MovieMan1975

Where to start with a historical action-adventure-romance based on a legendary myth, directed by..... Jerry Zucker. I don't think they could have chosen a worse director. Ok they could have, but Zucker woefully lacks the vision to helm a blockbuster like this. And it shows - from the drab lifeless cinematography, to the awkward casting of Richard Gere, to the redundant costumes, and a production design that shows the foam and screws the set was put together with. We can go on and on.. from Jerry Goldsmith's half-assed score, to the awful dialogue, and a villain that encapsulates every cliche in the book... including a DIRTY FACE! Because how would we know that Malagant is the villain if they didn't make his face greasy and smear it with dirt????

Right off the bat, the movie opens with a 20th century American Lancelot, swordfighting to show off for villagers, or for money? Can't be sure... the scene serves no other purpose than to show that Richard Gere is a master swordsman, as long as his sword looks lighter than a feather. Everything about this scene seems phony and fabricated. Not a single moment rings of 6th century authenticity. This movie can't even decide with millennia it is set in, with weapons from the 19th century, costumes that look 16th century, etc... SO HORRIBLE. lol I get it that this movie isn't for historic authenticity.. but come on, at least display the slightest modicum of attention to historic detail. Its like they got a huge budget, spent it all on Sean Connery and Richard Gere, painted a giant foam castle, and then had to make do with props and costumes already available. I doubt that's the case, but that is what the movie looks like! Recycled from other movies. Richard Gere as Lancelot could go down as one of top 5 worst casting choices EVER. The man is a mediocre actor, and an even more insufferable movie "star" who coasts on his milquetoast leading man looks. He has the charisma of a retarded puppy. Didn't anyone see King David? Were lesson NOT learned from that casting???

The ONLY redeeming values this movie has, is Sean Connery as Arthur and Julia Ormond as Guinevere. Both sparkle in their poorly written roles, and you could tell than in a better movie, this could have been top career performances from them, but they get buried in the mediocre production and Richard Gere's anachronistic presence.

I cannot think of a more disappointed movie, its so bad. Skip this entirely and just stick to EXCALIBUR, a masterpiece, or even Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur, which is at least a pretty good action movie with some cinematic flair. But this FIRST KNIGHT is a turd of the first order.

This movie is far better than your typical Bible or 'faith-based' movie; I admittedly had some low expectations going in to see it and was very surprised by a quality film with a beautiful message. Not for one second did I feel that this was preachy or 'Bible-beating'... it was more pure and authentic and humanist. The acting is top notch, with Jim Caviezel, Faulkner, and Olivier Martinez really giving some nuanced and layered performances. Nobody phoned in their roles, you could sense a level of passion and commitment to the story. The music was also excellent, a gorgeous score that was paired with some nice cinematography and production design. The movie looked good and sounded, but importantly - it felt good. Lots of films in the devotional genre tend to end up being mere dramatic recreations of the gospels, but this one, while delivering authenticity, was not as concerned with delivering a 'live-action experience of the Bible' so much as striving to express the true message of Paul. That message, the one that is basically Christ's Sermon on the Mount, is the crux of the film. This gives it an emotional heft that is quite poignant. I wasn't so moved by the characters' actions and the story in so much as what they were feeling in their hearts and what they were expressing. Dammit this movie hit me right in the feels and I already know it will linger with me for days. That is a good sign that I just participated in some human art. Won't win any Oscars, and sadly probably won't light up the box office but this is a fine and beautiful movie with an important and relevant message for the world today.

This is truly one of the best films of 2014.

Mike Leigh delivers yet again another piece of true artistic cinema. This film has a richness & depth that is so grossly lacking in most Hollywood films.

Some of the most sublime dialogue I have heard in a long time. Each word is so carefully chosen and spoken by the actors. Brings shame to Hollywood for honouring such trashy tripe like Django Unchained... apparently you can win an Oscar for writing pages of the word moth*rf*ck*r and n*g*er, but a true piece of literature such as Mr Turner is overlooked. makes no sense.

From the gorgeous cinematography, to Mike Leigh's perfect directing, to a towering performance by Timothy Spall.... its hard not to rate this film as one of the best biopics of an artist ever produced.

In a year full of very interesting and competent biopics - The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Big Eyes etc... MR TURNER slays them all with pure excellence of cinema.

The way that Leigh creates a film as impressionistic as the paintings of Turner himself,is a testament to the passion and artistic integrity of the filmmakers and their subject.

never boring for one second, with a production design as authentic as it gets, Mr Turner delves into how an artist distills the world through his mind's eye - analyzing light and colour in a way that revolutionized painting for the next century.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED