Own the rights?
29 out of 37 people found the following review useful: Enchanting, Fascinating, and Beautiful, 16 July 2001 Author: silversprings-1 from Arkansas
Over the past two nights, I was carried away to Avalon and Camelot. Even though I've seen virtually every version of the Arthurian legends ever filmed, and was a bit hesitant about seeing yet another, this was a winner! Being told through the eyes of the women involved, who are generally reduced to Guinevere, Morgana (aka Morgaine), and the Lady of the Lake's arm in most tellings, made this completely an original. I must admit that I have never been a great fan of Juliana Margulies, even though I've watched ER since it first aired, but she was wonderful as Morgaine in this. Joan Allen and Anjelica Huston gave performances worthy of the Oscars they've been nominated for, and Samantha Mathis as the ill-fated Guinevere was heartbreaking. As a final note, I believe the casting director definitely merits an Emmy, since the little girl who played young Morgaine looked EXACTLY like a pre-teen version of Juliana, and Hans Matheson, who played the evil Mordred, Morgaine's son, couldn't have resembled Juliana more if she'd have really given birth to him! As an enchanting, mythological fantasy tale, I recommend it to anyone over 14, due to a slightly graphic (necessary) sexual scene dealing with incest and one of a menage a trois nature.
28 out of 37 people found the following review useful: Worthy adaptation of a priceless book, 8 March 2005 Author: David Lee (zeupater) from United States
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.
29 out of 39 people found the following review useful: great movie, 29 November 2004 Author: nbown from Nunawading, Australia
I have some advantage in NOT reading the book -therefore watched the movie in its own right . As it started off as a TV mini series - I decided to watch maybe half at one sitting , but hey , from the first 5 minutes it was just totally engrossing viewing , and I saw all 3 hours plus in one sitting . And what a story ! -The characters were clear and bold -the acting was just wonderful -almost Shakespearean at times in its intensity -The photography and scenery - just stunning - As a person with an interest in history and legends - I found the story line quite remarkable and perhaps the best retelling of the Arthurian legends I have encountered. The author of the book had so obviously done her homework .The soundtrack alone was worth the cost of the DVD . The depiction of the ancient mother earth religion is most beautiful to behold , and has to be a highlight of the movie for me . A GREAT movie indeed !
27 out of 40 people found the following review useful: The best tale of Camalot yet!, 30 July 2001 Author: Whitney (cherqueen9@aol.com) from Atlanta
At first, I thought that "The Mists of Avalon" would be just like every other tale told of Camalot, but I was blown away by the originality of this story. It is told by the woman who has always been viewed as the villan, Morgaine. It is mainly about the struggle that the followers of the mother goddess go through as Christianity spreads through Britain. It focuses more on the mystical ways of Avalon and less on Camalot, making it different from most stories. The performance of Anjelica Huston will blow you away. It is one of her best films yet. Contains a great cast and beautiful scenery. It's a must see, and would best be viewed without commercials to interrupt.
20 out of 30 people found the following review useful: Barely based on a marvelous book, 17 July 2001 Author: fianadr from USA
Now, to be fair, I just reread the book and had such high hopes for this adaptation that I was probably bound to be disappointed. Gwen, asking if she can spend some time in Avalon with Lance? The sword in the stone? Uther built Camelot? Baby Arthur's freaky cornrows? Why not have Arthur recognize Morgaine at his kingmaking? Is being a priestess all about starting fires with your eyes, controlling the weather, and casting hexes on your enemies?So I had a really hard time reconciling the characters in my head with what I was seeing on the screen. I really should just have myself cryogenically frozen until the Fellowship of the Ring comes out in December. I'm confident that *that's* going to be done right, and I take things like this mistreatment (my humble, Mists-of-Avalon-freak opinion) of one of my favorite books of all time waaaaay too personally. I honestly could go on and on and on, but I think I sufficiently vented last night with my similarly upset friends. I could hear MZB whirling around in her grave.
10 out of 15 people found the following review useful: Passion. Mysticism. Adventure. Journey beyond the legend of Camelot., 30 March 2006 Author: Jessica Kolk from Brazil
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When I watch ''The Mists of Avalon'', I always try to think that this is a movie version, and all the reasons why the story was changed was because of it would be impossible to tell all the story from the books in just one movie. (It would be better if it was a trilogy, like Lord of the Rings in my opinion)The movie itself is good. Not great, but good. The main theme is about the ''Old Religion'',more know as Paganism, trying to resist the big amount of people becoming Christians in the old times. The end of the movie,does not have much in common with the end of the books, as well as many facts and even characters doesn't have a significant importance or even are not mentioned in the film.In the Mists of Avalon,different from many classic versions of the Arthurian legends like ''Merlin'', we have a good Morgaine, a pagan Uther,an annoying and detestable Gwenwyfar(Guinevere), as well as different facts, like Lancelot being Morgaine's and Arthur's cousin, the lady of the lake is Morgaine's aunt and the existence of Morgause, a real villain of the story. Looking more real in some facts, the Mists of Avalon has women having a real power,specially concerning the priestesses. I think the movie is worthwhile,but the books are much better.aka "As Brumas de Avalon" - Brazil
12 out of 19 people found the following review useful: Wow!!! As they say, behind every great man is a great woman - or two or three., 16 July 2001 Author: vepope
I first read the book about two years ago, and loved the re-telling of the Legend of King Arthur from the female point-of-view. However, due to it's length, and detail, I doubted that it could be done on film. Boy, was I ever wrong!First, I must comment on the casting. I have always enjoyed Juliane Margulies in ER, and Angelica Huston in everything she has done, but they both eclipse their former work with the quality delivered here. There is a scene near the end of part one where they get into an argument, and the emotion is so RAW that I nearly called 911! Terrific! Next, major cudo's to the set and design people. The costumes are well done and true to period (almost - it depends on whether you hold with Camelot being dated to the mid 400's AD or the 1400's AD). Next, the scene with Arthur & Morgaine at the Beltaine feast, where they are in costume and unaware of each other's identity, was very cleverly done. I liked the details on the wall of the chamber, and the markings on Juliana's face, arms, and legs. Nicely done.All together, this is a fairly faithful reproduction of the book, and a story worth taking the time to watch.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: A fantastic book translated into a fantastic movie, 21 July 2001 Author: MrcnBty (MrcnBty@aol.com) from San Francisco, CA
The movie version translates Marion's story into an epoch available to a wide audience. Angelica Houston gives an awesome performance as the Lady of the Lake, and the tension between Pagans and Christians was brought to vivid and painful life. If you like Arthurian legend, or have Pagan interests at all, this movie is definitely for you.
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Extremely Poor 'Adaptation' Totally Misses The Mark, 19 July 2001 Author: Marzell Holmes from Long Beach, California
This TV mini-series is an extremely poorly written exercise, one that utterly subverts the point of the novel on which it is based. And please do not think that I am some fanatical devotee of the book -- I found that it had plenty of flaws, but at least it had a point. This hack job misinterprets or leaves out just about every important aspect of the book.The story has been rewritten and greatly condensed, and I understand the need to trim things out in order to fit it into four hours. What is unforgivable is that screenwriter Gavin Scott has turned Bradley's novel on its ear. He's deftly disposed of almost all of the Pagan/Christian conflict, often making it seem as if the main threat to Avalon is the Saxon invasion. If you are not willing to portray the Christians as the ostensible bad guys in the piece, why even attempt to film this tale? And in order to simplify things for the audience, Joan Allen's Morgause is turned into a full-scale witch and evil doer. Apparently they felt the need to have someone to root against, but instead of making it the traitorous Arthur, his religion-addled Gwenhwyver and the turncoat Merlin Kevin Harper -- as it is in the book -- Morgause takes the blame for everything bad that happens here. It's a particularly gutless and feeble switch.Having Morgaine find aid and help at the convent near the end of the film is a special slap in the face to anyone who understood the book. That Morgaine would take refuge under the auspices of the very forces of intolerance that she's been harried by throughout the story shows that no one involved in the production seems to have grasped the Church's critical -- and negative -- role in the book.Leaving the destruction of the plot alone, the production values were nice enough -- some great capes! The casting was especially bad, though. Joan Allen as a teenager?!?! And Michael Vartan as Lancelot is quite poor -- this guy's supposed to be an irresistible man of action, but Vartan plays him as a dour and stony-faced simp. And who was it that gave that horrid dishwater-blonde wig to Samantha Mathis???All in all, this is an amazingly distorted, poorly rendered version of the story as presented by Bradley. If the producers just wanted to make their own silly version of the Arthurian legend, why did they feel the need to buy the rights to Bradley's novel? They sure didn't film it.
10 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Once bitten, twice shy, 7 January 2003 Author: heliamphora from New Zealand
My first viewing of this film adaptation was an enjoyable enough experience, during which I took in some of its more favourable elements such as the impressive clothing and settings. I did however watch with a strong apprehension, having read the book before seeing the mini-series; I didn't hold out much hope for a faithful adaptation.I recently re-watched it, and I believe this apprehension was justified, as I could not, unfortunately, see past the bad elements. I cringe when I think that people who haven't read the original book might think that the story of the film was the story that Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote. The book was profound, and it stood out as a new feminine perspective of the Arthurian legend, taking all the exaggerated mythical magic, deception and melodrama and turning them into believable humanity, with a respectful portrayal of spirituality both Christian and Pagan.One can't expect too much from a made-for-TV version of any story. Quite often they are glamourised so that very little subtlety shows, and the whole turns out to be obvious and even cheesy. I understand this, and I just wish that they had not bothered to make a mini-series of this wonderful book. It seemed to take a step backwards into those exaggerated myths of old, with treachery and villains added in, distracting the viewer from the worthwhile plot. I can only hope that the film might engage people's curiosity into reading the book. I encourage you to do this - you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Add another review
