Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

mark.waltz It takes a bit over an hour to really start getting in this two part TV movie that attempts to take all of the characters of the Arthurian legend and turn it into something truly epic. Take everything you remember of the Lerner and Lowe musical, Disney's "The Sword and the Stone", the magical " Excalibur" and both the movie and stage versions of "The Holy Grail", aka "Spamalot". Sex it up a bit, tossing in some brother and sisterly love, a vindictive aunt, and you've got the makings of an intriguing variation of a most familiar tale, told from the point of view of the often villainized Morgan Le Fey.Other updates of classic fairy tales and legends often become misandrist in their themes, but fortunately this avoids that, giving women equal intelligence, if not equal power. While the men are evil as in brutal in battle, the evil women are calculating, turning deep into the dark arts to achieve their ends, which ends up with Arthur and sister Morgan an unknown night together and information that could lead to the destruction of Arthur's "perfect" kingdom. It also makes insinuations of Arthur allowing wife Guenevere allowance to be with Lancelot, an odd menage a tois that happens over the montage of dark arts occurring at the very same time. Of the cast, Angelica Huston adds another unique characterization to her portfolio as the aging "Lady of the Lake" who isn't evil by nature but puts some shocking plots in motion. Joan Allen is the wicked aunt who uses the information of what she knows to her advantage, the perfect villainess to move the plot forward to her benefit for a while and ultimately a fantastic destruction. This feels perfectly set in the dark ages as the civilized post Roman world tried to expand outward. It's quite a show piece, and if not satisfying consistently with other Arthur Pendragon legends (only moderately acted by the leads), it certainly knows a way of gaining and keeping the viewer's attention.

mamaharmon ...you will probably NOT enjoy the movie adaptation. Although the movie starts out well enough and I could easily ignore some of the exclusions to the story with the understanding that it was only three hours long, the changes to the plot in the last hour infuriated me. It almost seemed like they took the concept (a woman's report of the King Arthur legend) and glossed it over for a cheap rendition of the classic tale. Much of the personal strife experienced by Morgaine was glossed over and the ridiculous piousness and prejudice of Gwenevere was missing completely. One of the most moving parts of the book for me was Viviaine's demise and it was re-scripted to make it "idiot proof". The acting of the ladies particularly Anjelica Huston and Juliana Margolis was very good but the male ensemble was weak and unbelievable to me. Also one of the starkest omissions was the circumstances surrounding Gwenevere's betrothal. (no horses? what on earth?!?) Anyway to end my rambling it wasn't a great adaptation of the book, but stand alone it wasn't a terrible movie...

Jessica Carvalho 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

redlippedqueen I'll admit readily that I am a bit of a purist when it comes to books and their film counterparts. However, this film was in my opinion a horrible mishmash that left out enormous chunks of crucial information from the book. I also thought that the casting was off. Morgaine is supposed to be short and of dark complexion. It is frequently noted in Marion Zimmer Bradley's excellent novel that Morgaine is taunted for being short and dark, "Like one of the faeries." Viviane is also supposed to be short and dark. I think that Angelica Huston is a wonderful actress, but she's simply too tall and pale to be Viviane. Story and casting aside, the costumes were all wrong as well. In the book the priestesses only wear three colors: black, blue, and white. It was just too colorful. Overall, I thought that this mini-series did the book no justice and was a horrible botch of what was such an amazing and enchanting novel.