ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

ctomvelu1 Is it a rule that TV adaptations of classic fantasy/sci-fi novels have to be boring or reworked as to be virtually unrecognizable? Both are true in the case of this Canadian-lensed version of an Ursula K. LeGuin novel. The acting is wooden, the plot reworked beyond repair, and the whole thing simply lifeless. It involves a young wizard in training (Shawn Ashmore with a 1950s perm) who is destined to be the greatest wizard of all. Danny Glover has a small role as the kid's first mentor. The head of the wizard school looks way too much like Dumbledore, which is to say they both resemble Merlin, which I suppose cannot be helped when dealing with magicians and wizards. I seem to recall a British or PBS adaptation of another LeGuin novel, LATHE OF HEAVEN, many years ago. There actually were two TV adaptations of that groundbreaking novel, I think. Maybe you should check one of those out instead of wasting your time with this. Better yet, read some LeGuin. She was a writer of modernist sci-fi and fantasy, and sad to say is largely forgotten today. Ditto Philip Farmer, whose RIVERWORLD saga was made an equal mess of on TV.

cornel_ch I simply feel I cannot talk about this movie too much. I prefer to go and take the book and read it again. But I will fill in the minimum lines. It is awful. How come can you imagine changing that much is OK? And to change the names??? What/Who in the name of God made you think that is OK? And the idea I don't understand is why the real story was not followed to the end? Making a movie is always difficult cause you have less time than you need. But this movie was made long, with enough time to put in all the needed points, with some time to make the viewer understand these marker points. So, LOTR was bigger and they made it in 3 full movies. And it was very nice. So, taking a book half one LOTR volume and put it in 3 hours and do that mess...incredible. Where is this world going to? Everything SO commercial.

ohjohnsmall I've read the Earthsea Trilogy ten times. Three small books, but gorgeous, and outshining The Lord of the Rings (which I also love)... rich, thoughtful, vivid. I recommend it to all readers even those who say they have no interest in fantasy.So... I netflixed Earthsea with some trepidation. Rightly so. It's dreadful. The character of Ged is entirely lost from the opening scene. The slangy off the cuff American Accented Dialogue is truly awful. I'm stunned that books so good could be adapted so profoundly badly. 45 minutes is all I can stand. Sorry if you liked it. Please read the books.

David Daniel Ball The Wizard of Earthsea entered my life while I was an adolescent, lonely and missing direction. The text provides a moral obstacle course in a fantasy setting which sidesteps the silly moralising of much fantasy literature. I waited twenty five years to watch this, and at the age of forty, I'm very disappointed.A lot of money has gone into this, and it will be many years before another attempt is made. The essential trade offs between mediums have been made, but some decisions seem extraordinary and unnecessary. The white actors in black roles. The naming change of the principal character. The storyline.The first story, detailing the finding of some wisdom by Ged, between his home and the release of the shadow from Roke should have been the limit of this film. Instead, the need to include the beautiful Kreuk led the production to try to tell the first three stories at once. The failure of the production stems from the inability of the producer to limit the production.