Knightriders
Knightriders
R | 10 April 1981 (USA)
Knightriders Trailers

A medieval reenactment troupe struggles to maintain its family-like dynamic amid pressure from local authorities, interest from talent agents, and their "King's" delusions of grandeur.

Reviews
Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama
GrigoryGirl This, quite possibly, may be my favorite of Romero's films. I adore Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, but this one is quite special and is a complete surprise, even to Romero's hardcore fans. I remember renting it a while back because it was by Romero (and it is pretty long, 145 minutes, and I love long films). Many reviews simply stated that it was "a change of pace" for Romero, and yes, this is true, but they missed the depth and substance that this film has. It is Romero's most moving film, completely heartfelt and sincere, one that, should I say this, stirs the soul. Romero elicits incredibly naturalistic performances from his cast. It's made up of Romero regulars, including Ken Foree from Dawn of the Dead, and Tom Savini, makeup artist extraordinare and a surprisingly good actor here. It also stars a then unknown Ed Harris, who Romero discovered. Ed shows his intensity and power early on. You really feel like you're watching real people and their traveling show. Nothing feels phony, smug, or "ironic" here. The final 20 minutes is the most stirring thing that Romero has ever done (with the best scene in a school where Ed Harris gives his sword and helmet to a young school boy he met earlier in the film. The kid's performance is wonderful in a film filled with them). So, this film is much more than just a change of pace for George A. Romero. It's a deeply moving, sad film, one that should be appreciated not only for its change of pace (which Romero succeeds wildly), but for its deep, humanistic message. A wonderful piece of film-making....
brewwench I took it upon myself to watch all of George's movies, although I will admit I've seen his trilogy hundreds of times. This movie started out strong, lagged a little in the middle, but completely sucked me back in at the end. The acting is sporadic, but I always found someone to like in each scene. Ed Harris' butt isn't too shabby, either. The stunts were quite realistic, and I can't believe they actually walked away from some of them.The cameo by Stephen King and his wife Tabitha was priceless - he plays his usual bumbling self.I really started to enjoy the "young apprentice"?, but I never really understood how he became one of the troupe.Okay, moment of truth - I cried at the final scene.All in all, this was a good movie, and I'll add it to my collection.
Brandt Sponseller I can see the potential here. Bikers engaging in medieval games on their hogs is a fun idea. So is an almost cult-like group organized around a charismatic leader posing as a king. In addition to the cult group dynamics, it allows an exploration of medieval social roles in a modern setting, including the reaction of outsiders to this strange group. Because they're on the road, we also have gypsy themes, allusions to Easy Rider, and even elements very similar to a rock 'n' roll band going crazy while touring.But something went seriously wrong when it came to making those ideas into a film. It's a combination of things really: * For much of Knightriders, there's really not much of a story. There are long scenes where all characters are in stasis. There are too many long scenes of the tournaments--too many because despite the impressiveness of the stunts, they're shot and edited so that all dramatic tension is lost. When more of a plot is attempted, it's not usually explained very well. Chunks of exposition seem to be missing. Characters come and go without much explanation. There are major characters who we never get to know anything about. There are times when the story becomes a bit more interesting and coherent, but they're few and far between, and all good will they engender is usually demolished in the next couple scenes.* The editing is some of the worst work I've ever seen in a "major" film. A lot of scenes seem to be put together randomly, as if they literally threw shots into the air in the cutting room and reassembled them as they grabbed them.* The acting is pretty uniformly awful. The only person I liked was Stephen King, and he only had a cameo for maybe 90 seconds total screen time. Ed Harris overacts ridiculously. Tom Savini is too often awkward. Romero apparently told everyone to play the film serious as a heart attack (only King didn't listen), and it has the effect of making every character annoying, as well as making an inherently absurd premise, with apparently insane characters, far too droll.* Romero makes a ton of bad decisions here for cinematography. Poorly chosen, poorly framed shots are the norm. The few good shots stick out like a sore thumb because of this. It's a pretty ugly film. And for that matter, the costumes, props, "sets" and such tend to be ugly too. I don't mean that it should be "pretty" and "pleasant". Rather, it should have visual aesthetic merit appropriate to the subject matter rather than having all the appeal of a washed-out mid-70s low budget porno.* The score is similarly ugly.Knightriders almost makes Romero's Bruiser (2000) look good in comparison.
Timmy Church I really thought I was in store for some classic post-Punk mayhem a la Deathrace 2000 or Dead-End Drive-In (which are both fine movies) but instead I saw one of the best movies I've ever seen. Call me a sap but I had tears welling up in my eyes for the entire last forty minutes. Rarely does clarity of direction and story-telling go hand-in-hand with such an unusual movie. Excellent performances are derived from both the actorly and realist schools and even a little over-the-top style but the different kinds don't clash, they combine to make it a fuller, richer film altogether.I had never really wondered what it would be like if Christopher Lee and Meadowlark Lemon had a son but now I know.Beautiful camera-work and a truly human sympathy for even minor characters (Julie Dean on her porch, the Troubadour talking to King Billy) make all scenes watchable and invaluable.This movie is humane and beautiful. A real treat. Odd as hell, to be sure, but remarkable.