie. Julia Ormond is very easy on the eyes, and the only redeeming feature of "First Knight"---Sean Connery pretty much phones in his stock role of Noble Wise Old Man which he's done about a million times before in his long career, and Richard Gere...well, Richard Gere is the main gut-buster here. His acting has always been mediocre at best, just a hair better than the Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruises of Hollywood, but here his lack of talent is truly showcased in scene after scene, aided in no small part by the outrageously corny dialogue that he, Ormond and Connery are all subjected to.
Basically, this film is the Cumbiyah-version of the King Arthur legend, in which Camelot is this incredibly loving, altruism-based (almost Buddhist, though the word "God" is thrown around a fair bit) DEMOCRACY that just happens to have an enlightened despot, er, I mean, King Arthur. Gere's Lancelot is a fearless wanderer who spends most of the movie trying to woo Ormond's Guinevere away from her noble desire to not desire him because she's to be wedded to Connery's Arthur, the 30-40 year age difference between them be damned.
A corny, predictable formula movie like this can only have two possible redeeming features: sex and violence. Unfortunately this one fails on both counts...very PG-rated, no nudity or even heavy petting, and the fight scenes are amateurish at best, reminiscent of late 1970s medieval flicks, especially in comparison to the likes of Braveheart, Gladiator, etc. Julia Ormond provides the only visual pleasure, albeit a very clean scrubbed and pastoral-looking type that you're more likely to see in church, not much erotic energy going on there.
The 1980s film "Excalibur" was much more entertaining, in both the sex and violence departments, and far less ludicrous.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
