Wordiezett So much average

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

alexandresobreira-12-509311 I was compelled to add this after reading several reviews: I think the scriptwriter knows about Ged's name inversion. He or the producers just thought that Sparrowhawk was not catchy enough or was too long. So they decided to reverse the order. Considering the writer had the gall to say that his adaptation reflected LeGuin's TRUE intentions (prompting her to write her reply - by the way, isn't the book's copyright hers? And so, shouldn't she have been able to veto anything based on it? I don't know how international copyright laws work on this. Now, on to my review. Well, I think that an adaptation of a book to film medium should follow the book. Actually, I'd like it to slavishly follow the book insofar as the medium allows. But I don't judge the adaptation for not doing that. I like the Lord of the Rings movies and they deviate from the books in several essential points, not the least of which is ignoring the fact that Tolkien creates his characters to be Aristotelian examples of superior men, even though LOTR is not a tragedy, but a comedy (technically speaking). In terms of adaptation of the books, this miniseries is awful, totally disgusting. The Godking of Awabath is changed into a warlord that wants to conquer the Archipelago, Kossil is his mistress, quite the young and attractive woman, who wants to gain the power to summon the nameless ones (who are a sort of black gremlins with bat wings ??), Tenar is chosen by the last high priestess of the tombs to take her place as keeper of the key to hold the nameless ones prisoners. By the way, it's one of them that is after Ged. The Iskyorh gebbeth becomes the archfiend of the whole trilogy and has a showdown with Ged at the Tombs of Atuan, where Ged incomprehensibly decides to release the nameless batgremlins and their evil upon the world. Nemerle does not die, but remain the leader of the resistance against the Kargs, who have conquered Roke with the help of Jasper ??? Also, poor Nemerle looks suspiciously like a Dumbledore... Should I go on? However, that's not the reason I'm rating it so low. What I really hated was the fact that not only were the actors terrible, even poor Isabella Rossellini and Danny Glover, because their roles were so bad, but the series is only a long series of clichés strung together. The whole Karg invasion plot is there so the film doesn't have to deal with the true issues of the first book, which is Ged's search for his own identity. The central issues of the other two books, namely, how once can gain freedom through trust and by looking beyond the bars of one's cage and acceptance of mortality as essential to life, are thoroughly ignored. The Archmage and the other wizards of Roke are reduced to a position of almost comic relief to the series (even worse, poor Vetch IS in fact treated as a comic relief character). So, we are down to a soppy, ridiculous adventure crafted for the so-called young adult public. By the way, I'm 50, but if I were a young adult I would feel very insulted by how imbecilic current day scriptwriters (especially Hollywood) think young adults are.

Chai Mason I saw this mini series a couple of years ago after searching on the internet and found this film adaptation from Canada (I live in England) and I though 'great' so I bittor... err... obtained a copy and watched it all - I'm not sure how - in abject horror.Now there are numerous comments here - the majority in fact - which will tell your if you even got to reading THIS review, why it invokes such horror. Now I'm not a fan of Le Guinn, I've only read the first 'Wizard' book, not even the series. It follows a young wizard called Sparrowhawk through his life's trials as he sails around earthsea, a fictitious archipelago from ages old. It's a fairly straightforward story. However, it's such an extraordinarily exquisite and authentic experience it's emotional simply through the quality of the composition of the narrative itself, story content aside. I'm not an obsessed fan, I just know when something is really good, and this TV production ON ITS OWN was the typical trash you see on TV every day (except I quit watching TV in 1999 so I don't have to suffer) - in that sense it's fairly normal, and OK production. But in comparison to the story it's allegedly based on it's such an immense, indescribably travesty that, - well, I can't describe it. It should never have been made. They should have made a film of some talented unknown young (or old) fantasy writer in Canada instead.Why should this matter? It doesn't really does it. However as one previous reviewer said, quite rightly: "...its almost impossible for filmmakers to make a movie about a loved book without disappointing their fans." I have to disagree with other texts in this 'genre' however - Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Narnia - all clearly with staggering budgets of course and various contract obligations obviously in the case of the irritating though opportunistic and hard working Rowling. They did stick verbatim to the story lines.Anyway I don't have time to slate this really, I'm only reviewing it to give it the one star it doesn't even deserve to take the average rating down, it's much too high because of all these people who don't know any better reviewing it without having knowledge of the book. I know, it's anal, in any other case I'd really not bother, Rowling, CS Lewis (the g@y tw@t, I wish his publisher had sacked him) Pullman, even Tolkein, any book, I don't really care, I'd enjoy the book, and/or enjoy the film, or not. However there's something kinda special about this book - not spectacular, just really tight storytelling. Well you can read it and find out. This TV adaptation is agonising.My main beef is that, Lord of the Rings aside (obviously) This book, A Wizard of Earthsea, is the most worthy of making into a really long, really expensive film - more than anything by CS Lewis or Rowling (she seems to have taken the main premise of her Potter books FROM Wizard of Earthsea in fact, the magicians school.Rant over. If you've not seen this production, never see it, watch Moonacre or Stardust or something, and buy Le Guinn's books.

ridiculionius Yes, I am asking you to forget the books, as wonderful as they are. If you put aside the fact that the director almost seems to parody the Earthsea books (for all the movie relates to them), the film is actually enjoyable. The acting was only mediocre, even with such greats as Danny Glover and Isabella Rosselini to carry it (definitely not their best performances), the script was only mediocre, and, as it's a made-for-TV movie, the special effects were wanting. But, all in all, if you push the books from your mind, it's not that bad.Two things did annoy me quite a bit, however. Number 1: the changing of the title character's name. In the books, his birth name is Duny, his secret name is Ged, and his use-name is Sparrowhawk. In the movie, his birth name and use-name is Ged, while Sparrowhawk becomes his secret name. Duny doesn't even come into the picture.Number 2: Tenar and Ged don't kiss in the "Tombs of Atuan". It isn't until "Tenahu", the final book in the series, where both characters have aged significantly (Ged is quite old, and Tenar has been widowed and has had children that have grown up), that they do so.Overall, however, the movie is not a masterpiece but is quite fun and magical. It's only very loosely based on the books, so don't expect something approved by Ursula LeGuin herself. But, if you're interested in something for a simple Friday night flick, it's definitely something to consider.

Kras543 When I watched the movie, I noticed that it was the first two books put together. It was job nicely done, changing from Ged to the Tombs of Atuan. Although what I didn't like was the part where they added the Kargad King or where they released the Nameless Ones and forged the amulet of Erreth-Akbe together and saved the world from the Nameless Ones after releasing them like five minutes ago. What I also didn't like was the change that every priestess, Tenar, Thar, and Kossil worship the Nameless Ones and that Thar was the ultimate priestess, and a succeeder is chosen, not like in the book, Tombs of Atuan. In the book there is Thar, high priestess of the Twin Gods, Kossil, high priestess of the God King and, Arha (Tenar), High priestess of the Nameless Ones and high priestess of the Tombs of Atuan. In the movie there was three people arguing for the place of Thar "high priestess of the Nameless Ones and Tombs of Atuan". Phhhhh!! Also the constant dying in the Tombs of Atuan, leaving Tenar as the only significant character in there was quite baffling. Yes in the book Thar dies because of disease. Not because of poisoning from Kossil. Also there was no "Rosa" servant who was strangled by Kossil and there was no Kargad King to kill Kossil. Otherwise, the movie had nice screenplay, and fairly good actors. For those who haven't read the books and !MAYBE! for those who have read them, this movie is worth seeing despite its many bad sides.