The problem with First Knight is that it is old-fashioned. It lacks cynicism and irony. As you can see from many of the other comments, it was not well received by many. Why? I'm not sure, really. I loved it tremendously. It isn't for King Arthur purists who think that 'Le Morte D' Arthur' is the ONLY version of the Arthurian legend out there (as if legends can have only one version!). First Knight is a visually beautiful, sentimental, and well crafted romantic adventure, told from the point of view of Lancelot, in this version a wandering sellsword.
If you are looking for the mysticism, the magic and the tragedy of Camelot...you'll be disappointed. This is a more optimistic telling of the tale. It is also more streamlined. There is no lady of the lake, no Merlin, no Excalibur, and no Morgana. If you want to see all that, go and rent Boorman's Excalibur (1981), also a very good Arthurian legend, but very different from First Knight. It is a much darker and more savage rendition of the tale, and the ending is also more grim and brooding.
Here, you have only Arthur, Lancelot, Guenevere, and a villain who is essentially Mordred, known as Malagant (they even refer to him as a prince). It focuses on the love triangle and the final battles between Arthur and Malagant, which lightens the burden of storytelling considerably from Excalibur, which can be quite thick with plot at times (not that this is bad, it's just different). I found myself not really missing all the magic and myth of the story, and enjoying First Knight for its strength: it is romantic, intelligent, and energetic. The performances are all good (though the men are a bit old), and the music is simply gorgeous.
If you don't mind that the legend has been toned down, but only to focus on a tighter storyline with fewer characters to encumber it, you will like First Knight. If you have a problem with big movie star names playing ancient characters (Gere distracted many with his performance, but I felt he did a great job), or if you don't like deviations from the 'real' legend of Camelot, you probably won't enjoy this adventure/doomed romance for what it is.
If you are looking for the mysticism, the magic and the tragedy of Camelot...you'll be disappointed. This is a more optimistic telling of the tale. It is also more streamlined. There is no lady of the lake, no Merlin, no Excalibur, and no Morgana. If you want to see all that, go and rent Boorman's Excalibur (1981), also a very good Arthurian legend, but very different from First Knight. It is a much darker and more savage rendition of the tale, and the ending is also more grim and brooding.
Here, you have only Arthur, Lancelot, Guenevere, and a villain who is essentially Mordred, known as Malagant (they even refer to him as a prince). It focuses on the love triangle and the final battles between Arthur and Malagant, which lightens the burden of storytelling considerably from Excalibur, which can be quite thick with plot at times (not that this is bad, it's just different). I found myself not really missing all the magic and myth of the story, and enjoying First Knight for its strength: it is romantic, intelligent, and energetic. The performances are all good (though the men are a bit old), and the music is simply gorgeous.
If you don't mind that the legend has been toned down, but only to focus on a tighter storyline with fewer characters to encumber it, you will like First Knight. If you have a problem with big movie star names playing ancient characters (Gere distracted many with his performance, but I felt he did a great job), or if you don't like deviations from the 'real' legend of Camelot, you probably won't enjoy this adventure/doomed romance for what it is.