User Reviews

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

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.

TNT's adaptation of the legend of King Arthur is one of the best. The acting, with a couple of exceptions, is very good, with Edward Atterton providing the best portayal of King Arthur that I have seen on film so far. He is exactly as I pictured Arthur during all those years that I have been an Arthurian myth fanatic.

Much has been made about the fact that the movie is not true to the book, which I just finished reading one week ago. While it is true that the differences between the book and the movie are fairly extensive, the movie claims to be only "based" on Bradley's book. Ironically, those parts of the movie that some people found sillest or most offensive were those most true to the book. For example, if you look in the book, you will find that King Arthur does in fact suggest to Gwenyfar (sp?) and Lancelet that the three of them sleep together, and that in the end Morgaine does accept the Virgin Mary as the personification of the Goddess.

The biggest differences between the movie and the book are in the portrayals of Morgaine and Mordred. Morgaine's character is portrayed in a much more likeable way in the movie than in the book, for Bradley's Morgaine is ruthless in her devotion to the Goddess, and not the loyal and loving sister that she is in the movie. Mordred, on the other hand, is much more likeable in the book, but that leaves him not as interesting as in the movie.

On a whole, I liked the book a bit more, which is saying alot considering how I feel about the movie.

Usually I would be one to pass on a made for tv movie, but as a fan of Zimmer Bradly, I would have been foolish to miss the dramatization of 'THE MISTS OF AVALON.'

SPOILERS



At the end of the first half, I suffered an array of emotions. For one, I was spellbound by the cast- Morgaine could not have been played better, and all of the men were picked true to the novel. Joan Allen was delightfully wicked and Angelica Huston pure brilliance as Viviane.

But this is not my point. Though the costumes, scenery and cast were all well, there were major plot holes and plot changes in the story that left me a tad angry.

If anyone who read the book will remember, Morgause did not kill Viviane- the unmentioned (in the mini) Balin did, out of grief and a kind of madness. Also, after the Beltane fires, Morgaine and Arthur discovered that they had slept together as the King Stag and the Goddess- in the mini series it was not so.

These are the two biggest leaps of faith that the series took. Another being that Morgaine and Lancelot made love in the novel but not in the series. And Gwynhefar was far underplayed by Mathis, though she did not do a horrible job.

I suppose I have to say that on a sliding scale, the movie was a six out of ten- above average but sorely missing key points. The four hours of the series seemed at times wasted, and for all they tried, they could not replicate the feeling of the book.

I don't think Gavin Scott was the right person for the teleplay. I was hoping a fan or someone who had worked with MZB would do the teleplay.

To be blunt - I'm surprised a woman didn't write it!

Overall, for a TV movie I'd call it good despite the flaws. I really don't think it kept the spirit of the book in mind, so as a stand alone fantasy TV movie I think it was well done, its just to bad that non readers didn't' get some of the important motivations that made the book so good.

Things they got wrong: First of all if you have read the book you know that it is done in three parts, relatively equal in size, so why wasn't this a three part miniseries? Second, why did they change Morgaine and Arthur's Beltane experience? The movie got that Morgaine bore the burden of Modred by herself, but the actual event was much harder on Arthur, and this in fact creates the motivation for him turning towards Christianity! Also, this provides the reason for him thinking that Gwenevere's barrenness is his fault. Third is the relationship of Lancelot and Morgaine was missing. Lastly, there were some major casting flaws. Anjelica Huston did not suit Viviane; Viviane was a small, almost faery like, and very kind! She wasn't supposed to look like she was powerful, and she was tormented by many of the decisions she made to keep Avalon alive. Gwenevere, although not entirely a sympathetic character, really needed to be shown less friendly to her sister in law - it was a power struggle not an attention struggle between the two women. Lastly, not enough of Morgaine being a priestess, most of her motivation for travelling was that she doing her duty for Avalon, not for visiting. Oh, one more, why did the women often look scared? Raven was much stronger than that, and Morgaine was not afraid of the Stag King in the book.

Things they did get right: Morgaine, for the most part JM was a very good choice for the main character. Casting for Arthur and Lancelot were fine. Joan Allen as Morgause, despite a previous comment I think she did look ageless, and her look changed through the film, which was exactly how she was described through the book. Avalon was well done. The first scenes were right on, the meeting between Igraine and Uther were fine (other than the actor for Uther didn't so a very good job) and the scene of Uther in disguise was good.

The Arthurian legends are about heroes, MZB wrote a tale that showed heroines as well. Arthur was a myth, and the tales of him have changed so much throughout the past few centuries, this is just one more take. I think revisionist is highly inappropriate for describing this version (if that were the case we should be calling the inclusion of Lancelot as French revisionist!) The underlying story of Arthur as a noble warrior that tried to save Briton was still there, which is the reason for the myth anyway.

I enjoyed this movie, but the book is even better. However, it does make you look at the Camelot stories in a different light. Morgaine was always made out to be an evil manipulative woman out to destroy King Arthur. This story gives a totally different perspective. You get to see how she was manipulated into having relations with Arthur without her knowledge. She had Mordred taken from her and raised by her sister to be a man who only wanted to destroy Arthur and Morgaine in order to take the throne and have power. In the end, Morgaine was the only person who truly cared about Arthur and made sure to take him home to Avalon at his death.

This movie was tiresome, and extremely tragic. It provided the viewer with nothing to believe in besides himself, without any good reasons that that is a good thing to do. Guilt and fear run throughout the story, and an overly acute sense of heirlessness do not give enough oomph to produce a strong plot.

The spiritual side of the drama provides no focus for the action, nor hope to give the movie heart. The conflict between the pagan religion and Christianity is in the forefront, but the viewer is confused as to which he should prefer. Should he love the old pagan religion, that curses the queen to childlessness, and makes an heir out of incest? Or should he love Christianity, which seems in this movie to be a guilt trip put on us by the priests? Being at a loss for an answer, it seems to leave us with the conclusion that we are left in this world to make what of it what we may (I dare say a theme far too common in adventure movies these days). On the one side, this is convenient, since then I do not need to be concerned for right and wrong. However, in practice this does not add up, since adultery is still really wrong, even if it was actually condoned by the king himself!? But the worst part of this godless world where one has to survive on his own, is that man does such a great job ruining his life, in this movie. Incest, death in the family, jealousy, adultery, barrenness, betrayal, curses, and an outrageous amount of focus on the lack of an heir seem to be all that he can produce in this life without any true hope in something eternal, or at least supernatural.

Criticism aside, many other aspects of the movie, such as characters, acting, and effects, and music, these are all great, in my opinion. More than expected for a TV movie, for sure. This is why I have rated it with six stars, not with five.

Something else which bothered me was the amount of focus on the intrigues surrounding the king's son. I think that focusing on this, and building so much drama around this point is in principle a wrong equation for suspense. It is sort of like having a story be not about wealth, but poverty. Because the heir was actually sort of the greatest form of equity, and real wealth, that a king could have. And then, when the negative suspense is resolved, of who is going to take the king's place when he is gone, the actual heir reveals himself to worse than no heir at all! A mixed signal to the analytical mind who could come up with this motto: Who wants to have kids, if they sometimes wind up betraying their own parents? So much emptiness, contrary to expectation.

Although I normally like adventure movies, and don't need to have adrenaline rushing through me to enjoy a movie, for me, this movie lacked the driving motive of a compelling story, with too much focus on the mundane and the morbid, leaving me craving something which never emerged from the fog. Well done, with great acting, and good effects may be to its credit, but the raw materials of the story, and mainly the focus of the drama, is so tragic and hopeless, making this movie, at least for me, hard to enjoy.

The Mists of Avalon (2001): Starring Angelica Houston, Joan Allen, Julianna Margulies, Michael Byrne, Edward Atterton, Samantha Mathis, Michael Vartan, Hans Matheson, Mark Lewis Jones, Clive Russell, Ian Duncan, David Calder, John Comer, Tony Curran, Karel Dobry, Biddy Hodson, Noah Huntley, Klara Issova, Edward Jewsbury, Christopher Fulford, Hugh Ross....Director Uli Edel...Screenplay Gavin Scott.

Based on the popular novels by Marion Zimmer Bradley, "Mists of Avalon" was adapted into a successful, cable mini-series that nevertheless strayed from the original literary source but turned out to be a grand cinematic affair, complete with a superb and talented cast, stunning visual effects and artistic direction. The familiar legend of King Arthur, Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table is approached in a radically different manner. It has been revised so as to appear closer to the historical period where the myth of Arthur developed, the time of the warring Anglos and Saxons, as well as revised so that the female characters that figure in the legends are even more significant. Angelica Houston delivers a strong performance as the spiritual, matriarch figure "Lady of the Lake Vivien", the High Prietess of Avalon. Avalon is an eternally beautiful island, hidden in the mists, where the ancient, mysterious, primeval Goddess is worshipped. She has under her tutelege two women- Morgaine (Julianna Margulies) who is the most qualified to succeed her as High Priestess, and the darker, more ambitious sorceress Morgause (Joan Allen). While much of the same content from the old legends remain intact - i.e. Uther Pendragon beds Igraine to conceive Arthur, Arthur grows up to be king after receiving the sword Excalibur, Lancelot and Guenevere are accused of committing adultery and treason, Mordred battles Arthur, the wounded and dying Arthur is transported to Avalon - the events are manipulated behind-the-scenes by the cunning magic and influence of the women, each who have wills of their own and envision a Camelot of their own making. Morgaine and Arthur commit incest without knowing it during a pagan fertility ritual, the result of this union is the evil Mordred, who is himself reared to be king by the evil Morgause. King Arthur (Edward Atterton) finds that he loves both his friend and champion knight Lancelot (Michael Vartan) and his wife Guenevere who is bitter because she cannot bare his children. The result of this- a threesome between the three of them. Guenevere (Samantha Mathis) finds that she cannot have children, cannot have a proper husband in a king with too many loads on his back, nor a lover in Lancelot, so she retires to a convent. Morgaine learns to value spiritual matters over material ones, and throughout the film grows as a woman. Despite the attempt at a feminist version of the Arthur saga, the women cannot take matters into their own hands and instead scheme and use witchcraft to do their work, far from true feminism in which a woman proves herself worthy on her own. But even with this turn-off, the film is excessively beautiful and contains a magical, mysterious quality that takes you to another world and time. With music by Lee Holdrige and Loreena McKennitt, a popular Celtic-blooded singer of the late 90's, this is a story of interest to women, Arthurian legend lovers and Wiccans whose rites, like Beltane as depicted in the movie, are still very much a part of their religion. This movie is powerful, emotional and perhaps the only real fault is that, as many viewers have noted, the series stray from the original novel.

It's been almost five years since I read the book, so my memory on the original story is a bit dim.

The movie was a lot better than I believed it would be, and although the plot makes huge jumps and goes on really fast at times I was still very entertained the whole way through. Or maybe entertained isn't the right word to describe the experience, since the story isn't exactly a very happy one.

Casting was mostly good. The actor of Morgaine did the role very well (hmm also being super hot all the while... ahem), as did Mordred's. It's amazing how much the actor managed to squeeze from the scant lines he was given in the movie. Arthur was also good as this somewhat gullible, very sincere person that was brought down by the people around him that he loved & trusted. Except that there wasn't really any air of command around him, he just didn't seem like this radiant personality he was supposed to be. Most others were at least fine, but I didn't like Anjelica Huston as Vivianne too much. Maybe if she didn't look like a burnt out hippie on crack for the whole movie, I could have concentrated more on the portrayal of her character. Now she just didn't fit in really.

Obviously a lot was cut out, so there's not really any point in complaining about that... Well. In the end they DID make some rather awkward shortcuts, like the whole scene of Morgaine returning to Camelot with Mordred holding court there. Just horrible :P

Considering that this is a TV production, the audiovisuals in the movie are very acceptable. I also liked that the props were mostly quite down to earth and believable. No knights running around in shiny plate mail here :) And people do get old and get tired during the course of the story. Some parts were a bit suspect though... The Avalon priestesses with their silly tie-dye hippie new age gear were almost downright laughable, as were some of the female leads' gowns and stuff. The soundtrack was very good, and fit the new agey theme well with all the sarangis and other accidental occidental-isms... And gotta love Loreena McKennit anyway!

I liked the first half better than the end, especially the last 20 minutes or so just didn't work. Somehow I was left with the impression that the director originally wanted one 60 minute episode more, but had to cut it and shoot through the whole second half of the story with way too much speed.

I also liked the way how the personalities & relationships were the focus of the story. Yup, Zimmer Bradley's stories might be a bit of soap, but they still are refreshing when compared to these "Woman waits at home. Man goes out to kills orcs & goons. Man returns. And then they pork (except that we're spared this since the writer is some utter puritan)"-stories that Tolkien & co have churned out.

But, really, how CAN you spoil this story? I've read a few versions of the story, and you really WOULD have to try to lose all the drama...

OK, next I've just GOT to see King Arthur 2004 with Gwenhywfar (sp? goddamn welsh is sick) the warrior princess and whatnot ;D