Guinevere (TV Movie 1994) Poster

(1994 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Rather bad mess. Not as bad as Sean Connery's version as that was all $$ and no story.
PatrynXX7 June 2020
This was a cheap movie. Thus treat it as such. Sheryl Lee seems to be the only one with any real acting ability. Everyone else including Noah. yikes. What they got very wrong was that editing. Wow. Okay here's the music mid stride. Cut. Next scene wait what? At least 3 glaring cuts that were that bad..

What they got right. Other than cutting the music mid stride. Is well the music. The music is about the only reason to Listen <---- to this movie. Otherwise it makes no sense. Plot holes throughout the movie. This makes Merlin's Apprentice look way better.

Quality: 2/10 Entertainment: 6/10 Re-Playable: maybe in another lifetime. With the exception of the music. 0/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not like Excalibur ( 1981 ) but something unique.
Hanngall6 January 2013
Warning: 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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
How it compares to other Arthurian movies?
Pellam17 March 2020
A low budget spiritual predecessor to the Mists of Avalon. Based on Woolley's novels, it gets quite talky at times
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not all that bad for an Arthurian TV movie
Katatonia12 January 2003
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.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
not good at all
guinevere393931 December 2004
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Camelot in danger!
gazineo-19 October 2001
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 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dude, did I hate this movie.
Crowbot-24 March 2000
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.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Feminist, Revisionist Camelot Fantasy...
Havan_IronOak25 December 2001
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.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Guin Gets Gritty!
LongMovieLover26 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This was the first time I've seen Guinevere portrayed as a woman with thoughts, convictions and prowess rather than just King Arthur's adulterous wife. I am a fan of King Arthur and have seen many versions of the legend but this one truly stands out in every good way. The story, which I will shortly detail, is rich and original. History buffs and folk-tale lovers will appreciate the tension between pagan religious authorities and Christian clery. Magic and mystery become entwined with duty and destiny. The 1990s cinematography looks grainy but lends itself to the ancient time just before knights and Crusades and incredible wealth, appropriated from foreign lands, transformed England into the bastion of landed aristocrats.

Arthur is portrayed more as a man than a magician. He is young, green, and makes many mistakes which he is grateful to his wife, Guineviere for helping him through without judging him but without slavishly bowing to his charms and every whim. Guin is proud of her heritage and devoted to her people. She conducts herself as a wise queen, delivering a very passionate speech comparing herself to the other warrior-queens of Britain. Despite Morgan Le Fay's mystical powers and anger towards her, Guin carries herself gracefully against her enemy, using cunning rather than fighting to achieve her aims.

The story begins with the death of Guin's mother while her father, the Christian king of Camelot is fighting off multiple local warlords. He sends young Guin off to a "sanctuary" run by high priestess Morgan Le Fey, a faithful devotee of the moon goddess, who is also the revered leader of multiple powerful pagan tribes.

Guin grows up alongside Lancelot and eventually they fall in love. One day Merlin arrives with news that Arthur is going to unite all of Britain causing a stir and setting off the conflict that will govern the rest of the movie. Morgan despises Arthur and wants Guin and Lancelot to oppose him. Guin, now a young woman, is torn between returning to her father to assist in the peace process of staying with Lancelot and his adoptive mother, Morgan. Now Morgan shows her true colors. She forces the young couple to take a blood oath to marry according to the pagan way. However Guin runs off pursued by Lancelot and Morgan. She abandons them and returns to her kingdom of Camelot believing strongly that peace and a unified Britain are what is right.

Behind the scenes, Morgan manipulates the pagan kings against Arthur and Guin, even seducing Arthur through black magic, to further weaken him. Merlin, portrayed as an old but wise man, acts as a mentor guiding the young couple back to their true ideals rather than just telling them what to do or by casting spells.

Although there are some very fanciful scenes, they serve to enhance Guin's strength, wisdom and perseverance. She sets a very good example for young women who want to strike a balance between independence and loyalty to others including husbands, families, or others.

No, this is not a sexy Hollywood version of Guin, with long flowing blonde hair, sonnets, and an amazing period-drama wardrobe. This is a gritty young woman with choppy hair, outstanding swordsmanship and unbreakable virtue. I thought the story was exciting and developed the characters motives and fears extremely well while arcing them toward authentic satisfying conclusions.

Recommended audiences are for high school History teachers to view with their students as it will elicit a lot of discussion and questions about this interesting period in British history. Also viewers who like epics with a fresh story.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed