I rebut the statement that states that the movie First Knight displays an accurate depiction of medieval life and the legend of King Arthur and that its focus on history of Camelot makes this film a great historical document because the whole Arthurian legend was changed almost beyond recognition and in this revisionist version. My question to the makers of this movie is why make a movie with characters from the Arthurian legend and completely ignore anything about the legends beyond the names of the characters?
             First, let's start with Lancelot, who is depicted as a thug for hire instead of the personification of the purest knightly ideals. In fact, it's hard to imagine a less likely figure in the part of this legendary hero, uttering such pompous lines as, "I never believed in anything before, but now I believe in Camelot," or something very like it. At least Richard Gere spares us an attempt at a phony British accent.
             This was probably in order to save the special effects, every reference to magic and plenty of Arthurian characters, including Merlin, are entirely erased. Perhaps the reasoning behind this was the idea to make a "revisionist" and more realistic version of Arthurian legend, but the effort is already marred by the utter disregard for historical accuracy.
             One of the most insolent cases is probably the movie's inability to direct scenes featuring swordplay. So the solution was graceful - instead of swords the characters fight with medieval version of pistols - miniature crossbows, a great solution.
             Most of the magic of the original story are jettisoned and all but the three main characters (Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot) remain. What else remains is a standard action story (whose battle scenes have been outclassed by Braveheart), and a love triangle. The love triangle, supposedly the most compelling aspect of the film, is unfortunately abruptly ended by a villain who just wrenches the life out of the...