Rating: 
Summary: Appalling doesn't begin to define it.
Review: In writing about The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote,"One of the main problems I had, in writing the Arthurian novel, was the fear that Christians would feel I was attacking the basics of Christianity, rather than the enormous bigotry and anti-feminism that have become grafted on to Christianity. I don't think they have any part in Christianity itself, or in the teachings of Christ...And, I suppose, a little, the purpose of the book was to express my dismay at the way in which religion lets itself become the slave of politics and the state." Given MZB's intent, I have to say that this has to be one of the most appallingly bad hashes of an excellent work of literature that I've ever seen, PERIOD. I can understand having to abridge events because of the length of the novel, but the changes made didn't abridge the work -- they changed it ENTIRELY, much to the story's detriment. Any slightly sordid theme of the book got played (and replayed, and replayed and replayed - how many times did they flash back to Arthur's being with Morgaine?); the more intricate subplots which played out MZB's intent were almost entirely ignored. Instead of a thought-provoking work on how power politics coupled with a barren queen's obsession with childbearing prompted a change from Paganism to Christianity (and how bigotry fouled the latter religion), we end up with a saccharine and shallow offering which lacks any intellectual interest whatsoever. Certainly it lacks the point that MZB was trying to make with this novel. If she could still accept it, this film's makers owe Marion Zimmer Bradley a profound apology for this massacre of her work. I couldn't put the book down, but I couldn't wait for this farce to be over and done with so I could turn it off. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY BUYING IT.
Rating: 
Summary: I've only watched it every night this week...
Review: It's a great movie. It's enchanting, and Angelica Houston does a GREAT job as the priestess Vivianne. I loved the book, and the movie is just as enchanting, offering another view on
the Arthurian legends. The ending is really good. Bear in mind, you might not like it if you believe it should be strictly to the book. It's more of a summary of what happens in the book. It's still good. There's one scene with a Lorenna McKinnet song,
"The Mystic's Dream" and it fits the scene just perfectly. a clouded dream on an earthly night/hangs upon the cresent moon/a voiceless song in ageless light/sings at the coming dawn/birds in flight are calling there/where the heart moves the stones... I am still not over how GOOD this movie is!!!!
Rating:
Summary: If you loved the book, don't watch the movie
Review: How excited I was to learn that one of my favorite books was being turned into a movie! And with such talented actors! Then I watched it - and my temper flared. It is one thing to edit a book to make it into a movie, but it is another thing to butcher it. In their attempt to cram the whole novel into a three hour mini-series (4 hours with commericials), the audience is left confused by rushed events and unexplained plots. It would have been better to make it a longer mini-series or feature film so that the true story could be told and that the actors could shine even more.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing!
Review: "Mists of Avalon" was an amazing film! Although I have never read the book, the movie is outstanding and is now on the top of my list.
All the actors and actresses portrayed all the characters extreamly well. I was really impressed. I saw this on the DVD on want to buy it ASAP! I loved Morgaine, King Arthur and Lancelot for they are my favorite characters.
I strongly recomed this film to everyone! While watching this, you are in suspense the whole time and it's very exiting once you figure it all out.
I only wish it didn't end, and although the end was logical, I only wish it could have been happier.
Rating:
Summary: Not just dull, but insultingly bad
Review: I was in what I thought was the enviable position of seeing an advanced screening copy of The Mists of Avalon before it aired on TNT in Mid-2001. I was staying with a family member who was reviewing it. As a long time fan of the book I was excited to see the adaptation, and impressed with the casting. That lasted about 5 minutes. Nothing in this adaptation is at all good, starting with the terrible mattes, poor production values, and surprisingly souless and bland acting. Not only that, the entire story is twisted and corrupted into something that little resembles the source. Gone is the struggle within Arthur to try to balance the Druidic England with the new Christian England. Instead we get some feel-good pseudo-paganish claptrap and a story that feels as if it was washed through a coven of censors to make sure there was nothing left that could offend anyone more sane than Jerry Faldwell. If you liked the book stay FAR away from this adaptation. If you know the Arthur legend, or think you might ever want to, stay away. In short, stay away.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing Movie of great book
Review: I was so excited when I found out that a movie had been made of the Marion Zimmer Bradley book 'Mists of Avalon' and couldent wait to get the dvd and watch it in all its glory, but...
I have to say the book was alot better than the film, Although it has a stellar cast and the scenery is fantastic but at 3 hours long the story goes by so slowly you find yourself reaching for the fast forward on the remote !. There doesnt seem to be any climactic moments or excitement, even the battle scenes seem mild. If this had not have been made for T.V. it could have been a far more superior film. As far as the DVD special features, these include a number of very short deleted scenes, a storyboard of the opening credits and some costume designs, the filmographies are very limited and do not include all the actors, again a bit of a disappointment.
If you are a fan on the book then you will surely buy this DVD, especially as the price is so good, but just don't have too high expectations.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining but lacking in some aspects
Review: I was delighted when I first heard that they were making a movie based on Marion Zimmer Bradley's acclaimed novel. I had read the book and found it delightfully entertaining and would read over and over again. After watching the movie, I found myself disappointed on how they had interpreted the story by leaving key events out. However, Juliana Margulies and Angelica Houston portrayed the characters very well. Other characters could have been better portrayed, not only by the actors but by the script as well. But for what it is, the movie was still entertaining and would recommend that people see this movie, at least once.
Rating: 
Summary: An Arthurian retelling beset w/ dull & pedestrian trappings
Review: Ah yes, Marion Zimmer Bradley's feminist/pagan slanted retelling of the Arthur legend finds itself cast as a lurching, awkward TV movie. I was hoping for the best for this, but instead found it a bone-cruchingly self-serious tale set in a land where nary a hairbrush is to be found (for most of the cast sports hair so plaited and oiled as to become a distraction). What traditionally is a lusty legend full of passion and betrayal becomes a bloodless overly-intellectual exercise in which all the actors (with the notable exception of the always great Joan Allen) seem to have inhaled too much, ahem, incense. Ploddingly paced and directed by Uli Edel (who managed to make S&M candle-wax dull in Madonna's "Body of Evidence"), and with serviceable, but sub-par, photography by Vilmos Zsigmond the film never gains any sense of awe or wonder, instead playing its visuals as close to the bodice as it does its emotions. It is a film almost completely without dynamic. With such a strong group of lead performers, one would hope for them to have something meaty to bite into, but instead, the get a thin broth of a story and roles. Many people have brought up the balanced and accurate pagan portrayal that is present in this film. Fine, except that, as it is truly a sedate and contemplative religion, its simplicity and un-sensational nature (no pun intended) doesn't help to make a dull film any livelier (no offense to paganism and wicca meant). And suffice to say, I hesitate to recommend any film in which Uther Pendragon (traditionally a king who's passions and desires exceed his intellect and sire of the great Arthur, King of England) is most memorable as being... short.
Rating:
Summary: LOVED IT!
Review: Whoever says this movie was boring has to have sumthing wrong with them!!
I absolutely LOVED IT!
If you thought Camelot was a good movie this would take your breath away..
That is because it is a better version of camelot.
("The true account by Morgaine")
I want this movie so bad but I cant afford 80 dollar movies.
sorry
hope i was helpful but if I wasnt the 1st person on top who wrote a review, i thibnk described it best.
=)
Rating:
Summary: The Mists of Avalon
Review: The legend of Camelot is told anew but with all the adventure and excitment the story has always inspired. Special effects are stunning. This is the story of King Arthur but also of Avalon and the women of Camelot. All of the magic is retained along with a deeper insight into what might have occurred. I would strongly recommend this film to everyone who has ever loved the story of Camelot.
| 
