The Mists of Avalon

Rating:
Summary: Definatly resistable
Review: For those of you who haven't read the books, you may gain some enjoyment from this film. Everyone who loved this movie did not read the book, but for those of us who did, we HATED this film with a passion. It moves quite slow and while I have the utmost respect for each of the actors in this film, the only ones to play their characters even remotly well were Anjelica Huston and Joan Allen playing Vivan and Morgause respectfully. I'm not familiar with Julianna M.'s work, but she was TERRIBLE as Morgaine!! Do yourself a favor, pass on the film. I know the book is massive, but its a fantastic read.

Rating:
Summary: Phenomenal
Review: I absolutely loved this movie!! One of the best I've ever seen. I love how the movie tells the story of King Arthur from a woman's perspective, showing what women had to do to survive and how much they had to sacrifice for their country, their beliefs and their ways of life. I would recommend Mists of Avalon to anyone interested in midieval history, particularly from a woman's point of view.

Rating:
Summary: NOT ENOUGH ACTION TO INTRIGUE THE MIND
Review: The movie could have been great if different actors were chosen. The special effects were not that creative.

Rating:
Summary: Very Disappointing
Review: Perhaps due to being overly familiar and very fond of the book, I was terribly disappointed in this mini-series. In fact, I found it virtually unwatchable. Although the cast is filled with several fine actors, they are all terrible here. The plot and themes of the book are totally bastardized. Very, very sad.

Rating:
Summary: the best film I have ever read
Review: in my view it is awonderful film. I have seen it so many times that i even bought the book .it is about magic and how the old religion was transformed in Christianity. but that is only in the backround,

Rating:
Summary: "Perhaps people no longer believe in it"
Review: The Mists of Avalon is a good story that unfortunately fails to work. At 183 minutes, it is too long, and yet the viewer is introduced to the large number of integral characters at a dizzying pace. It surely would have worked better had it been released as two movies, and the storyline slowed down somewhat.

Having said that though, the storyline is certainly exciting and involving. It is the story of the Court of Camelot and its ties to the mystic isle of Avalon, as recounted by the oft-maligned Morgaine Le Fay. It is set in ye olde Britain, where Christianity is gaining ascendancy over the ancient druid religion. In an increasingly desperate effort to keep the old ways alive, Viviane - the Lady of the Lake - shapes the destinies of Morgaine, Arthur, Gwenwyfar, Lancelot and the other familiar characters. But some of them begin to rebel at being moved around like pieces on a game board.

Why, in such a quintessential British story, were so many American actors used? They either speak painfully slowly in their attempts to sound English, or they use dreadful faux-British accents that frequently slip. And while Angelica Huston's accent is admirable, she is too strident and not ethereal enough as the Lady of the Lake. The thoroughly evil Mordred acts entirely with his eyebrows, and there are some abysmal performances in the minor roles.

Such a lavish production deserves better. The sets, scenery, and costumes are visually spectacular, but there are too many annoyances to distract the viewer. The 'mists' of the title are created through an overindulgence in smoke machines, and perhaps this is symbolic of the fact that in the wrong hands, a good story can become a bad film.

Rating:
Summary: absolutely fantabulous
Review: I don't understand why people who watch movies or read books of mysticism, magic or fantasy cannot let their minds run wild with the plot, instead of examining it with a fine comb like some political story. If you cannot enjoy fantasy without being unimaginative or critical, then don't watch it. It's extremely difficult to create things which one can easily fantasize about and all credit must be given to the producers and cast for even having the guts and imagination to pull it off. They have brought entertainment to the silver screen and made a child's dreams appear as reality. The story line is good, the props are fantastic, so what more could we ask for? Even Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings had lots of holes in them but don't expect a blow-by-blow account in a good movie, otherwise the movie will become too long and our butts will be numb or it's going to bore us to death. This is definitely a movie to be enjoyed, just like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Merlin, Dungeons and Dragons were so enjoyable to those who can fantasise and believe in magic. That's the key, We must believe in magic, believe in the unbelievable and don't expect everything from the movie, so that it will whet our appetites for more of the same. Otherwise, if a movie is so brilliant, it will take the fun out of all other movies in the future and we won't have anything better to look forward to. This is definitely a 5-star rating for those who enjoy a good movie about magic and fantasy, like me.

Rating:
Summary: A Satisfactory Adaptation, A Great Movie
Review: WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? The Mists of Avalon was great!! It was a good adaptation, considering that it was already a 3+ hour miniseries, and they couldn't add any more to it, they had to pick and choose-- duh. The actors were dedicated, the story was developed, and the special effects were nice. Sure, certain things were different, like Viviane's death, but it was their decision to change it to make it fit more into the movie, who can blame them??

Rating:
Summary: Damn fine movie
Review: What about this movie is not to like. It tells a story that has been told before, but in a way that has not been heard. This movie moves you and takes you to the hight of hope and the depths of sadness. You will feel as though you were there. Those of christian faith should not be offended, nor those who are followers of the goddess, wiccan or druid. This movie will leave you with a scence of reflection and calm happiness. Watch it and you will understand.

Rating:
Summary: Those Poor, Poor Actors: A Lament
Review: To be fair, I can honestly give this TV Movie Adaptation of Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of Avalon" two stars because of the lovely costumes, surprisingly beautiful sets, and the combined talent of most of the actors involved. The other three stars shall remain staunchly "unbestowed". Here's why...

First of all, I've never read this book, but from this movie alone I get a distinct impression that it's innovative and intriguing in its revisionist treatment of the Arthurian legend. (I had many flashbacks to Senior English. It made me feel quite learned, really.)

With this in mind I have to say "shame on you!" to the scriptwriters of this poorly adapted screenplay. It is glaringly and painfully obvious that the passionate themes present in any "good" book (assuming from the testimonials of those who have read the book that it is indeed "good") have been considerably watered down and hacked to pieces by time constraints and a need to please the TV censors.

For example, the romantic relationship between Guinevere (Samantha Mathis giving a fine performance despite being an inferior casting choice) and Lancelot (Michael Vartan is legitimately pretty, but almost completely void of similar passion) is about as interesting as a chipped coffee mug. Decidedly NOT exciting or interesting.

This also applies to the threesome between Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere. It made pretenses to being intense and life changing and ended up looking like heavily edited soft core porn. Correction: heavily edited soft core porn devoid of anything remotely stimulating. The embarassment on the actors' faces was not just charaterization, it was actual professional embarrassment, like "What the hell am I doing with my career?!"

The plot meanders about, "speeding" and "slowing" at awkward moments. Frankly, the overal structure is sloppy and a two part miniseries may have given these writers an actual chance to faithfully and beautifully adapt a moving story about conflicting worlds. And speaking of conflicting worlds, the "battle" between Christianity and Paganism played out like a poorly reasearched trash novel. Would it have been so difficult to inject a little detail and believability into each group of believers and their respective believers? Do historians really charge so much for appropriate consultation that it wouldn't have fit in the production budget? I hope not, because that means giving up that history degree was a really big mistake.

Moving on though. I have to say a word about the direction of this movie as manifested in general "pictures" throughout the narrative and assumed coaching of the actors' performances. I watched many moments in the movie when I was slightly embarrassed by the loose and juvenile camera positioning and boring formulaic blocking (how the actors move, that is). It wasn't just ugly, it was also at times confusing. The artistic directing effort, which has the ability to truly move a viewer particularly through the varying levels of intimacy elicited by certain camera angles, was minimal at best.

And those poor, poor actors. My heart went out to them as a fellow performer because although they tried and tried to save this sinking ship, they ultimately failed. I could see the perpetual strain on their faces to make the lines, some of which were quite goofy and contrived, sound remotely dramatic.

In general, the actors took admirable risks to portray their characters as in depth, feeling individuals. But this is practically impossible to do with bad plot structure, lackluster writing, and sloppy directing. I have a strange feeling that the director did not really do his job of guiding these actors in their performances so as to prevent certain acting train wrecks. Case in point, the actor who portrayed Arthur was all over the place, and Michael Vartan's Lancelot was downright boring. Anjelica Huston bravely turned in a strong performance, which ultimately looked over the top in comparison to the rest of the movie's glaring downfalls discussed previously.

The biggest train wrecks were the campy performances given by the young Morgaine and Arthur (are you telling me that these kids couldn't have been coached better or the roles cast better?), the ridiculous portrayal of a 14 year old Morgause by a middle-aged Joan Allen (who otherwise delivered a good performance), and Hans Matheson's desparate attempts to inject much needed evil into the poorly adapted Mordred who is given little explanation and even less screen time. Perhaps the final downfall of Camelot and lost hope of Avalon would have been more impactful if the one responsible (Mordred) had been more properly fleshed out by the dolts who wrote the screenplay.

I was pleasantly surprised by the performance delivered by Julianna Marguiles. I had low expectations for this actress considering the narrow range of characterization she has displayed to date as an actress. She was a believable if not, at times, enjoyable Morgaine. I will say, though, that her British accent (can anyone say Queen Mother?) was occasionally giggle-worthy.

In conclusion, this movie is a sad, sad excuse of serious literary adaptation. And although I suffered significantly from watching all three shameful hours, I'm willing to bet the real victims are the actors and actresses who have to look back on their careers now and shudder at the terrible product that resulted from their good intentions and hard work. It was a chance of a lifetime for any actor to portray any of these legendary characters in such a innovative retelling of this legend. But now, it's nothing more than a line on their resume that they wish they could erase.

Don't see this movie if you have a hard time watching good actors crash and burn at the hands of bad directing and a lousy script. And any enjoyment you may find in the romance of this legend will be overshadowed by the campiness of its re-creation on screen. Perhaps we should all just stick with the book.

Too bad the director and screenwriters couldn't have done their jobs properly.