Reviews & Ratings for
Guinevere (TV) More at IMDbPro »

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Not all that bad for an Arthurian TV movie, 12 January 2003
Author: Katatonia from Missouri

I am one who doesn't think any Arthurian movie can top Boorman's 'Excalibur'. With that said, this movie is not all that bad. The story has most of the core elements of the Arthurian legends. It has a few interesting plot twists which are worth viewing if you are a die-hard fan of the legends. It's no masterpiece, but it's a low-budget TV movie and not a high-budget motion picture. Most of the dialogue and acting is purely professional and Shakespearean in it's approach. I think it could have been cast somewhat better however, the characters of Noah Wyle (Lancelot) and Sean Patrick Flanery (King Arthur) should have been switched. I can clearly see why this alone receives mixed reviews.

Guinevere surely won't win any awards, but for a single viewing it is entertaining to the right audience.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
not good at all, 31 December 2004

Author: guinevere3939

I was excited when looking on this site I saw that there was a movie made based on the books by Persia Woolley, I have been a fan for a long time. However, this movie in no way reflects Persia's wonderful books, not even close. Guinevere is some tomboy out fighting, Arthur is some frat boy idiot and Lancelot is some angry boy. They leave out almost all of the story and barely have the other characters. The acting is boring and not that great. The only thing I can say that was good was the scenery was nice and the overall feel of the time. There is nothing that fits the books or even a decent view of the Arthurian legend. The story doesn't showcase the wonderful character Persia wrote and that is a shame, they had great source material. The movie is boring and forgettable. My advise is to read the three books Persia Woolley wrote, they are great and much more entertaining.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Camelot in danger!, 9 October 2001

Author: gazineo-1 from Brasilia, Brazil

This one is maybe the worst movie ever made about the eternal legend of Camelot and the King Arthur. Bad direction, a cast who seems lost and trying to live a distant experience. The main lines of the legend are equally mistreat here and the relationship between Queen Guinevere and Lancelot goes against the common version. A great waste of time. Anyway, Donald Pleasance is always a delight to see. I give this a 3(three).

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Feminist, Revisionist Camelot Fantasy..., 25 December 2001

Author: Havan_IronOak from NYC/FL

The story of Camelot as told through a haze of Eostrogen. It seems that Guinevere was the real hero of Camelot. She was a self sacrificing leader driven by her desire to unite Britain in an era of prosperity and peace. All that stands in the way are these nasty men....

Even Morgan LaFey has been given an update and is not as evil as she is usually portrayed.

Overall I enjoyed this version, and who's to say it's not a truer version of the real events. At least in this version Arthur's and Lancelot's love of Guinevere is motivated and explained and they are both easy on the eyes.

3 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Dude, did I hate this movie., 4 March 2000

Author: Bigmoose from Using an airplane restroom

I was coming down from a hangover state when I saw this movie ... and it still couldn't satisfy me. I thought it would be good. The cast looks fine, and the story was one that I could of gotten very interested in. Instead I get a piece of low budget junk used to fill in a rained out game slot. Bad acting, an even worse script, and enough British ethnical slurs to start a war. Though I gave it a 2/10, because this is probably the most accurate movie ever made that was based on the story.

Add another review

Related Links