"It definatly isn't the traditional tale. It takes quite a few little liberties some of the characters and their relations (nothing a non-obssesed Arthur fan would notice). It's a beginning story (tells about the establishment of his kingdom, not his reign and end). Unfortunatly Arthur's wonderfuly simple wisdom, royal knowledge and extreme goodness of character are sacraficed to give Guinevere more of the spotlight (and the credit for the kingdom). Another thing that was lost was the beautiful chemistry, tension and thrill of the incredible Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur love triangle. That would probalbly be my greatest chritism. But it is Arthur story (and therefore practically impossible to ruin). And it's also nice to get a good look at Guinevere. I always enjoy hearing the story from her persepective. Lee's acting was rather weak, but Flannery and Whyle were superb. Take a look."
EXCEPT FOR THE STORYLINE, IT'S SO ENCHANTING, SPELLBOUND
CHLOE HUANG | TAIPEI Taiwan | 01/03/2000
(5 out of 5 stars)
"As an Asian, I have to admit that I knew barely nothing about Arthurian legend. And this " Guinevere " story could be way off traditional. The whole story puzzles me. It's the major flaw. How come Morgan LeFay adopted Lancelot and be the mentor of Guin? Later she commit incest with her half brother, Arthur. In great torment Guin gave birth to a baby, then send her away, to keep her from Morgan's witch power. ( And revenge Arthur, maybe? ). Where's the baby girl? Certainly Merlin has mention of her, once. And all the people seems to forget such a tragedy had ever happened? Arthur is a coward, even not qualify to be a man. Morgan can never dominate Lancelot's will, he's a freeman of his own. Guin was never a feminist as she claimed herself to be. She should follow her heart, never ranaway from Lancelot at first place. ( She's pretty young, not ready for accept a man, yet? ). Nobility heart is more important than nobility birth. Lancelot watch over her through an unhappily marriage. Neglect the fact that she has gave birth of another man's child. Always waiting for her to turn back. Arthur sent Lancelot to fight a unwinning battle, wish him never return, so menacing evil. When two lovers finally meet again, Guin ask Lancelot to rescue Arthur from tyrant. Gave up the great opportunity to runaway with him. Always give, ask for no reward. What a Valentine! He answers her plea, to save Arthur and disappear from her life, forever. A sentimental lament. She never deserves a noble-minded man like Lancelot. Somehow Sheryl Lee wasn't quite right as the heroine. ( I can't tell where went wrong? ). At least she's not a good match for Noah Wyle. That's how I felt. I rate it 5 stars though actually it's not perfect, compare with those thought-provoking, life-inspiring films. Quite magnificent as a TV-Movie. A beautiful castle above in the middle of a lake. Morning fog in the woods. The grand scenery of Lithuania. Make you really crave for go back to medieval age, to live through that time. And the romantic ancient Celtic music, so breathtaking, enthralling chanting. How come Johnny Harris never release a soundtrack? You can also see cute Noah Wyle, while he was a newcomer, in his early twenties. Though he's only a supporting role, shining gem of the whole film. ( I wasn't his fan, till I watch this). All in all, It's charming and irresistible, a dream worth to buy."
Awful Made For TV Garbage
Dr. Christopher Coleman | HONG KONG | 09/04/2004
(1 out of 5 stars)
"I'm a sucker for retellings of the King Arthur legend; I've read or watched as many of them as I could, from The Mists of Avalon (great book, lousy movie) to the film Excalibur to the musical Camelot to real oddities like John Steinbeck's abortive attempt to modernize the tale and Monty Python's zany parody of it. Guinevere is thus far the most horrible, uninteresting, slow-paced, poorly acted, poorly scripted, ill-conceived and pointless version I've come across. I liked Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks and Noah Wylie in ER, but here they are as wooden as Merlin's staff. In their defense the writing is appalling and plotting inane, but they and the entire supporting cast take this gorgeous, emotionally complex myth and turn it to frozen muck. It's hard to have a romantic triangle when one of the characters hardly appears--Arthur is little more than a bit part in this film. Almost nothing of the original is retained--none of Arthur's knights appear as characters and the quest for the Holy Grail is completely omitted. The climax of the film is not the ferocious battle in which Arthur is killed by his illegitimate son; that never occurs in this travesty--Guinevere and Arthur live happily ever after and Lancelot simply goes away. No, the climax occurs when Guinevere tells the 5 rebel kings that they ought to give up Arthur and be part of Britian because it's the way to insure the future of the country, and shucks, they all agree and drop their weapons--I'm not kidding. I'd like to say SOMETHING good about this movie, but I can't even complement the hair-styles! Avoid this at all costs, no matter how devout an Arthurian you may be."
Should've Been Better
Iris | 08/24/2005
(1 out of 5 stars)
"I watched this movie having read that it was based on Persia Woolley's Guinevere trilogy. The books were entertaining--not my favorite Arthurian story, but decent. I have no idea what happened between the writing of the screen adaptation and actual filming, but the book is unrecognizable except for the basic facts: Guinevere marries Arthur, loves Lancelot, etc. I've seen all of the main actors in other things so I know they can act, but this movie gave them so little to work with I'm not surprised by the wooden faces they have in most scenes. The costumes were terrible--a previous reviewer was right, I've seen better at a RenFaire. Cheryl Lee's short hair WAS distracting.
It's a shame that one of the few (maybe only) movies centered around Guinevere had to be so bad. Watch it if you're curious to see how bad for yourself, but remember you'll be giving up ninety-three minutes of your life to do it."
Take it or leave it
Sharon | 03/02/2005
(3 out of 5 stars)
"Noah Wyle is about the only one in this movie that can act. The movie itself is so-so as the story plods along on the predictable trail of the constantly retold. Watch it for Wyle's acting - his great sense of facial drama. The guy knows how to act for the camera. Then donate the DVD to the library. Once is enough."