Rating: 
Summary: This is a travesty!!! Read the book instead!!!
Review: Once again a book has been desecrated. Its a shame that Marion Zimmer Bradley isn't alive to share her opinion with us. However, I will say that if I never read The Mists of Avalon, I too would have loved this film. By itself the film is wonderful, but when compared to the book...well its just not as spectacular as it could have been.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining & Controversial Adaptation of Zimmer's Classic
Review: Ancient Britain. The Romans have abandoned this outlying colony, leaving the inhabitants to defend themselves against repeated waves of invasion from the barbarian Saxons. Britain itself is divided between adherents of the new religion Christianity and the pagan followers of the Goddess. The mysterious island Avalon, ruled by the High Priestess (also called the Lady of the Lake), is the magical seat of power for the pagans. Along with their wizard ally Merlin (played by Michael Byrne), the Lady (Angelica Huston) and the Queen of Lothian Margause (Joan Allen) believe that the Brits, both Christian and pagan, can be unified - but only by the right king. Their prophecy indicates that this king must be conceived by Duchess Igraine (Caroline Goodall) and fathered by the powerful and popular Uther Pendragon (Mark Lewis Jones). Igraine is reluctant to fulfill such a prophecy, as it will mean breaking her vows to her husband, the Duke of Gorlois (Clive Russell). Nonetheless, the deed is accomplished, with Arthur as the result. While still a boy, Arthur (Edward Atterton) is separated from his parents and his half-sister Morgaine (Julianna Margulies), to be tutored by Merlin. Morgaine is taken by the Lady of the Lake to Avalon, to be brought up as a priestess to the Goddess. But prophecy has a price - great sacrifice and suffering result as these players try to find happiness and fulfillment during dangerous times.TNT's two-part miniseries is based on Marion Zimmer Bradley's classic "feminist retelling" of the King Arthur legend. It's a complex tale, with at least a dozen major characters and various interweaving plots. Unlike many feminist fantasies, in which the women are portrayed simply as the victims of brutal and oppressive men, The Mists of Avalon depicts powerful women both good and evil, as petty and exploitive as the men with whom they involve themselves. From the trickery which leads Igraine to break her marital vows, to the unwitting manipulation which causes Arthur to commit incest with Morgaine, to the cruel brainwashing of Morgaine's son Mordred, the priestesses of the Goddess are the true drivers of history in their world. Huston and Marguiles - indeed, all the cast - deliver excellent performances in a story as tragic as any Shakespeare ever told. This 4-hour miniseries is beautifully filmed, with a wonderful soundtrack by Loreena McKennitt. John C. Snider
...
Rating:
Summary: A very good Summary/Introduction to An Excellent Book
Review: I think the titles says it all. At about four hours or so this movie adaptation really is just grazing the top of what is covered in the book. The acting is excellent and everyone does a great job. The cinammetography is really good to. But they really shortened it up, took a lot of important stuff out, and took some liberties...such as Uther didn't build Camelot and Margana Le Fey new that she slept with her brother Arthur the day after the Beltane Fires not like years later. Plus, Guinevere (Gwenwyfar, or something in the book) was as much of a total freaking b*%^^%ch in the movie as in the book. You want her to be killed at the stake or something. MMMMM steak,,,, Anyways, freaking fun and good movie. But read the book and the prequels. Bradley created a wonderful translantion of a classic classic.
Rating:
Summary: Enchanting
Review: I haven't read the book. I watched this movie without any expectations whatsoever, or any knowledge of the plot. Honestly, I didn't even know it was about the legend of King Arthur. The movie was far better than any of the other Arthur films I have watched. It surpasses Merlin in terms of believability, Camelot in terms of maturity, and almost equals Excalibur. Julienna Marguiles portrays a very convincing Morgaine. The whole story is told from her point of view, and indeed it was a gorgeous retelling. For once, we are given the refreshing view that Morganne was humane, and good. We are given new explanations for the incest between Arthur and Morganne, as well as the blackness of Mordred's character, which is now blamed on Morganne's aunt, Morgause. What intrigued me about the movie was the portrayal of the Pagan and Christian society, and most interestingly, about how the Pagan goddess still lives on as the Virgin Mary (I still find that interesting, although I don't quite agree with it). Certain things, like having Excalibur return to the goddess and fading off into the silhoette of the Christian cross puzzles me a little to what the symbolic meaning behind it implies. This intermingling of both religions - the link established wasn't as clear as it should have been. Beautiful performances from Anjelica Huston (The Lady of the Lake), and Joan Allen (Morgause). I didn't really think that Samantha Mathis was suitable to play Guinevere (she didn't really look the part, nor act the part)... and Michael Vartan surprisingly pulled off the part of Lancelot well (Franco Nero is by far one of the most atrocious Lancelots ever). Hans Matheson (Mordred), a relatively new actor, does a better job here than what he did in Les Miserables. A good cast, and a good movie. I found it a little controversial, and at times slightly disturbing, but it keeps the mystery and intrigue surrounding Avalon as palpable as ever.
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing But Heartbreak Here!
Review: Hate this movie! I only gave it a star for looks!Must be the dumbest concept I've ever seen! Why in the world Morgraine would even WANT to continue training to become a priestess or care anything about Avalon, Her aunt Vivian,or continue worshipping the Mother Goddess when only terrible things happen to everyone she loves! Really despicable,self-serving priestesses. Never got a single clue of ANYTHING good ever coming from their Mother Goddess worship and what's so special about Avalon anyway? Will never put this in a class with Excalibur! This is a totally perverted, and DEPRESSING version of the King Aurthur Legend, Don't waste your time unless you like DOWNERS!
Rating: 
Summary: the mists of avalon
Review: Being an huge fan of women in history, the mists of avalon is all about the old religion vs the coming of new religion. Its got its ups and downs in the chariters love lives but that is a plus to the drama of the movie. It sets you in the time fram very well. I watched this as a child and loved it then.. I love it even more now as an adult.
Rating: 
Summary: Some copies seem to be defective
Review: I'd have given this four stars, because I enjoyed the atmosphere and costumes even though there are times the dialog and acting are jarringly modern. And things like, why are the Celts worshipping Diana instead of a Celtic goddess? But I can't render a final opinion because: I've received two defective DVDs in a row and have not been able to finish the film. Both DVDs have started off OK. But stop one for a short viewing break and my DVD player has never been able to read it again. My player is fairly new and plays all other DVDs just fine so . . . I think there is a problem with this run. Sure, I can get a refund, but it doesn't look like I'll ever finish the film.
Rating:
Summary: Which is the best Arthurian Legend filmatization?
Review: Who the hell can say that Excalibur was a dissapointement?!
The one who doesn't reckognize that magnificent masterpiece as THE, Ultimate, and basically ONLY real film about Arthur (worthy of mentioning at least), gotta be dumb, def and blind and probably insane as well!
The Mists of Avalon is a TV-film. That about says it all. It's decent... and even if the actors or directing is spectacular (which I can't remember that it was), that really wouldn't matter, cause it just doesn't have that "magic" or "power" of a cinema-movie, nor the positive aspects that a longer running authentic TV-SERIES could have.
This is just in the middle, like all other films of this kind (Hallmark etc.) - it's their curse: They dont matter, can't be taken too seriousely and will not be remembered (except for by die-hard fans who have nothing else but these realizations to cling onto).
As for King Arthur, anyone who LOOKS FORWARD for a Jerry Bruckenheimer production gotta be truly stupid, mindless or merely extremely superficial in his/her taste of films.
For being a JB-production, it actually wasn't too bad, that one. The theory that inspired the story was serious and interesting (and very probable in my opinion), but the script itself was pretty thin, sure Kiera Knightley (or however you spell it) was great, and Stellan was cool as the Saxon chief, and they actually tried to make it authentic with the Woads speaking their old toungue etc. but it has nothing on the original: EXCALIBUR (!!!), neither does THIS film.
I haven't read the book(s), but I dont think I would be too impressed by the film if I had (thinking of how popular the books are they can't be too bad) - I'd probably just watch it cuz I was happy they had made a filmatization of my favourite book (if it WAS my favourite book now, that is).
Are we clear now?
Okay.
Maybe I'm too harsh. As a TV-film, this is pretty good.
I just wanted to point out that it (or any other) by far can't live up to Excalibur.
And for Merlin, that awful awful abomination of a film, with the worst Merlin character in film history (the one in Excalibur being the very best, one of the greatest characters ever), is just, well, as bad as these types of films CAN be.
Mists of Avalon is not that bad.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly Wonderful!
Review: I really like this movie. I've seen the new King Arthur movie, and also Excalibur and Merlin and I have to say that Mists of Avalon is the best of the lot. It's storylines are more plausible (realistic) than other versions, and yet, contains magical and mystical elements. This movie would probably appeal more to women, but my husband enjoyed it as well. Fewer fight scenes and more focus on the interpersonal relationships. It basically sticks to the origional tale of Camelot, but peeks deeper into the minds of the characters. Good visual elements. Well made.
Rating:
Summary: Different from the book, but excellent
Review: I was fortunate enough to first see this movie and then read the book, along with the other two books in the series; and I'd highly recommend that approach to anyone who hasn't experienced either the book or movie.
This visually rich and absorbing movie does about the best job possible to translate the 800-page-plus novel to the screen, and will give viewers a totally different perspective on the Arthurian legends. I highly recommend treating the film and book as a single unit.
|
