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.
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.