The Mists of Avalon (2001)

Don't waste you mone and time! Get the Book, it's more conscise, and worth the time and money, you'd spend with this product!

As an avid fan of the original MZB masterpiece, I was truly saddened, disgusted, and furious, at what these Hacks (the Writer's, Producers, Editors, Costume Designers [were totally anacronistic in what thy came up with, btw], and Studio Execs.) did to such an excellent work.

I mean really! Just where do they get off by totally changing almost everythin that was/is contained in the book, into what was/is presented??? I'd sure like to know.

Although, I do applaud all the actors involved. Givren what they were given, they truly triumphed. And I do agree with the other poster on the "Heighth Issue", except, my research into this issuue, has led me to think/know, that they weren't "Fariy" born, but rather "Elven, or remanants of the Tuattha de Dannan, which ruled Western Briton, Scotland, and Wales, long after theie immigration from Atlantis (which cntinued as Avalon, in several locales in the Britiish Isles, on/in a bridge between the 3'rd and 4th Densitys/Dimensions), and after their expulsion from Ireland, both befoor, during, and after the Roman occupation. Avalon being aligned with The Goddess, and the Temples of Isis, was spared and embraced by the Romans, yet reviled by the early Christian Church authorities. And Avalon was aslso a place of refuge for some of the more circumspect Druids, as well as a protectorate of the Picts, against the romans... Which is alluded to in MZB's book, as the Lady of the Lake, freely crosses Hadrian's Wall, whenever she goes to the Orkney's, and to, but not mentioned by MZB, Avalon's sattellite locale in the Allan Water's area of Stirlingshire, Scotland. September 22, 2008

Good movie

Good cast. Could have stayed closer to the book, but all-in-all a good way to spend your time. September 16, 2008

Legend

I have always loved the Arthurian legend, this is just another twist. A movie well worth watching, but send the kids to bed. August 29, 2008

a big disappointment after the great book, but OK on its own

To be honest, I did not think that 3 hours could encompass the incredible depth and complexity of Bradley's masterwork. But I got this out of curiosity and because my kids would probably enjoy it. I am sorry to report that this film barely sufficed to hold my interest - I constantly thought back with disappointment to the book I read (and vividly remember from) nearly 20 years ago, which had phenomenal character development and covered every aspect the Arthur myth from a new point of view. Nonetheless, I feel that this film requires a careful review on its own.

The theme of the story is the collision of two religions, one the pagan earth goddess and the other christian monotheism. Morgaine, long portrayed as an evil heathen, is the most sympathetic actor in this version, both a victim of political machination and also a fighter to preserve the old religion. Julianna Margulies is a truly wonderful Morgaine, too beautiful perhaps, but she really gets the character. The problem is that the film if too short to chart her evolution, from acolyte to rebel to leader, all the time recognizing the tragedy as it unfolds so inexorably. The same can be said of Huston, who is a wonderful Viviane (ruthless, loving, desperate, majestic), and Allen as the cold and ambitious Morgause. The only way they could have succeeded would have been to triple the time of the film. The film also succeeds in placing the men on the side - less aware of the forces at play than as men of action. The male actors, all of whom are lesser known than the three female stars, are all very good.

That being said, as it progresses, the film is less and less faithful to the novel, again in part because it has to truncate the plots, shrink back the themes, and eliminate characters. For example, in the book, Merlin is succeeded by a crippled musician who becomes Morgaine's lover for years; he then concludes that the religion is finished, hands over the pagan chalice that is transmogrified into the holy grail in a transcendently sad scene of religious vision, and his punishment is death. That is such a rich episode that you could make an entire film just of that. There is another scene in the book that I recall, in which Mordred and Lancelot duel in a tournament, which exhausts and humiliates the aging Lancelot, signaling a passage that the witnesses instantly recognize. Again, this kind of character development is impossible in the short time available.

In the end, I would recommend this version to those who have not read the book - but only as way to get them to read the book. July 26, 2008

a half good movie

The first half of the movie was great and followed the book pretty well. Unfortunately I realized that it had only covered about the first quarter of the book. Ted Turner obviously decided to solve the problem by completely changing the ending and thus the entire tone of the movie. If Bradley were alive I'm sure she'd be very disappointed in what was done to her book. The actors were not at fault and did a credible job but the writers should be hung. This should have been at least an eight to twelve part mini series not a three parter. It's a shame someone with a little more intelligence like Peter Jackson hadn't gotten the movie rights instead of Ted Turner. This man produces nothing but pablum. Bradley's book is every bit as great a novel as The Lord of the Rings and it deserved as good a treatment in the movie. That's what happens when an egomaniac decides he knows what's best. Proof positive that money can't buy you brains or good taste. July 24, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...