The Mists of Avalon

Why can't you just consider the movie as it is, without constant beratement as to how it's not exactly like the book?

I saw the movie last night for the first time, and found the story to be compelling, the acting to be top-notch, and the sets, costumes, and music to be a perfect match for the story. It was a wonderful film in an age where most science fiction and fantasy programs are full of plot holes and various nonsensical plot devices.

You KNOW that most movies based on books never live up to the book, so why do you place such high expectations on them?? Enjoy it for what it is -- 4 hours of visual entertainment.

I for one found it a very enjoyable movie, and would highly recommend it to anyone.

Alright from what Ive read on here there has been a bunch of mixed reviews. Let me just say that this has to be one of my top 5 favorite movies. Its the type of movie that stays with you.. and you keep thinking about it days after you've watched it. I rented this at blockbuster because Im obsessed with Arthurian Legend so I was anxious to see this. Well after I saw this I had to go out and buy it a week later because I just kept thinking about it. The acting couldn't have been better(not to mention Michael Vartan and Edward Atterton are easy on the eyes as Arthur and Lancelot:) Well, after seeing the movie I ran to Barnes and Nobles and got the book..and am anxious to start reading it. And I must add that out of every Camelot movie I've ever seen(and believe me I've seen every one under the sun :) This is by far one of the best, if not the best. It also has a killer soundtrack that Im hoping to buy next..lol. So, basically any fan of Camelot legend, more than likely will enjoy it, even if you arent familiar with the legend this is probably the best movie to learn about it(personally its a bit more realistic and true to the tale than Merlin was)SO GO RENT IT! YOU"LL LIKE IT! lol

Fans of Marion Zimmer Bradley's book may wish to carry a barf bag for this one. I realize that time constraints will not allow for the detail that made Bradley's novel so striking. This does not, however, excuse changes that contradict the book. Important details are overlooked, though readers might be able to notice key lines and fill in the background. Overall, this was a very poor adaptation of the book with lackluster characterizations.

The legend of King Arthur has been retold enough times that no single version of it is sacred. This explores the notion that Arthur is king "at a time when the gods were changing" (to paraphrase James Michener) and that the mystical women of Avalon (and not Merlin) are the real force behind the events of Camelot. The attempt to unite pagans and Christians under one king may seem like a very contemporary issue, but it is a human universal and one that has been repeated throughout history.

It's a shame that most viewers will see this interrupted with commercials; it's a beautifully moody film with lots of excellent photography, sets, and costumes (even if the latter look a little too Medieval for accuracy). The performances are generally good, with a few over-the-top lines and gestures.

PARENTAL ADVISORY: This film contains violence and sexual situations unsuitable for children under 15. Additionally, it is sufficiently cerebral that anyone under that age might not be engaged by it and as such might not be appreciated by newcomers to this legend.

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.