Conference bookie::movies

    re .0
    
    Yes, I saw this last Friday with the SO. Hmmm, how to summarise it? It
    was reasonably enjoyable, if a little slow. The fight scenes nearly
    always seemed to be badly lit and occured at night, making it hard to
    work out who was killing who. Sean Connery does a solid job as King
    Arthur (or should that be King MacArthur?), Julia Ormond is a cracking
    Guinevere and Richard Gere manages to be fairly convincing as Lancelot.
    The problem for me was the bits that were missing; Merlin, the
    mystical elements, the Grail Quest, etc. At the end of the day, John
    Boorman's Excalibur did a far better job.
    
    **� out of *****
    
    Clive

    I saw First Knight this weekend. It was pretty bad. Maybe I've read
    too many King Arthur legends to like this movie. It strayed in and out
    from the legend. I hated Richard Gere as Lancelot, he was very 
    unbelievable. Sean Connery was okay as Arthur but not great. Julia
    Ormond did a nice job as Guineviere.Ben Cross was good as Maligant.
    Excaliber is still the best King Arthur movie.
    
    First Knight is a rental at best.
    
    The fight seens are poorly done especially after seeing Braveheart

    We went to see this yesterday, and agree with the previous noters.
    Although the director said that since this is a myth, he felt he could
    take liberties with the story, the actual myth is too well known for
    this many liberties. Sean Connery was good, Julia Ormond was very good,
    and Richard Gere was fair to semi-bad. 
    
    The first scenes with Gere reminded me of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood.
    Gere never even attempted an accent, this is really annoying to me, so
    I'm willing to agree to disagree with those that don't care that this
    happened in Britain and he had an American accent. He actually grew on
    me a little towards the end, so the accent wasn't as distracting as KC
    in Robin Hood. 
    
    THe movie is more than anything the story about the relationship of these 
    3 people, with the Arthurian legend merely lending a backdrop, and in that
    it succeeded. I had no trouble believing that the way things happened
    could have been how 2 people who loved Arthur could have seemed to
    betray him. It was a little long, and the battle scenes were hard to
    watch in the dark, but that makes it less bloody than Braveheart. What
    I found most irksome was the portrayal of Camelot as this Fantasy
    castle ( I KNOW it's fanstasy really!) and all the townspeople in color
    coordinated clothing.
    
    If you're looking for a treatment on the Arthurian legen, rent another
    movie.
    
    
    Marilyn  
    

    Ok, I'll be the first one in here to disagree with all the previous
    noters!!! :):)  I thought it was a great movie!!  I do not know much
    about the King Arthur legend which is probably why I enjoyed it more..
    I also did not see Excaliber, but I hear that's really good so I
    plan on renting it.  
    
    I only had what was in First Knight to go on and I liked it.  I thought
    Sean Connery was great as the king and Julia was very good.  I liked
    the fact that she wasn't the typical damsel in distress.  She had some
    gumption.  I don't know about Richard Gere.  I personally thought
    he was a bit old for the fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants Lancelot.
    But he didn't spoil the movie for me!!:)
    
    I thought the scenery was just beautiful and Camelot was whimsical.
    Ben Cross was a great bad guy.  In general, I really liked the love
    story itself.  It kind of reminded of Bridges of Madison County,
    in that these two people who can't have each fall in love.  I liked
    the ending to this one better though because the lovers got to be
    together with the King's blessing...well considering the circumstances
    and the King's Camelot is saved.
    
    I think it is worth seeing.  If you are a real King Arthur buff,
    maybe a rental would be better for you.  But if you just want to see
    a good movie its worth going to the show.
    
    RS

    
    I've been looking forward to this film since I heard they were making
    it, sounds (at least) OK.
    
    I'm pleased to read other people liked Excalibur. I reckon it's one of
    my all time favourite films, mixing the mystical with a good dose of
    realism (well, it looks realistic-ish :^)), but most reviewers panned
    it.
    
    Mark

    
    I to was looking forward to seeing this movie. I love camalot and
    all the King Author stories.  I loved Excalibur more then anything!
    I've seen that movie 100 times.
    
    If Merlin and Morgana are not apart of this movie,then I think I will
    wait for the video.
    
    Louisa

    Neither is Mordred, I imagine Malagant is supposed to be him, but I
    don't remember if this character is in the original story, I don't
    recognize the name.
    
    
    Marilyn

    
    I believe the name is Meliagraunce.  As for characters from the
    original story, which original?  Malory?  Geoffrey of Monmouth?
    Lancelot, after all, is a thirteenth or fourteenth century addition, I
    think.
    
    DFW
    
    

    Caught this movie last night.  Both my wife and I enjoyed it, but each
    of us liked the Mel Gibson movie "Braveheart" better.  For one thing,
    the battles were in daylight so you could make out the good guys vs the
    bad guys a lot easier!  For another, Gibson was sensational while
    Richard Gere was merely good.  Last comparison - the scenery in
    "Braveheart" was breathtaking, and it was no big deal in "First
    Knight".
    
    The story focused more on the romantic triangle among Arthur, Lancelot,
    and Guinevere, and less on the legend, which was fine with me.  At that
    level, the movie was quite well done.  Ms. Ormond was spectacular as
    Guinevere, bringing a strength of will and an athleticism that I found
    refreshing and surprisingly real.  Ben Cross was terrific as Malagant,
    but Sean Connery to me was unconvincing as Arthur.  To me, the story
    would have been better with Gere as Arthur and Brad Pitt or Ethan Hawke
    as Lancelot.  Connery seems too old and tired to be Arthur.
    
    NAZZ

    Sorry, I rate it poorly.
    I thought the film was mis-cast.
    
    Sean Connery, who I normally like, came across as a rather pathetic
    Arthur. With Connery, the added value is usually in the dry quips...
    none in this film.
    Richard Gere was strutting his stuff; in armour(!) give me a break. He
    was looking old and I kept thinking of his greying hair during the raining
    scene (how it didn't run black dye, I don't know :-).
    Julia Ormond was very poor. The weakest link.
    She too was very mis-cast. She was too young for Connery and I don't
    think the chemistry worked at all. A better Guinnevere would have been
    Maid Marion, Mary Elizabeth Mastriano(sp?), from Robin Hood-Prince of
    Thieves.
    They tried with the scenery, but it just didn't work. The sets looked
    false and effects were noticably small scale.
    It just didn't hit the mark. Bad show on all concerned, even if it was
    filmed in Wales.
    Must do better.
    * out of *****.
    
    Phil.L�