Rating: 
Summary: A Female Point of View
Review: I really liked this because Morgan Le Fay was always touted as "the bad girl" and the cause of all the woes in Camelot and for her son's greedy upbringing. This movie puts a definate gender twist on the legend and shows her as a powerful yet loving woman who also suffers immense sorrows and heartwrenching decisions on behalf of her beloved Avalon. Perhaps this was indeed the true legend.I felt the acting was superb, and the
realistic portrayal of that time period was excellant as well.
It also stayed very close to the book which I liked.
Rating: 
Summary: Sucker for Camelot
Review: I loved this movie and have not read the books. The acting was superb! It is Camelot from the female characters perspective. Considering it was made for TV (like its Merlin counterpart) I find I am enjoying great productions made for TV better than Hollywood's blockbusters. Go figure. For a really enjoyable time, watch both Merlin and Mists. You will get a two sided approach to the same story.
Rating:
Summary: Enchanted journey into the mists...
Review: For many years I have enjoyed being brought back through time into the medieval years. Lately however my interests have focused mainly on books concerning the Arthurian legend. My first Arthurian book was The Mists of Avalon. I felt as though I was living the adventure. A few months after reading the book I was able to watch the movie version and loved it! Although some parts differ slightly from the book the basic plot and resolution is the same. The costumes and set are very realistic. It is also interesting because it is told from Morgaine's point of view, which is a much different twist from the regular tales. You follow Morgaine's life from a young girl in Cornwall all the way through to Arthur's death. The characters become real because of the amazing acting talent of all those playing roles in the movie. I highly recommend the book and the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Stick to the book!!!
Review: I should know by now that the movie verisions of my favorite books are typically a sorry disappointment --This is no exception. While I was pleasantly surprised at the Julianna Margulies' portrail of Morgaine (an actress I typically find forgetable); the actors for Lancelot, Guenevere, Aurthur and even Igraine were FAR from the rich, well-developed characters that I loved with, cried for and genuinely cared about in the novel. The adaptation took liberties in areas that were not necessary even within the time constrates of film - such as the variation on the character of Morgause and the exit of Viviane's character. If you think the movie sounds interesting- BUY THE BOOK!
Rating:
Summary: Terrific actressess and Micheal Vartan a beautiful man
Review: A beautiful movie! Julianne stunning since her departure from ER! The story line was wicked and twisted. Micheal Vartan, what can I say? You are a beautiful man and a rising star...you are versatile and acting just comes naturally too you...Loved the movie!
Rating:
Summary: If you look at it on its own...
Review: Its a good movie. However, if you watch it thinking you are going to see a dramatized version of Marion Zimmer Bradley's novel then you will be sorely disappointed. I am a huge fan of both book and movie. The movie has good acting, stunning sets and locations, and is over all breath-taking. Its the sort of movie that you just have to watch and not think about its source. If you do, you will surely love it.
Rating:
Summary: Holy Yuck.
Review: If you've read the book and still insist that Marion Zimmer Bradley would be proud of this, I think you are very very very wrong. There were more than a few problems with this series - was I looking for complete and utter dedication to the original text of the novel? No. But I was looking for at least a majority of the storyline to match up. That's not what I got. Okay, here we go - my breakdown of good and bad and all that jazz: 1) Time constraints - if this series had been given 2 more nights, perhaps things that were done TO the text would have been much improved. I can respect that having only 4 hours to fit in a bazillion pages of book is difficult (thus the 2 star rating and not the 1). Do I like what they did with those 4 hours? No, but I can respect that it made things difficult. 2) Viviane's/Morgause's death - LAME. LAME LAME LAME. Morgause doesn't even DIE in the book. STUPID AND NEEDLESS. Again, for time constraint reasons I can see why they would kill Viviane that way (Balin and Balan weren't huge enough characters to constitue devoting time to them), however, the Morgause thing was inexcusable. 3) Uther's Death - Cheesy. Melodramatic cliche. Needless adaptation of the script to try and cater to an audience looking more for General Hospital than the Mists of Avalon. 4) Casting - Lancelot is supposed to be this handsome God among men. He wasn't. At all. Arthur was supposed to be charismatic and likable. The actor portrays him as a gutless, sniveling little pained man. I didn't have too much to say about the rest of the cast, but still . . . considering those guys were two MAJOR players, this was a little bit annoying. 5) Music - Liked it. Really liked it. Good picks there. One of the few things I found truly enjoyable. 6) Mordred - Barely enough time to decide to dislike him. Very little character development makes him an ineffective bad guy. 7) Merlin/Kevin - very minimal parts. Kevin wasn't even mentioned. They were pretty important to the whole legend in general, no? OKAY, THEN WHERE DID THEY GO?
I am itching for a new, good Arthurian movie - one that won't make me want to slap people around. First Knight, Mists of Avalon . . . monstrosities. Please, somebody take the Arthurian legend and "Lord of the Ring"s it please. Wading through the cruddy Arthurian stuff is getting tired! Better luck next time.
Rating:
Summary: where's the complexity?
Review: i felt that this version of "mists of avalon," one of my favorite books, lacked so much of the complexity that the original text held. the book was very careful to blur the line between good and evil, yet the movie ignored that concept entirely, clearly labeling the "good guys" and the "bad guys." i felt that the miniseries only scratched the surface of the plot, leaving out many deeper aspects of the story. if you have any respect for the book, i do not reccoment this. however, if you are looking for a simple fantasy story, then go ahead.
Rating:
Summary: truly amazing
Review: Oh the conflict! No, I'm not talking about the Christanity vs Paganism thing, or who as the power in the world, man or woman?, but rather should this have been longer or shorter? Having never read the book, which I understand to be a great read, I had no presumptions about this movie going into the experiance. I was enthralled. This film addressed many universal issues. The first was that those who are in power, really aren't in power. On might think this is about King Arthur, but it is really about 3 sisters, two of which are vying for control of Briton, while one sister, Igrane, who is rightfully queen, uses it only when needed. The first lesson is that it is only Igrane who lives at the end. Another issue that is brought up in this film is the issue of religous and political tolerance. Mists of Avalon, makes a point that Christianity and Paganism have more in common than either side would usally like to admit. The last major theme is that there must be unity amidst diversity for any nation to survive, no matter how great. The acting in this story was superb, despite the bad special effects that really come out on DVD. The only critique that I had is despite 4 hours of material, the story still felt constrained! I would have liked Uriens and his son developed more. Nonetheless, I was, for lack of a better word, enchanted by the storytelling involved in this film.
Rating:
Summary: ACK! What have they done! WHERE IS KEVIN?
Review: When I heard that TNT would be airing a miniseries based on "The Mists of Avalon," I was, to say the least, quite apprehensive. Trying to condense a multi-layered, 876-page book into a three-hour miniseries WITH commercial breaks... it made me nervous. Sadly enough, I was right to be so worried; more so than I had hoped to be. There were many fairly important characters (such as Kevin and Nimue), and, consequently, many relationships left out that had played rather a key role in the story. The entire thing had all the passion and fire of a soap dish, and any "offensive" (see ORIGINAL) ideas and/or situations edited out. What a sad disappointment.
| 
