User Reviews

One of the great love stories from the medieval courtly romances, "Tristan and Isolde" has received many different treatments from medieval poets such as Gottfried of Strasbourg to the haunting opera by the nineteenth-century German composer Ricard Wagner. In each of the versions of the story, there are new and different plot details in this tragic love story.

In Kevin Reynolds' film adaptation, the most intriguing new twist from the traditional story is the way in which Tristan and Isolde meet. In this version, Tristan is given up for dead following a battle in Cornwall and washes ashore in Ireland in a boat only to be discovered by Isolde. She then uses her magical herbs to cure him. In Gottfried's medieval tale, the two young people drink a love potion from a goblet of wine. In this film, the young people fall instantly in love without any need of an elixir.

In two touching performances, the young lovers are played by James Franco and Sophia Myles. Their on-screen chemistry is electric, and their scenes together are filmed effectively by Reynolds in beautiful location settings. The film also explores themes of medieval chivalry and honor. Rufus Sewell delivers an excellent performance as King Mark caught in the love triangle that recalls the famous story of King Arthur, Lancelot, and Guineviere.

There are also great action sequences in "Tristan and Isolde," including battles, tournaments, and medieval siege warfare. But the most memorable scenes are the intimate moments with Tristan and Isolde. Their fateful meeting and the unfolding of their relationship make this film worthwhile for audiences both familiar with the legend and for those being introduced to this timeless love story for the first time.

I have to admit that I do not remember much about this story from my college Western Civ class, but I enjoyed this director's work in other films, so I took a chance. What a lovely film! The story is well told, paced well, and full of thought provoking moments. I found the leads, particularly Sophie Myles, who plays Isolde, to be mesmerizing in their roles. The supporting cast is also terrific. I know this won't be for everyone, but it's also not strictly a chick flick. There's plenty of war scenes, adventure, action, etc. to keep those action film fans happy, and yet there's a lot of good love stories, and not just between the two leads as you might expect. I recommend this one!

Like "Romeo and Juliet," "Tristan and Isolde" is a tale of forbidden love set in the Middle Ages (although it far predates Shakespeare's work both in setting and in origin). In this case, the two young lovers are separated along national lines, with Tristan a young Briton, and Isolde nothing less than the princess of Ireland. As their two countries do battle against one another, the benighted couple tries desperately to make their love work in a bitterly hostile world.

This is a handsome, well-crafted film, glorious to look at but tedious to sit through. Since we've seen so many of these tales already, it's a little hard for us to work up much passion for this one - even if, as we're told, the fate of an entire kingdom hangs on this relationship. Moreover, there is such a profusion of Angles, Saxons, Irish etc. running around on screen that it is often difficult to distinguish one from the other and to know just who is fighting whom (or who is allied with whom) at any given moment.

James Franco and Sophia Myles make for a fairly bland, conventionally modern young couple, but Rufus Sewell provides a subtle, sympathetic performance as the man who both raises Tristan and marries Isolde.

If Medieval romances are your cup of tea, by all means check out "Tristan and Isolde," but there are far better tales of unrequited love around than this one.

Tristan and Isolde is one of the most enjoyable films I've seen this year. I saw it in a preview screening without knowing anything about the film or the myth. I expected a mediocre romance, only hoping that it would be set in an interesting medieval setting and that my girlfriend would enjoy it. Well it is a story of love, but also so much more. The film has a dark undertone to it and every character is torn between hard choices of power, loyalty, friendship and in Tristan's case, love. There is plenty of both tragedy and love and although very dramatic I never felt it was being too sentimental. The battle scenes are very well done. Although realism is sometimes sacrificed for dramatic impact, this works very well for the film. Most importantly there are no invulnerable heroes. Everyone is in immediate danger of mutilation and death, making the fight scenes more intense. The casting of Tristan, Isolde and Lord Marke is perfect and most of the supporting cast do an equally great job. The absence of any Hollywood superstars makes the film all that much better. Enjoy.

In response to comments disparaging this film for neglecting to use music from the opera-- that hardly seems relevant. This story was written long before Wagner's work existed, and it would be foolish to demand that his music be a part of the film. It seems to be of greater significance that the film neglects certain elements of the original texts, although as an entirely different art form, the film has every right to take its liberties. It is unfair to credit or discredit any film based on its relationship to other works of art. It is important to appreciate and discredit this film within the context of the art form in which it functions.

I did not expect to like this film; the reviews were lackluster, and many seemed to think the leads were mediocre at best. I found the performances riveting and highly engaging. While I do not know the actual historical story, I found the storyline highly captivating.

I thought James Franco played Tristan brilliantly - broken hearted but not brooding, he seemed to only come to life during battle before meeting Isolde, and then afterward only in their stolen moments together. Many of the reviews I've read seem to think that he played the role flatly, but I thought the subtlety of expression in his eyes and body language was impressive. Confident as a warrior, but almost innocent in intimacy, I thought he walked the thin line between adult and youth effectively.

Sophia Myles captured the fire, vulnerability and desire of Isolde with fervor - and that's not easy to do. Myles delivered her lines subtly, tinting words with emotional depth -scorn, joy, passion, frustration, disappointment - that was understated and yet passionate. She, too, managed to portray a delicate balance between the innocence of idealistic youth and the realities of a woman who found her self in an unenviable position.

Rufus Sewell was fantastic. As king, he had to walk the thin line between diplomacy and his own frustrations; as a man, he came alive when with Isolde, and so her betrayal was all that more heartbreaking, a scene which he played with focus and power.

I thought the fight scenes were very well done, except for the excess of cut shots, jumping from person to person, which moved the action almost too quickly, occasionally resulting in a jagged flow of action. Overall, however, the battle scenes were very well done.

The costumes were incredible - not period realistic (especially Isolde's wedding gown) but they were beautiful and overall well designed to intimate the period but still have some glitz. The locations shots were awe-inspiring.

I LOVED these characters very shortly after they each came on screen. I rarely feel such a strong connection to characters, especially of period pieces, but each of the leads played their roles with finesse. I deeply cared about these people, seeing hope and joy rise in their eyes, only to see events quickly turn that joy to sorrow, and hope to forceful determination. Their moments of happiness are so brief, their heartbreak so complete that I found myself profoundly moved by their experiences. As deeply invested as I became with these characters, I nearly sobbed at the end of the movie. A 5-hankie tear jerker.

I eagerly await the release of the DVD, and expect to enjoy this film many times over.

During the Dark Ages, Briton struggles with its divided tribes after the fall of the Romans. The Irish prospers taking advantage of the divisions. Tristan's father tried to forge an alliance of all the tribes with Marke (Rufus Sewell) as the king. They are surprised and massacred by the Irish. Marke saved Tristan at the cost of his hand. Tristan (James Franco) is raised by Marke. Powerful Irish King Donnchadh (David O'Hara) promises Princess Isolde (Sophia Myles)'s hand in marriage to his best warrior Morholt. Tristan leads a raid on a slaving party and kills Morholt. Tristan is set off on a funeral boat when his men mistakenly believe he died. Tristan's boat drifts to Ireland where he's saved by Isolde.

This tries to be a medieval sweeping romance. Franco and Myles are beautiful people who have a beautiful romance. The movie lacks the sweeping nature needed. It's competent but lacking in style. The sets fits the smaller era that is being portrayed. Although, it doesn't have to look small which it does. This romantic story feels limited and stretched out on the screen.

Beautiful, full of emotion and moving. The characters are portrayed skillfully and are generally believable - they fit into the legend but aren't overly heroic. Not overdone. The love between Tristan and Isolde is so powerful that it's impossible not to feel for them, but it is also impossible not to feel bad for the King, who is deeply in love with Isolde as well. The film's main departure from the traditional story is it's decision to leave out the love potion between T+I, which for modern audiences is a smart choice; it makes the whole relationship appear more 'authentic.' This is also one of Rufus Sewell's only' sympathetic roles, and it's a treat to see him play someone we don't automatically hate. The real heart-wrencher comes from watching the love grow between T+I while their obstacles grow larger. The movie also had some great battle scenes, just violent enough without going for the gross-out factor, convincing but not painful to watch (for most). And like most good dramatic movies it's not completely without humor, there are definitely some moments that make you laugh, or at least smile. Overall, it is one of the best romantic historical movies I have seen in a very long time. This movie is sure to make the entire female population fall in love with James Franco, and it's story is unforgettable.

Another film which has sought to give life to an old tale of magic and wonder, and has resulted in something mundane in comparison. I feel that those who have not read the stories of Tristram and Yseult might well revel in this dramatic re imaganing of the tale, however I feel the lack of mystical influence in this film removes all beauty from its telling. I am also confounded as to why James Franco was given this role for he is far from being an adequate dramatic actor at this stage of his career to carry such a role. If filmmakers must change all of the details of a legend, they must at least give the characters a faithful representation, and there were so many British actors in 2006 whom might have brought a great deal more depth to Tristan's character, along with a physical emobiment of the chivalry of the Britons.

I must say that I didn't even originally plan on going to this movie, but after I was asked by a friend to see it on its opening night, I said that sure, I would go. I figured that it would be alright, nothing more than mediocre at the most, but this movie was amazingly wonderful.

I have heard many people's comments on how they didn't like it because "Myles' accent was completely wrong," "the chemistry between Franco and Myles was horrible," "it didn't even follow the original story," and many other miscellaneous things. While the story line was changed a little from the original story, I believe that it was still good. And come on, how many times does Hollywood actually stick to the original story anyway? I think that the way the story went was much easier for people who were not familiar with the story of Tristan and Isolde to follow.

Further, I thought that Myles did a wonderful job with her accents. I found it very easy to differentiate between the Irish and the English.

And lastly, I found the chemistry between Myles and Franco to be simply wonderful. They really showed me that the characters were truly in love; it was compelling and deep, put together for a very good movie.

I can honestly say that this is one of the best movies I have seen in a while; it was not the watered-down relationship kind of thing that comes from Hollywood most of the time. From the battles to the most intimate of scenes, it stayed simple; not the high-tech kind of thing that you would usually see. There were some parts meant to be funny, some meant to be sad, and the movie averaged out to give you the best of both. I will tell you that in its opening weekend I saw it more than once, something that I would usually never do. It's a movie that gets better and better each time you see it; one where you pick out things each time that you had not seen before.

Simply put, this is a wonderful movie. I loved it, but I would not recommend going if you're just going because you think that James Franco is hott! I know some people who didn't like it, I won't lie, but if you come to the movie with an open mind and know that some things are going to be different, you will absolutely love it, as I did.

I cannot find many flaws with this movie, however, that does not mean that I enjoyed it.

The direction is fine (though unspectacular), the acting is likewise acceptable (though by no means great) and the score is stirring. The one flaw that cripples the picture is the plot. I couldn't tell you what secret ingredient is missing but I had a profound sense of apathy the entire film through. I did not care whether the star-crossed lovers ended up together nor did I care for the fate of Britain's throne. Perhaps a better set of actors could have brought the story to life. As it was, the story lacked a certain spark. Thus, watching it quickly became a tiresome experience.

Perhaps some more mellow viewers will appreciate the film but I took it to be a rather lifeless exercise.

Tristan and Isolde is once again one of those cheesy over romantically done movies that only hopeless romantics could fall for. I'm not trying to be mean about the movie, but Tristan and Isolde's chemistry was negative, it felt like lust more than love. Not to mention I thought the king was cuter and a lot more loving. ;P But that's besides the point, the story to me was just another excuse for a Notebook type of film.

The acting is above average, there was really no problems, except I felt that Tristan just had the same expression on his face the whole film. The story is historically inaccurate, but I don't judge on that because this isn't a history paper. The overdone script didn't help either, e.i. "How many did you love before me?... None... After?... None", come on! Who would ever say that? I explained the love story and the lack of chemistry. Over all this isn't a bad film, but just not in my taste.

6/10

This story is probably one of the most beautiful ever told. It has a good cast and beautiful location. But, it seems to come up short. The story line seems to move to quickly and it doesn't spend enough time convincing the viewer about the undying passionate love Tristan and Isolde have for each other. As well as James Franco doesn't seem to be enough of a heart throb to play Tristan. After watching Isolde and King Marke together, it almost made me wish it was a love story on them and not Tristan. Rufus Sewell does a great job as King Marke, a little too good. As he clearly is a scene stealer, and becomes the hunk in the movie. This movie had great potential, but the directing and screenplay left me a bit disappointed. It is however still worth watching.

There are love stories,and then there are love stories that pack a powerful punch.Tristan and Isolde indeed falls in the latter category. I must confess to not being an avid watcher of romance films,and was expecting not to enjoy much,if any of this film at all.I came away pleasantly surprised,as this film has a power that is hard not to acknowledge.It is two love stories in one.An English warrior is torn between the love of a woman from a country with which they are at war, and the man to which he owes his very life.The problem is,his two loves are sworn to one another,though not by the lady's choosing.The story is told well,and the film beautifully done.As of this writing,it is still in theaters and is worthy of the admission price,not to mention a worthwhile future rental.

I hadn't read or seen any version of the tale before, though I knew it was one of the great British romances. It was a film that didn't quite fulfil it's potential, whose parts were better then the conclusion. That isn't to say it wasn't a nice film, it was a competent romance with some sad moments, some great lines and moments of sweetness, finished by a very sad and well done ending. The productions values were good, it's script was good and has some wonderful lines, indeed the sweet caresses were made so much sweeter by the words between Isolde and Tristan. The best bit was the acting, there were a lot of good actors in it who filled their parts well, Mark Strong as Lord Wictred, Henry Cavill as Melot, Bronagh Gallagher as the maid Bragnae. to a lesser extent David O'Hara as the Irish King (great voice, not always the best facial expressions) among others.

Two stars for me: Rufus Sewell and Sophia Myles. Wasn't surprised by Sewell's performance, been a huge fan of his for awhile. As Lord Marke of Cornwall, he gave a portrayal that made me feel for the man and made me believe that he was a real person, barely put a foot wrong. Myles was more of a surprise, but she excelled herself here as Isolde. She looked exactly the right age, acted the right age and like Sewell, made me feel the emotions of her character, it was easy to see why some of the characters loved Isolde.

The flaws? The big one is Tristan, played by James Franco. When making an epic love story, the lovers need to have a spark and need to be performed brilliantly. Myles did her part but Franco was erratic, he had his moments were he delivered his lines well or made the right face, indeed he was good at the end but most of it? A blank expressionless face and spent part of it speculating that Sewell or Cavill could have done a better job as the hero. I would also say the middle part dragged on a bit too long and I found myself losing sympathy for Isolde, a shorter film might have made things better. In the end it was competent but felt rather flat.

Tristan & Isolde was basically the best Love story that I have seen in a good while. Better than the Notebook, better than Romeo & Juliet, better than anything you could imagine. I went into the movie realizing that I would shed a few tears, it is a given with me and love stories. I did not know that this movie would cause me to sob severely and to really fall in love with Tristan & Isolde. This movie can not even be exclaimed, it truly is a work of art. I went with a couple girl friends, and in the car ride home this movie was all we could talk about. The parallels between it and Romeo & Juliet are apparent, yet this love story seems to be more passionate and true love. The actors and actresses really gave off the impression that they were in love and troubled by all of the heartache they must overcome. Even though it is 2 hours long, I lost track of time and all sense of my surroundings. This movie both captures and captivates the audience. A must see...

"Tristan & Isolde" is a satisfying enough pseudo-historical Hollywood re-telling of a legend.

Marketed to teens, particularly through music video TV ads on teen-oriented shows rather than faux promotional documentaries on A & E or Discovery or the History Channels, it's an adequate PG-13 swashbuckling tale for an audience who hasn't seen many romantic epics. While the production design, architecture, military technology, hair styles, costumes, religious practices, music, languages, accents, literacy, let alone the John Dunne poetry, make absolutely no pretense of any kind of historical accuracy whatsoever, the film takes it's tone very seriously and its quite possible to leave one's rational brain behind and get swept along.

In Hollywood terms, the film opens with a background explanation that it takes place soon after the recent version of "King Arthur" and seems more redolent of that renowned triangle than the German opera or classic French tale, etc. There's quite a few elements in the plot with holes and confusions, especially in keeping track of various treacheries, duplicities and crossed loyalties. And where does that mast and sail on the little skiff crossing the sea between Ireland and England come from?

While even "Isolde" notes "Tristan"s scrawniness by commenting to him that her betrothed is "twice your size," John Franco is attractively sinewy with an irresistible mop of curls. Too bad he portrays "Tristan" as too stoic rather than conflicted, which he did do well in "City By The Sea." Thomas Sangster as the "Young Tristan" is absolutely adorable without curly hair.

Sophia Myles is similarly so sweet as "Isolde" that the relative explicitness of her adulterous triangle is a bit confusing, especially since Rufus Sewall, for a change, isn't a stereotyped villain. It's to the credit of Dean Georgaris's script that he is instead a king for whom no good deed goes unpunished. "Isolde" even admits at one point that if she had a baby she wouldn't know which one was the father, while a closing explanation continues fitting the legend into history.

The production design is overwhelmingly gray. We don't even see any blood in the many duels and fight scenes until a key trail at the end, when it seems more black than red. The aftermath of various violent encounters is more gruesome than what we actually see happening, as the brutal intensity is created more through editing and sound design.

While the matte landscape backgrounds are only obvious a couple of times, the coastal scenes are beautiful.

The music by Anne Dudley is very dramatic but other than a few flitting fiddles, it completely wastes any opportunity to incorporate traditional instrumentation, melodies or even differentiation between Irish and the various tribes of Britain.

I had high hopes for this film...I really did. I love the actors and I have loved the story since I first read a translation in 1999. This film unfortunately really let me down. The action that is promised in the previews is weak and poorly choreographed. The emotions seem forced and untrue. The only thing that this movie has is a brilliant performance by Rufus Sewell. He is the reason that I do not rate lower than I do. Mr. Sewell's performance is perfect. That of the conflicted leader and passionate sage to Tristan. There are way too many clichés in this film to name or even to pretend that there is an original moment throughout. If I wanted to watch a farce made of tradition and epic poetry, I would have watched a Knights Tale. At least then I would have been entertained.

I took my GF to it last night. It was her birthday and she had the pick of which movie to see. I had not seen any of the trailers for it and was told it was a romance. What I saw was not at all what I expected! Set back when there were Kings and Lords, it kept me entertained through the whole 2 hrs! There were several lesser name actors that I recognized which made it even more appealing. No huge stars overacting! I've been told that the movie does not follow the fable exactly, but I had never heard the fable so I can't verify this. Not an action flick like Gladiator or Troy, but if you like that era this is a movie for you!

Middle Ages. Irish have been squabbling since Romans left. Cue lots of rather unnecessary political background, swordfights and beautiful shots of Irish coastline. Photogenic young Tristan grows up as Cornish King's No.1 man. Gets wounded in battle, looks dead, is shipped him off in a bier to sea. Gets washed up on an Irish beach (cue more beautiful shots of Irish coastline) near cave where gorgeous Princess Isolde just happens to be wandering. Isolde's in a huff at being made a pawn for an arranged marriage. She nurses Tristan back to health - falling head over heels in love while mopping his fevered brow and gazing adoringly and his nicely tanned pecs. Back in England, Tristan 'wins' Isolde in a joust - on behalf of the blissfully ignorant King Marke. More swordfights and politics. The lovers pine for each other, make secret late night trysts, beg each other to abandon their duty, until inevitable happens. More swordfights, declarations of 'undying' love and so on . . .

In the original legend, while Tristan is transporting Isolde from Ireland to Cornwall to marry the King, Tristan and Isolde are on far from friendly terms; but then accidentally drinking a love potion they fall into a passionate embrace. The potion is the key to the story, a symbol of an almost supernatural force that sweeps human beings away, against their inclinations and despite good intentions or obligations to others. In Wagner's famous opera of the same name, love is also the force that releases mortals from the delusion of everyday reality and false appearances, and enables them to achieve transfiguration in death.

In our film, there is no potion, only natural attraction (or teenage hormones). In many ways it's an updating of the story, though with none of the insights or spiritual and deeply symbolic elements that Richard Wagner managed to put in his version. Sadly, the movie's romantic elements are kept to a 'family audience' rating and there is much more time spent on swordfights than there is on passion or the feelings of our star-crossed lovers. Some of the simple magic of the original story still manages to shine through however, and we at least get some sense of chemistry between the two lead characters and their hopeless battles of conscience as they wrestle individually with dilemmas of duty - Tristan to protect the nobleness of his King and Isolde not to be totally indifferent to Marke's kindness.

Could it be that, if 'love can transform destiny and the fate of nations', it is a force for good when it strikes wisely, and can wreak destruction when it affects those whose attraction causes havoc, suffering and all-round evil? But such suggestions are too deep for this superficial medieval fantasy, whose main moral elements seem to be avoiding sex and at the same time encouraging the viewer to disapprove when it happens. Tristan and Isolde shouldn't have given in to lust or, having done it, she shouldn't have slept with her husband the King. If it was set in the modern day, no doubt the Christian fundamentalist influence would have given them AIDS after forbidding them to use condoms. As a work possibly aimed at the youth market, it simultaneously suggests anything is justified in the name of love, as long as you feel suitably guilty. There is a vague sense, as with Romeo and Juliet, that warring factions can eventually be joined in love, but there is little wisdom to be gleaned from this confused version of the legend. Tristan + Isolde is not a particularly bad film - more of a messy, missed opportunity. It's main triumph is probably the beautiful Irish coastline.

In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.

Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.

I only wish I could vote 0/10