The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (44)
| Top Critics (14)
| Fresh (20)
| Rotten (24)
| DVD (4)
Whenever Zucker stops piling on battle scenes as if he were directing Braveheart, his film casts a romantic spell.
Aside from casting Richard Gere as Lancelot, First Knight marches out as an agreeably intelligent, mature and well-mounted telling of the legendary King Arthur story.
The problem for him[Gere], and the film, comes when the non-physical acting begins.
There's swordplay to the hilt, but the story itself never quite gets in Gere.
Pillaged of such mainstays as Merlin and Morgan le Fay-as well as magic, majesty and depth-'Camelot' has become 'Camelite.'
[I]f you tingle at the sound of metal unsheathing and the sight of flaming arrows whizzing through moonlight, you'll probably be swept away by this shining Knight in amour.
A stock bodice-ripper - albeit one in which all bodices survive intact.
While director Jerry Zucker seems to have been intent on dragging the film to the mushy middle, it's still more entertaining than most comparable Middle Ages-set movies.
Goes for a pass as a shallow but occasionally rousing swordfighting flick with a handful of thoughtful scenes...has something those other pictures don't have: Sean Connery as King Arthur.
Director Zucker is unsuccessful in trying to put a fresh angle on the familiar story, and he is not much helped by his romantic leads, Richard Gere and Julia Ormond.
The out-of-place [Richard] Gere doesn't do justice to the fine performance of [Julia] Ormond.
No Merlin, no magic, no way.
Not a serious historical piece (and what do we really know of Pendragon anyway?) but a children's fable extolling virtue, the Zuckers take a chance with this glittering fairy tale. Connery is the Arthur the story wants, or is it that we want Connery to be Arthur, its hard to tell. Gere supplies the dashing derring-do as Lancelot, and Ormond fills the difficult position of being torn between two lovers fetchingly.
Starts off mediocerly, but once Sean Connery enters the stage as the fabled King Arthur, the quality level is instantly raised. Richard Gere looks a bit misplaced as the fearless Sir Lancelot, and wouldn't have been my first pick for the role, but he still takes it on to the best of his abilities. As for Julia Ormond, she's quite lovely as Princess Guinevere, altough I would have very much liked to see her put a little more energy into her performance. What speaks for the film in positive terms, however, is the atmosphere and action, along with a highly enchanting music score by the brilliant Jerry Goldsmith. It's so good, in fact, that I've made it a part of my inspirational music library. If there is one thing I could change though, it would be the costumes. They look a little plain and cheap for what is essentially a period piece. Maybe they ran out of money when it came to clothing the actors? Apart from said maladies though, it remains a captivating tale of love, chivalry and sweeping adventure. Easily one of the better renditions of the Arthurian legend.
Another terrible rendition of King Arthur. Turning the story into nothing more than a romantic threesome is just pure slander. To change the story to fit a movie is one thing, but this should've just left Arthur's name all together. The acting is terrible, quite possibly Sean Connery's worst performance and the usual Richard Gere treatment.
I saw this one in the theatre and can't quite remember the whole film, but I do remember enjoying it.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.