This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I thought it interesting that they draw upon older and nowadays almost forgotten Camelot stories in this movie. It made the movie original, without going too far from the sources. One thing was totally wrong though, and I think this fact almost wrecks the whole movie. In the beginning Lancelot is pictured like some poor show-man, almost a con artist, who gives sword-shows for money in public places. This is something that the "real" Lancelot (I mean the Lancelot we all know) would never have done. As everybody knows, he was born a prince and got a magical upbringing with The Lady of the Lake. When he reached manhood, she brought him to King Arthur's court. At this time he was already a knight in armour. There can never have been a time in Lancelot's life, when he had to give shows for money in public squares (however successfully). This started the movie on completely the wrong note, and I almost stopped watching then and there!Also, Richard Gere is wrong for the role. First, he is too American. The first request for someone playing the leads in a Camelot story, must be their Brittishness... Also, Richard Gere is not handsome enough - although I HAVE found him attractive in other kinds of roles, such as well-tailored lawyers and businessmen in the city. But he is not handsome in the way we think of Lancelot as handsome: extremely muscular, fit and manly, and at the same time unearthly, spiritual and saint-like... Richard Gere in this movie looks like any peasant!Julia Ormond was also the wrong choice for Guinevere. The only thing that was right about her was her slim and straight figure. Her face is much too ordinary, and there is no glamour at all around her. Sean Connery is perfect as King Arthur, though. VERY British, handsome, manly, regal and fear-inspiring when he is supposed to be fear-inspiring. Also a great actor, as ever.Also, I did not like that they changed the ending. In this movie, it was hinted at that Lancelot and Guinevere could have each other - now when the King was dead. This is nowhere in the original sources. And the love triangle is supposed to be a tragedy, not a happy ending! "First Knight" is a darker, bleaker and more realistic take on Camelot, but there are still things that make it worth watching: the wonderful castle in itself, and the whole medieval world with lavish gowns, armour, horses, battle-scenes etc..

This movie enchanted me when I was a 13 year old girl. Recently I spotted it on Netflix Instant and decided to see if it held up 19 years later. Uhh, no. Medieval Han Solo gallops to and fro rescuing a princess stock character not once but TWICE and in between he pressures her to have sex with him. Julia Ormond is the picture of some dude's idea of feminine perfection, alternating between girlish impetuosity, over the top expressions of feminine fragility ("It's so beautiful I'm almost frightened!"), and gazing slack-jawed at her two love interests. BARF. Richard Gere delivers a stellar comedic performance as Lancelot, sword-wielding, moat-diving, swaggering and tossing about his luxurious locks. Even Sean Connery cannot make this movie less silly. But on the other hand, young Sir Davos is featured, and that's pretty awesome.

There were three medieval/British Isle films released in 1995 -- "Braveheart," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight." Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" is certainly the most epic of the three, but I found it overrated; which isn't to say I don't like it, I just don't feel that it's as great as the hype would suggest. I liked "Rob Roy" slightly better than "Braveheart;" it's very adult-oriented, violent and grim, however.I feel the best of the three, believe it or not, was "First Knight," a believable take on the King Arthur/Camelot legend starring Sean Connery as Arthur, Richard Gere as Lancelot and Julia Ormond as Guinevere. They get tangled up in a bit of a love triangle.As I said, this is a realistic portrayal of the story so, thankfully, you won't see any of that silly magical jive with Merlin, Excalibur, etc. This explains why so many panned the film, but I don't get their beef, aren't there enough cinematic depictions of the Camelot tale for them to enjoy, like "Excalibur"? I'll put it this way, "First Knight" is to the Arthor/Lancelot legend what the film "Troy" is to the "Helen of Troy" chronicle.The film caught my fascination right away with the character of Lancelot. He is portrayed as an expert swordsman, drifter, loner and all-around lost soul. The beginning of the picture reveals something integral to understanding his character: Lancelot takes on an intimidating dude in a swordfight contest at a village he just drifted into. After Lancelot prevails, the big guy asks him for advice on how to be as skilled a swordsman as Lancelot. Lancelot tells him that he needs a couple of obvious sword-fighting skills, to which the man confidently replies, "I can do that." Then Lancelot tells him the last quality he needs: "And you must not care whether you live or die." This is a powerful scene; Gere plays the character very convincingly (in fact, if you hate Gere, this film will give you a new-found respect for him). This character-defining episode reveals HOW Lancelot is the only one able to prevail against an incredible and decidedly deadly weapons gauntlet later in the story. And, speaking of that gauntlet sequence, it's fabulous.The rest of the film is just a solid medieval/British Isle adventure, with the requisite forest scenes and all.One small criticism would be that, although I enjoyed the heroic episode wherein Lancelot rescues Guinevere in Malagant's cave fortress, its pretty implausible. But these are larger-than-life figures, right?Reviewer Craig Connell pointed out another notable aspect of the film: It stresses character nobility and even the importance of prayer."First Knight" more than satisfied my hunger for a medieval British isles flick and surprised me with the intriguing character of the suicidally brave Lancelot.If one doesn't have hang-ups regarding the absence of Merlin, Excalibur and the magical baggage that goes with 'em this is a quite entertaining film.GRADE: B

This movie was one of the best family movies . 10 out of 10 and for all of the complainers (try not to judge a book for its cover). The film is great and it displays values that a man should poses such as:courage love honor dignity faith and a lot more. I know that for all of you if a film does not have a sex scene or something tot laugh it is a bad film. Try to learn something!!! Excellent film to see with your family on a evening . Splendid casting! Great actors (all of them) Superb display of values! On my opinion today s generation should grow watching those kind of films instead of sf or others. Wonder why people turn out as they are today? See how they talk favorite music or movies....and it is enough to see what kind of person they are.