gavin6942 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.

Livewire242 I had no idea what I was getting when I first watched this movie. It was on "The Late Late Show", the nightly b-movie screening on a local cable station.The production values were low, which was not surprising given that this time slot was usually dedicated to Samuel Z. Arkoff or Roger Corman films. Given that I could ignore that failing, I was treated to an excellent interpretation of the legend of King Arthur.What struck me about this film is the sincerity and heart with which all of the actors delivered their roles. It's the kind of effort that makes shows like Babylon 5 successful. No one-dimensional acting here (aside from a remarkable appearance by Stephen King). You really grow to like and understand each of the characters. Even the "villain", played by Tom Savini, has perfectly understandable reasons for everything he does.The low budget actually helps the overall atmosphere, since a travelling Renaissance Faire-on-motorbikes is bound to have virtually nothing to their name, and need to improvise everything.I've watched it probably once every couple of years since I first saw it. I never get tired of it.

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.

Lambertart Why such a high score for an old low budget film? The best movies are the ones that actually have a story to tell. This one has several interwoven and all work on different levels. There is action for pure visceral entertainment. A morality tale for introspective reflection. Interesting vignettes to keep the viewer on their toes & a few fun surprises thrown in for good measure. Did I mention that there is a good story here also? This is the film in which I first discovered Ed Harris. His powerhouse performance alone is worth the price of popcorn. Then there is Brother Blue. When was the last time a movie made you FEEL something? Put this movie on your must watch list. Better yet on you must OWN list. I did. I do.