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.

4 out of 5 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).

5 out of 9 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.

Not like Excalibur ( 1981 ) but something unique., 6 January 2013

Author: Hanngall from Sweden

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, I was hoping for a Joan of Arc ( Saving Britian, as a girl in armour, instead of France ) version of Boorman's Excalibur from 1981 but this is something different. It is still magical, in a make "make love, not war" way. Especielly during one of the last scenes, when she comes down the hill in the white dress. I was awaiting for something more like Rohirrims charge in The Two Towers,

Otherwise, the scenery was very beautiful and the music worked well with the movie. The castle looks like a very small version of the worlds biggest castle Malbork, in Poland which is one thing I love about this movie.

The battle music was kind of dull ( lack of power, no charisma ) but good in a odd way. The scene when Arthur is charging into the fray reminds me of the opening scene of Excalibur 1981. So I watch that scene before i watch the opening in Excalibur, it becomes way more epic, I mean like listening to weak song cover than hearing the glorious cover.

I watched it mostly because I love the Medieval times and because I like Sean Patrick Flanery as an actor. He was quite good and youthful in this, with quotes like "We got these new things called crossbows". But he has no king-like charisma, just the "polite and good looking frat boy who likes to fight". One thing I didn't like was how he removed his gloves in two scenes, since he was talking, it made his line delivery odd and rushed.

I will give this 6/10 A good movie if you like make love not war but it is nothing compared to Braveheart or Excalibur, it is something unique,thus I am remembering it due to it's uniqueness.

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