ThiefHott Too much of everything

PodBill Just what I expected

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

fandmorgaine What's immediately clear in watching this mini-series for anyone's who's carefully read the book is the moment MZB passed and the producers got full control of the film's direction. Part one adheres loosely to the book. Part two departs from it entirely and reverts to the typical telling of the tale. It looses completely the threads of the women's story to the point where the only way to get Morgaine back into the action is to put her on a horse, give her a sword, and send her into battle. Important sub-plots which would tell us more about MZB's character's are dropped ostensibly due to time constraints, but others are created which add nothing at all to the story. In effect, Part one is recognizably MZB, though it loses all its profundity. Part two is NOT recognizable as MZB's story. Anyone who had read the book and was shown only Part two would have no reason to connect the two at all. Yes, lovely costumes, sets, and actors... a nice pageant, but that is not what Bradley wrote. What a shame! What it needed was someone with the dedication that Peter Jackson had for LoTR. Clearly that is not what it had.What I might have thought had I never read the book?... Having spent 22 years in professional theatre, likely I would not have finished watching it. I would have shut it off about 20 minutes into Part two. Let us hope one day to see the treatment this magnificent story deserves, but this is not that day.

furnaud I was very excited when I learned that my favorite book, "The Mists of Avalon," was being made into a mini-series. Unfortunately, the title and characters were the only things this mini-series has in common with the book. Now I realize that this was a long book and that some parts of the storyline would have had to be sacrificed but there were major events and even a few main characters that were simply not there. The basic spirit of the story was gone and the storyline mangled almost beyond recognition. The book's author, Marion Zimmer Bradley, must surely be spinning in her grave. I believe she would be greatly disappointed with this adaptation of her truly wonderful and innovative tale of the women who were the real strength and power of Camelot. Do yourself a favor. Skip this mini-series and read the book.

Mark L. Kahnt As the stories of Arthurian legend (maybe myth?) have evolved through re-tellings and expansions over the centuries, this retelling also goes in directions from Marion Zimmer Bradley's book, which openly created a different presentation and interpretation of the stories of Camelot. Morgan Le Fay, demonised in the Tennyson presentation where she had been a somewhat neutral character in previous renditions. Viviane had been the villain of most renditions meanwhile. I cannot profess to have read every telling over the years of the Arthurian tales, but being a student of multiple religious faiths including "English paganism" (not simply that of the Druids, but also the little people) I can see much of the potential of the book.Unfortunately, the faith issue was not the topic of the movie, nor was the ability of Arthur, first through force against the Saxons, and then through conversion to Christianity of those same Saxons, to unite England. Instead we have the Saxons still attacking at the end in the movie. Instead, we have characters as sculpted in the book presented in a low budget production with leaps in the story meant for people that haven't read the book to get a sense of the voices. Acting does accomplish some leaps over problems in the story, but read the book, read the early texts, maybe then read the Tennyson rendition.Could a big screen rendition handle this better? I doubt it would have enough time for the stories along the way, which contrary to the view of the director explain much of the book. A mini-series, as this originally was, with another two hours (this is already 183 minutes) could have better developed key aspects, such as Lancelot's marriage, and the important plotting Morgaine undertakes in Wales, as well as Gwenhwyfar's abduction and Igraine's death. Even the death of Viviane and Raven's prophecies were mishandled, losing key understandings of the different faiths. Maybe somebody with the time, budget, and in need of a sweeps blockbuster will try again, but then again, maybe the tale works only when transferred from the words on the page to the images of the mind.Maybe the best that can be done with cinema is either the musical Camelot, or Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the Arthurian tales are too broad to cover in one presentation. That said, the migratory sparrows are dropping more coconuts around here, I need to go pick them up.

David Lee (zeupater) The book is simply amazing and this film adaptation adequately embodies its epic stature. I am amazed how much of the book is actually reflected in a 2-hour television digest version. I really don't like spoilers and I always try to avoid giving away a story myself, so I will just say this movie can be enjoyed by either fans of Marion Zimmer Bradley's book or the uninitiated.The scenery, cinematography and costumes are beautiful. The acting is generally very smart and understanding. The cast was well chosen. The writing is well-informed.Some of the negative reviewers seem to be offended by sexual material and what they perceive as "anti-christian" content. Of course I would not try to change any of these people's opinions, but I would remind these reviewers of the story's point of view. The setting is in a largely non-Christian world and told from a feminine perspective. With virtually all other tellings being from a masculine, heroic, 15th century Christian perspective (despite the fact that the setting is actually 4th century pagan) I find this appealing for history's (her-story's) sake alone. Usually the "winners" write history. In this case I think Bradley is trying to tell the other side of the story.