Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

What a beautiful movie!

terrible... so disappointed.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

First Knight (1995)Plot In A Paragraph: Lancelot (Richard Gere) falls in love with Guinevere (Julia Ormand) , who is due to be married to King Arthur (Connery). Meanwhile, a violent warlord tries to seize power from Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.YAWN!! This movie is the worst movie Connery has made since Sword & The Valiant. Yes I'm counting Highlander 2 in that. It is produced with a decent budget but a lot will have gone on its two main stars who are awfully miscast. As is the heroine. Both Connery and Gere are too old for the roles and Ormand is too young. Connery should make a brilliant King Arthur, all noble and dignified!! But he over acts at times and it just doesn't work, neither does Gere who has zero charisma and is totally unconvincing as Lancelot. It should be an interesting love triangle, but you are never really invested in it, and I just didn't care. First Knight grossed $37 million at the domestic box office to end 1995 as the 46th highest grossing movie of the year. One place better and one million dollars more than Just Cause. But considering this had a budget of $55 million compared to the $25 million of Just Cause. It's easier to see whIch one was considered a disappointment.

First Knight is an odd duck. Pretty much everyone is miscast. Julia Ormond overdoes pretty much everything, just relentlessly acting, and completely lacking the grace and subtlety required to play a noble. Richard Gere clearly was having a laugh: he doesn't bother hiding his American accent most of the time, and plays Lancelot as a one-note ladies' man, instead of as the charismatic character of legend. Connery possesses the gravitas to play Arthur, and plays him sincerely, but he brings far too much baggage from being "Sean Connery," to make him believable. The whole thing feels about as authentic as Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride. This is truly a prime example of Hollywood's excesses getting in the way of a good time. Yes, its fun if Richard Gere tosses his hair and acts all seductive, and yes I suppose its fun if there's a Wipeout-style obstacle course inserted into the Arthurian legend, but if there isn't a certain basic realism or internal logic to the characters, then a non-parodic narrative film like this is pretty well doomed. These aren't people, they're a bunch of cardboard cut-outs, play-acting around a round table.

I have read a number of negative reviews of this film, including the criticisms that Gere is miscast, & that it's not historically accurate (even though it is about fictional characters-???)While these people are of course entitled to their opinion, I think they miss the point here:' F.K. ', was NEVER intended to be a remake of, ' Camelot ' (1967), or, ' Excalibur ' (1981). Rather, it is its OWN story, with its OWN identity, which just happens to also utilize the characters of Arthur, Lancelot, & Guinevere. In fact, you get the vibe that this is an, ' Alternate-Reality ', version of that realm, sans the sorcery, and with Gere as a kind of California-Slacker-Type-Hero, which he actually plays very well.So when taken on its OWN terms, it is an example of exquisite film-making.M

I am not sure why this film received such a low grades, I do not think it deserved.Plot writers tried to reincarnate story of King Arthur and he knights of the round table. So little is historically actually known about it that all the film plot I consider pure fiction.Like all the movies of this kind it has rather good plot, which really caries us well into the film. It is interesting and dynamic although a little bit more made for the children then for the adults.Acting by Sean Connery is outstanding. These types of roles suit him so well, he truly shines so well in it. Other actors a little bit to be desired, I am sure that C.Z. Jones would fit better then Julia Ormond did.All in all if you have small children and you are int Anglo-Saxon history, this is a must see for you, otherwise you really should find time to see it anyways. ;)