In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

it is only a word. defining a state more than the film itself. because the film is more than seductive. not only for the science to propose another side of a well known story. but for the impeccable cast, costumes, atmosphere, for the art to change the perspective about myth and suggest the frame and the traits of a religious conflict. a film about women and hers universe, power and decisions. not only admirable job but great example of inspired way to use a beautiful book for recreate a world of desires, fights and values. a film who change many old pictures about King Arthur legend. in convincing and subtle and admirable manner. like the novel.

It takes a bit over an hour to really start getting in this two part TV movie that attempts to take all of the characters of the Arthurian legend and turn it into something truly epic. Take everything you remember of the Lerner and Lowe musical, Disney's "The Sword and the Stone", the magical " Excalibur" and both the movie and stage versions of "The Holy Grail", aka "Spamalot". Sex it up a bit, tossing in some brother and sisterly love, a vindictive aunt, and you've got the makings of an intriguing variation of a most familiar tale, told from the point of view of the often villainized Morgan Le Fey.Other updates of classic fairy tales and legends often become misandrist in their themes, but fortunately this avoids that, giving women equal intelligence, if not equal power. While the men are evil as in brutal in battle, the evil women are calculating, turning deep into the dark arts to achieve their ends, which ends up with Arthur and sister Morgan an unknown night together and information that could lead to the destruction of Arthur's "perfect" kingdom. It also makes insinuations of Arthur allowing wife Guenevere allowance to be with Lancelot, an odd menage a tois that happens over the montage of dark arts occurring at the very same time. Of the cast, Angelica Huston adds another unique characterization to her portfolio as the aging "Lady of the Lake" who isn't evil by nature but puts some shocking plots in motion. Joan Allen is the wicked aunt who uses the information of what she knows to her advantage, the perfect villainess to move the plot forward to her benefit for a while and ultimately a fantastic destruction. This feels perfectly set in the dark ages as the civilized post Roman world tried to expand outward. It's quite a show piece, and if not satisfying consistently with other Arthur Pendragon legends (only moderately acted by the leads), it certainly knows a way of gaining and keeping the viewer's attention.

This is an intriguing look at the King Arthur legend and all its spin-offs. I believe the movie was based on a book of the same name, which purported to tell the story from the women's point of view. This view appears to include more magic and goddess culture than the standard version, and is quite an interesting interpretation, lending a "behind the scenes" feeling to the various plot twists. Angelica Huston is marvelous as the powerful Lady of the Lake, supported by an excellent cast (although I confess at times I found it a bit difficult to recall the players without a program). Lovely sets, costumes, hairstyles are icing on the cake.

In reply to David Lee's review I would like to add that, 1, The Arthurian period is generally taken to be the 5th to 6th century (not 4th as stated).2. The majority of people in Britain at this time would have been Christian, not pagan. It may upset him slightly that the period was quite "masculine" and, as most interaction between cultures involved war, or threats of war, it was very male dominated. I can recommend a reading list if he needs it.I have seen small parts of this "show" as a divx file and think it is VERY suspect as a historical view. I read the book when I was younger but can't remember a lot about it (that may tell you something too!)