Customer Reviews
Great Movie - By: ray dorrity, 01 Dec 2007 
Firstly, can I just correct "A Customer" who has a very low opinion of this movie.
Can I point out that it is supposed to take place in the 5th/6th century when Arthur was fighting the Anglo-Saxon invaders, so it doesn't take a great leap of intellect to work out that Arthur wouldn't have spoken English, so who cares about a Scottish accent.
Arthur would have spoken Latin.
So the fact that Gere has an American accent is also not reallly relevant.
Can I also point out that the Athurian legends are just that. Legends.
So you can make any statement about Arthur & nobody would be able to prove or disprove what you say.
This is a good, well acted, well directed action movie.
Buy & enjoy
what a waste of time - By: Jon Lyness, 16 Nov 2007 
This is a terrible film. The script is the killer here, banal beyond belief, & there are about a million pregnant pauses designed purely for us to admire Gere's mega talent for sighing & drooling & alll the naffness of expression he puts in to most of his other stuff. Although Connery mostly sleepwalks his way through he does give us some good moments, & Julia Ormond makes a valiant effort. However, the story is as dull as dishwater, & the soundtrack consists of the most boring & unoriginal film music ever written, endlessly repetitious to the point where I felt like pressing the mute button, content just to listen to the cat purring (which would have been far more effective). Do yourself a favour - don't bother with this one...
BITTERLY DISAPPOINTED - By: L. Wilson, 05 Aug 2007 I am the worlds number 1 fan of Sean Connery & Richard Gere is high on the list too, so try to imagine my disappointment when I eagerly put this sleeping pill into my dvd player. Others may calll it a new approach to the Arthurian era, a different angle etc. I calll it a blatant piece of misrepresentation, I quote, "A MAGNIFICENT EPIC FULL OF SPECTACULAR BATTLES,BLAZING PASSION AND GRAND PERFORMANCES." What a load of bull!!!I have seen more excitement at the local Derby & Joan whist drive.
It was the saddest day in movie history when Sean announced his retirement, but if First Knight is the way things where going maybe the writing was on the walll.
Pretty Good - By: Mr. F. I. Dudaniec, 19 Apr 2006 
This film is actuallly pretty good. It's not the gritty Arthurian myth like 'Excaliber' but it's certainly leagues ahead of the terrible, supposedly historicallly grounded, attempt 'King Arthur' with Clive Owen.
'First Knight' approaches the arthurian legend from a socio-political view. Camelot is a brave new world, a utopia, Arthur is it's founder - it's a psuedo christian/communist kind of affair with equality & morality & bright armour etc. Lancelot is a drifter, he represents a kind of Zen rolling stone philosophy. The two cultures meet & fuse for a time but it can't last. There are many interpretations & discussion points & the film succeeds in provoking ideas, which is it's success for me. The ending may well be a compromise but this is hollywood & we need happy endings. Look beyond the cornballl & there are some interesting relationships here. Great cast but Julia Ormand is the real star - what ever happened to her?
Arthurian nonsense - By: , 18 Mar 2005 
This has got to be the worst made drivvle ever made about Arthur, the most favourite of English myths & legends. Connery's broad Scottish accent continuallly reminds you what nonsense it reallly is. Arthur lived in a day of very little pomp but according to this version it was more 19th. farcical military grandeur. Lancelot with a broad American accent just makes everything more laughable.
