First Knight is not a particularly good film of King Arthur. It tries to talk a more realistic approach, not focusing on the magic, but I think that it fails on that level. The King Arthur legend hasn't transferred to film that well. Firstly the film is well written or well directed. The casting was poor. Sean Connery was not a good choice for playing Arthur, they got a Scot playing an English King and even though I'm a Bond fan, Sean Connery is a particularly good actor after that. Richard Gere is the most wooden actor in history and just can perform. He shows no emotion and can't even be a good action hero, seeing that he doesn't tend to play action roles. He can't even do a British accent. The relationship between Guinevere and the two leads was not believable. I didn't like the fact an older actor playing Arthur and that the two characters are meant to be a similar age. It was also hard to believe the relationship with Lancelot because of Gere's performance. I also felt that Camelot was not grant enough. The whole point of the city was that not other city could match it for beauty and was a symbol of England's glory. The film was also not particularly loyal to the Arthur legends and this is another example of Hollywood butchering an English legend, similar to Robin Hood films. A good thing about this film is the sword fights and battles were well done.<br /><br />This film isn't worth watching, and is one of the reasons why I don't rate Richard Gere as a actor.