Knightriders (1981) User Reviews (58)

Potential Cult Classic

[artzau · 7/10 · 17 July 2010]

OK, besides Ed Harris and Tom Savini, who else is in this amazing biker film from the early 80s? Well, it doesn't really matter because sometimes things just come together in a way that transcends what the likely original intent was, to patch together a biker movie about jousting knights who engage in feudal combat from motorcycles instead of horses. Yep. The costumes are a bit cheesy, the acting is a bit raw and amateurish and the story..., ah, the story: The story is the Arthurian tragedy of innocence, self sacrifice, honor and unfaithfulness. The tale works around the triad of the King, the very young Ed Harris, the villain, the wonderful Tom Savini and the knight protector, Lancelot, Gary Lahti. Each of these figures represents an archetype which very likely unbeknown to the film makers and they come through wonderfully in the way in which this tale is patched together. Billy,as the King Arthur prototype is idealistic, uncompromising loyal to his own mythology and like the legendary Arthur, ego-less. His loyal knight retainer, Alan, is Lancelot in his nobility and loyalty to his sovereign while coveting his wife all the time. Savini is purely delightful as the Modred counterpart, even taking Morgan le Fay's name as a pun. Morgan covets the crown and tries to usurp it by going off only to discover his new realm is a forest of paper tigers. The final scene and resolution of the tragedy works wonderfully, giving a the only glimpse of the famous story-teller and raconteur, Brother Blue as the wizard, Merlin.

As an anthropologist and mythologist, I saw this tale back in the early 80s and was impressed how the underlying mythology of an essentially low budget film held together in such a wonderful way in spite of a few flaws. I consider it a cult classic.

The Lost "Code Of Honor"

[StrictlyConfidential · 6/10 · 19 June 2020]

In between all of the horror from "Dawn Of The Dead" (1978) and "Creepshow" (1982), George Romero directed the ambitious and unusual "Knightriders" (1981). This greatly overlooked film is quite clearly one of Romero's more personal and mature film efforts to date.

A very youthful Ed Harris plays Billy, a self-styled King Arthur-type, who's the "crowned" leader of the Knightriders. This travelling troupe of performers stage jousts (in full armor) while on motorcycles for the entertainment of all the thrill-seeking spectators at county fairs.

As the story goes - Billy tries to persuade his followers to live under an old-fashioned code of honor, but the constant pressure of balancing ideals against realities, and the financial problems of running The Knightriders as a business, inevitably leads to conflicts and trouble.

Yes. "Knightriders" is a bit silly at times. But, all-in-all, it is pretty good entertainment, even though it is a tad long with a running time of 145 minutes.

I think that Romero did a fine job with the "Knightrider's" story, which reflects the choice that many artists make between "pure" expression of their vision (whatever that might be) and a compromise to achieve commercial success.

I dunno, George...

[Jonny_Numb · 5/10 · 7 January 2008]

...it seems like you do your best work when shuffling, flesh-craving reanimated corpses are involved. There's a reason the "Living Dead" tetralogy is the stuff of legend and Romero's 'side-projects' are mostly little-known footnotes within his career--while often artistically innovative and unconventional, efforts like "Monkey Shines," "Bruiser," and "Knightriders" are--at best--tonally uneven experiences. Here we have a modern-day Ren Faire tent community that travels from town to town, putting on jousting competitions (done on motorcycles, natch) and living the medieval lifestyle in a modern world. Romero uses this postmodernist fairy tale to frame a heavy-handed (and overlong) meditation on man's code of honor and what it takes to hang onto it in a world where everybody else is "selling out" to live a life of luxury (yes, an up-and-coming rock band could have easily been substituted for the Ren Faire). The film is ponderous at points (with many sledgehammer-obvious monologues), repetitive at others (while the jousting tournaments are a marvel of slick editing, they don't vary much), and the premise is treated so seriously that at times it's hard not to laugh (and granted, there is a lot of intentional humor as well). Despite all this, Romero's voice does come out in certain dialog scenes, and the production is wonderfully photographed by Michael Gornick; the performances vary (with a young Ed Harris all over the map), but Tom Savini shows some formidable chops as a potential traitor to the cause. The commentary on the 'knights'' displacement in a world given in to modernity meets an uneven end (blatantly ripping off "Easy Rider"), but "Knightriders" is an oddly transfixing--albeit inferior--piece of work.

Fighting the Dragon

[krasnegar · 5 February 2001]

Sometimes it's too long.

Sometimes it's just right.

But even when i watch it and say -Yup, too long!- i can never decide what to cut.

I love to put this on for people who have never seen it and have no idea of what they're in for -- the careful arrangements, compositions and camerawork of the opening sequence, as the King and his Queen tarry a while in the (probably enchanted) woods, in the lovely golden sunlight, then dress themselves, he girds on his armor, he mounts his mighty steed (shot composed so that we see only his torso, the steed being out of shot at the bottom), she mounts side-saddle on the pillion...

And BARRROOOOMMMM!!!! that huge bike roars into life and the camera pulls back as we see them ride away...

It's almost as much of a jolt as the narrow-to-wide cut at the beginning of "Road Warrior"... and just as important to see (if possible) on a big screen the first time.

Kings and queens, knights and heroes; a wizard... even a faithful Indian companion; it's all here.

Action, adventure, humor, treachery and heroism -- all here.

Love and hate, jealousy and heart break? Present and accounted for.

Bad guys get theirs, hero vindicated in the end? What do you think?

And incredible, incredible action work. This film equals or even surpasses "The Road Warrior" in its motorcycle work. I'm still not sure if the final stunt is faked or whether they actually did it -- either way, my hat's off to the people who put it on the screen.

Ed Harris, as King Billy, whose vision forms the kingdom, whose unhealing wound signifies danger ahead, and whose malaise may well doom the kingdom, is brilliant.

Brother Blue as Merlin is indescribable -- but in a good context.

Patricia Tallman, who has gone on to a dual career as actress and stuntwoman (recurring on "Babylon 5" as telepath "Lita" and doing stunts in the film "Long Kiss Goodnight") has what i believe is her first screen appearance, playing a townie girl who is temporarily admitted into the kingdom's magic, but must eventually go home if only to tell the world what she's seen, is good...

Tom Savini as Morgan, the villain (hiss, boo) is Jes' Fine...

I have always described this film as the one film i know of that gets the closest to the truths that underlie the King Arthur legends...

This movie surprised me

[brewwench · 7/10 · 7 September 2007]

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.

A Different Film From the Romero Family

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 20 January 2014]

A medieval reenactment troupe find it increasingly difficult to keep their family-like group together, with pressure from local law enforcement, interest from entertainment agents and a growing sense of delusional from their leader.

We have many Romero regulars here in a type of film not generally associated with Romero: Christine Forrest, John Amplas, Tom Savini, Ken Foree, Michael Gornick, Scott Reiniger, Patricia Tallman. Although Ed Harris was not a regular, even he might be counted considering his appearance in the next picture ("Creepshow").

Generally, I prefer Romero when he wanders from the living dead. His first two attempts are amazing and will remain legendary forever, but then it all went sharply downhill (and he seems unable to stop). But his other ventures -- "Creepshow", "Monkeyshines" and "Martin", for example -- are just as good or better but largely overlooked.

This one is even farther from his pattern, not really horror in any respect (a genre he has rarely strayed from). Although a bit long, and at times a bit confused (some plot elements seem thrown in for no real reason), it is a fun idea that has surprisingly not been turned into real life. Who would not want to see motorcycles with riders jousting?

Trying to find a "hero" in this film is hard to do. Obviously our protagonist is Billy (Harris), who has a strong belief system and leads his knights. Injury and risk of death is accepted by him, and each morning begins with a flogging (for reasons I must have missed). And yet, he may not be a hero because he follows his ideals too far. When the attorney / agent tells him that he must fund his ideals rather than let them die with him, that is sound advice. But Billy cannot see it.

Some credit should be given for addressing the issue of homosexuality. Through the lens of 2014, it might seem a bit silly the way the characters approach the issue. But in 1981, I imagine this was a bold move for a film that wanted a wide audience. What it had to do with the main plot is unclear (apparently nothing), but I am impressed that a romance was shown positively without being the butt of jokes.

"She's got plenty to hang on your lance."

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 27 April 2014]

A unique and interesting movie from George Romero about a traveling renaissance fair troupe that struggles with pressures from outside and within their own group. The troupe's "king" (Ed Harris) takes the knight thing very seriously and tries to lead by Arthurian ideals. But others don't share his passion and are tempted by outside offers of fame. Nice change of pace non-horror film from Romero features many familiar faces from his other films. Stephen King also has an annoying cameo. Maybe a little longer than necessary but well worth checking out. It's one of those films you revisit every few years and generally come away liking it more each time.

I just wanted it to end.

[Specters · 3/10 · 12 February 2004]

Not to say that I don't appreciate what Romero has done here; the themes of honor and chivalry definitely come through strong, but seriously, it all amounts to very little at the cost of a huge two and half hour price! Romero has always had a great talent for taking obscure situations and turning them deadly serious. I was waiting for Knightrider's to kick it into high gear, but it never happened. No shocks, little emotion and dull humor. Knightriders is not just Romero "light", it's calorie-free diet film making.

Quite an extraordinary film from George A. Romero....

[GrigoryGirl · 10/10 · 24 January 2008]

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....

A lovable, traveling identity crisis.

[ChrisInMiami · 7/10 · 14 April 2021]

It's an earnestly sincere ensemble story about a traveling group of Renaissance festival/motorcycle enthusiasts that have a hard time finding the line between the fantasy world they have created for themselves and the real world problems they have to contend with. They try to live life by the same medieval social structure they perform daily for the various towns they pass through. They may even be the first LARPers in cinema. The King is played perfectly by Ed Harris in his first leading role and you get to see first signs of the blue, steely eyed intensity that would propel him to a wonderful career, most recently as the man-in-black in the HBO Westworld series. The king calls the shots before and after the show but he may be going mad so Morgan Le Fey (a surprisingly nuanced performance by horror makeup god Tom Savini) is ready to challenge for the crown. They each have their supporting cast of servant knights for motorcycle jousting shows and moral support behind the scenes. There can only be one king but there also can be no true enemies because they are all bound by the same fantasy.

Written and directed by Horror Icon George Romero, and released the same year as the more serious Arthurian movie, Excalibur, this story is a total anomaly in his body of work. A complete departure from his horror films, the medieval code becomes an excellent allegory for the futility of refusing to grow up. When I was a kid, I would see it on the shelf at the video store, with the epic art of the knight riding a motorcycle, and the juxtaposition made me think it was some type of slapstick comedy and now that I've finally seen it 40 years later, thanks to Amazon Prime, nothing could be further from the truth. It's a drama through and through with a bit of humor here and there. The production value is a bit dated but it holds up because the actors knew exactly who their characters were and the theme is so timeless.

7/10. Still worth watching in 2021.

Yikes! What a Mess

[BrandtSponseller · 2/10 · 18 July 2007]

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.

Arthurian legend comes to life.

[trevorhart · 10/10 · 14 January 2002]

The Arthurian legend comes to life. What we all hoped for in a utopian society devoid of comericialisation is here, shining through the darkest horizon of today's popular youth culture. The sheer romance and spirit of this film is remarkable, much like Romero's other works but in other ways completely different, the film brings hope to the disenchanted rather than adopting the usual cynical "we can't change anything so lets conform" attitude of today's society. King William (Ed Harris) is the founder and leader of a group of travelling knights, swapping the horses for motorcycles and allowing the public to get a glimpse on their way of life through jousting tournaments. Marred by the public's dependence on sex and violence the group find themselves crushed by commercial pressure. The audiences want to see blood, and the tragedy of it all lies in their ignorance to Billy's intense dream. it all starts to fall apart when they receive interest from big promoters and their potential as a sellable source of entertainment is recognised.

Romero truly shines through here and the only criticism I can possibly think of this near perfect film lies in the era it was filmed and set it. Had this film been made in the 70's it would have looked a lot better, or even in the 90's, however the 80's was awful for films in general and it comes as no surprise that this film was practically shelved. On the plus side it also proves that the 80's didn't just produce Friday the 13th movies, and that someone had an idea good enough to really make a film like this work.

Tom Savini, Gary Lahti, Amy Ingersoll, Chris Romero and in particular Brother Blue all give startling performances. The love and care that went into this film is outstanding.

However, I must stress ten-fold that if you want to see blood and guts, and don't really care for the dozens of underlying plot lines that revolve in this film to just watch something else. You have to be prepared to try to understand what Romero is trying to show us, and what the film meant in the relevant decade (and still mean today).

This is a truly amazing film that will make you laugh, cry and cheer. Its not only worth watching but is a keeper for sure.

A long but mostly satisfying watch.

[pmtelefon · 7/10 · 18 September 2019]

"Knightriders" is almost a really good movie. It is too long by about a half an hour or so. This might sound strange but there's a little bit too much of the motorcycles in this movie. The last showdown of the movie goes on way too long. Even though there are quite a few "Wow, I hope nobody got hurt" stunts, there's also too much of motorcycles going around in circles. That said, there is a lot to like in this movie. There is a great performance by Tom Savini and a good one by Ed Harris. The rest of the cast ranges from good to not so hot (or in Stephen King's case, pretty bad). The music is terrific. As are the Pennsylvania locations. I like to watch "Knightriders" every year or so. Honorable mention: a dreamy Patricia Tallman.

Interesting idea completely wasted

[Enchorde · 2/10 · 29 May 2006]

Recap: It is a beautiful morning in the forest. The sun shines through the canopy. A naked couple wakes up. He prays by his sword and then slowly dons his armor while his lady dresses. Then both of them get on his motorcycle and rides to town. They're the king and queen of a travelling fair that recreates medieval joust using bikes instead of horses. Life at court might be less luxurious than it was in Camelot though.

Comments: The first scene is spectacular. Unfortunately it is the only good part of the movie. What seems like a very good and interesting idea, knights in modern world, is completely wasted. I expected action, chivalry, love and a few laughs as cultures collide. I saw none of this. The movie is full of jousting, true, but shown in such a way that it becomes dull and repetitive. After 15 minutes I actually felt that the movie had started to repeat itself and should consider moving towards an end. But no, by then it was over two hours(!) left, consisting of mostly pointless and dull scenes. There really are no real story, no progression in characters or plot, it is a extremely long portrait. So, don't be fooled by the cover, it is no action or adventure here.

2/10

Highly recommended independent film.

[uncapie · 16 February 2000]

I saw this film when it first came out as a kid and just recently found an out-of-print video on it. The movie still holds up. The acting is quite good, especially Ed Harris, who stands out as the "King Arthur" leader, Billy. Tom Savinni did a good job during the scenes where he "sold out" his image. You could see the transition in his face, sans dialogue. Yes, it does need to be shortened by about twenty minutes, but overall its an enjoyable film with many underlying lessons to learn from. Two outstanding, bittersweet scenes are the "Lancelot" character having to return the woman that loves him back to her home and the transition at the end where Ed Harris gives a young boy, who hero worships him, his sword. The stunts are fantastic as well. Sit back with some popcorn and enjoy! Look for the cameo by Stephen King as the "Loudmouth Spectator."

Camelot's knights on motorcycles living in a parallel world!!

[elo-equipamentos · 6/10 · 2 January 2019]

Even having an art's concept by Romero it's hard to watch picture, a mortorcycles troupe try to lives in modern days under Camelot's law and their old rules, living in a parallel world traveling around countryside on small cities featuring a sort of contest usually made in the past by horse instead motorcycles, the results is quite boring and severly overlong, a kind of the circus performance and safeguard their values without using a modern publicity to reach to the public, the actions in the contests are awful and aimlessly, arid and dull picture that scratched in some way Romero's legacy!!

Resume:

First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6

Good Movie, but lacks information...

[emperor_bender · 7/10 · 26 February 2008]

I liked this movie a lot, I really did. George Romero is one of my favorite directors and always manages to make a great movie in my opinion. His "Dead" series are my favorite zombie movies. "Martin" was a great vampire movie, and "Creepshow" was a unique movie. This movie was also very good, its only problem was that there were a lot of things that weren't properly explained or introduced. A lot of characters were left unnamed and weren't given a proper introduction. Also, a lot of actions were never properly explained, and many scenes seemed to pop out of nowhere and vanish without a trace (as many characters did). However, the story was excellent. And a lot of the great actors I had seen in other Romero movies were here: Billy Harris (Creepshow), my man Tom Savini (Dawn of the Dead, Martin, Creepshow 2, Land of the Dead), Patricia Tallman (Night of the Living Dead(1990)), John Amplas (Martin, Day of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Creepshow), Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead), Scott H. Reiniger (Dawn of the Dead), David Early (Dawn of the Dead, Creepshow), Taso N. Stavrakis (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead), James Baffico (Dawn of the Dead), Joseph Pilato (Day of the Dead), Anthony Dileo Jr. (Day of the Dead), and even Stephen King (Creepshow). The cast was great, the equipment they used was great and realistic looking. I give this hit or miss movie a 7/10.

Only for Romero fans,and maybe not even then.

[nakedmanwithgun · 5/10 · 19 February 2010]

I'm going to give this a 5 because it's so freakin' twisted.(spoiler alerts ahead....)

I'm also going to be honest and admit that I've always thought Romero was incredibly overrated. His early zombie flicks are interesting to a point, but that's it. His later films,especially that godawful last one about the video cameras, are flat out terrible.

But this movie is just a big laughathon. I found this videotape in a $3 bin in some hole in the wall video store in Sacramento about 12 years ago.I still have it, and have even won a couple bets with it because no one can believe George made it. The acting is terrible, the subject matter is hilarious, and it looks like it was shot by my little brother.

If you like to watch incredibly ill advised movies, I say seek it out. It's a rockin good time. But in all sincerity, if you take it at face value, you need to to be evaluated. Put it this way: it's like "Fame," but with bikers with Camelot fixations. Too funny.(spoiler alert) It totally made sense to me when Billy committed suicide at the end.

I fully realize I sound like a snob, but frankly I could care less. This is the kind of crap that self important and delusional filmmakers like Romero make after taking their own press too seriously.

What a great movie!

[hank65 · 10/10 · 17 June 1999]

Popular artists tend to be snidely dismissed from serious consideration, particularly if they consider serious issues within what is meant to be popular work. George Romero does this routinely. So, yes, the Living Dead films are popular horror movies, just out for a scare---but they also are an interesting portrait of the cracks in our social life. In "Knightriders," underneath the trappings of an adventure movie with lots of action (I'm still wondering how some of their stunt-riders survived) is a serious film about people trying to find an alternative to modern life. It is his finest film, I think, and sticks with you. I didn't always think so highly of the film--I liked it, but didn't consider it anything special, when I first saw it. Over the years since it's release, I've found it remains in my thoughts, and, having seen it several times since, I've noticed more in it every time. Beyond that, it is exciting, well-made, and Ed Harris is superb, though everyone has come to expect that of him.

Mildly interesting at best.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 17 November 2023]

The reason I saw "Knightriders" is that it stars Ed Harris...and I'd watch nearly anything with him in it. However, if it weren't for that, I never would have watched this type of film. You might want to keep this in mind when you read my review.

The film looks rough and you can tell by some of the acting. While Harris is good, several folks are simply caricatures (the father and the guy played by Stephen King) and show poor writing and direction. A few other became good actors, such as Patricia Tallman, but don't look especially good here.

As for the story, it's about a group of oddballs who travel the country putting on jousting matches on motorcycles. My problem with all this is that I simply didn't care about what I was seeing. Overall, a rough but only mildly interesting independent film. Some apparently love it...I'm one who didn't.

Natural feeling movie about traveling show

[dkbuckley · 8/10 · 7 August 2004]

Start with the idea of jousting like the knights did, but atop motorcycles instead. Turn that into a traveling show complete with rubber hammers and a Ren-Faire flair. Make this all the brainchild of a lunatic in love with making his fantasies reality, to the point of a hierarchy with him placed atop as king and a full code of conduct he demands his legion follow. The film starts with these pieces in place and proceeds to display them in turn. Of course, the drama is the day that everyone decides this is not such a cool thing anymore (note: not the same day for everyone!). And all directed by Mr. Dead himself George Romero. It is called KNIGHTRIDERS and there are no talking cars or Hasselhoffs within light years of this film. There is a natural feel to this movie, despite the qualms you might have with the premises. To me, this all seemed rather plausible and they chronicle people falling through the cracks of society and into this odd traveling counterculture. There is a great deal of moto-action, maybe too much. But even though you know these are stuntmen, they eat dirt hard, and you still think people got hurt knowing full well these are coordinated stunts. The jousts are meant to be realistic and they really go after one another and take real injuries in the world of the movie, unlike the traditional Ren-Faire show. Another realistic touch is that in order to drum up more attention, the show opens up to local bikers to try themselves hitting melons with jousts and axes. This of course is heaping bad idea upon bad idea – in terms of managing the show, adding more moto-action. I'm not sure if Romero has actors repeat scenes numerous times together or just has an eye for talent, but despite the cheesy lines and plots involved in this movie, the delivery presents itself as if the people truly believed. Not over the top drama, just natural delivery of the dialogue. There is very funny business in the movie, like the gay love plot, but there is definite good stuff too. I actually liked the depiction of the naïve girl who runs away from home to join the troup and her uncanny 'follow the leader' mentality I found again realistic. Ed Harris stars as the King and he has some really cool explosive scenes where he yells at everyone. One was totally awesome in particular and had me believe Harris was into the role more than anything at that moment in time and he really helped sell this movie to me. Toss in the best Stephen King cameo you will ever see and the package is a good one. The flaws are: 1) a little heavy on the motorcycles over and over 2) very long movie 3) very corny. The upsides are: 1) solid performances 2) natural feeling 3) chivalry & the knight theme 4) pretty good stunts That was my review to try and sell this film. I hope you check it out or have already. I liked it a whole ton, it captured my attention very well. It was in the cult section of my local movie store, not sure why. For the record, dudes do not ride around town pretending to be knights as I feared it might be, there's no monsters, it is a movie about bikers putting on shows and their sick circle of friends falling apart.

BEAUTIFULLY RENDERED EDITION OF STAR WARS!!

[LinaInverse23 · 1/10 · 25 December 2002]

When you think of star wars, you think of lightsabers, flashing lights, lasers blasters, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Deathstars, battleships and more! When you think of Knightriders, you think of motorcycles, jousting, knights, Ed Harris, King Arthur and more! People, the excitement is all here and it manages to capture the essence that Star Wars intended more than Star Wars actually does! First think of the rebellion. The idea that a bunch of people are struggling to survive on what little resources they have and the different battle techniques they use which may be primitive compared to the great Empire. Now think of Knightriders and how these motorcycle knights had to gang up together and use what little resources they had to manage to survive in a world larger than them. This reflects the empire and its many henchmen struggling to capture and destroy them. The deathstar represents the hard work the empire put together just to destroy the rebellion. Now think of Knightriders and the hard work the world put together just to put down these motorcycle knights who just wanted to joust for a living. What ended up happening was their group split up and the characters had to re-group towards the end. This is what happened in Star Wars when Han Solo left the rebellion in the first movie in pursuit of money to pay off Jabba the Hutt. The comparisons between the two movies is astonishing! Am I saying that Knightriders is a rip-off of Star Wars? Definitely no, because saying so would be completely absurd. Knightriders is just a beautifully rendered edition of it and Romero does what Lucas could not. He has created a world in which people can joust freely on motorcycles with the same feeling of the Force from Star Wars. Lucas, eat your heart out! Romero, here we come!

Really surprised

[MTree · 15 April 2002]

The same person who turned me on to "Black Christmas" loaned me this little gem of a movie. It's highly original, well acted and written, and has some surprisingly good stuntwork. The story is great and there are some poignant scenes toward the end that just make you cheer. The ending is downbeat and uplifting at the same time. If you're looking for something enjoyably different in a movie, check this out.

Expecting Camp I Find Art

[TimmyChurch · 10/10 · 7 June 2005]

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.