The Mists of Avalon (2001)

Truly Dreadful Film

Thanks for the memories!

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

If whomever was in charge of the script & casting had actually followed the original story, this could have been fantastic. Sadly, this is another story altogether and not one that made a lot of sense. Julianna Margulies is a great Morgaine, Ian Duncan as Accolon Michael was a almost perfect fit, Michael Byrne made a good Merlin, and Klára Issová was a convincing Raven; aside from these actors, everyone else seemed either horrid & prone to overacting, sorry Ms Houston, or just wrong. Edward Atterton and Michael Vartan did well with the script that was given, but didn't pull off the roles convincingly, in my opinion that is. They both did the wimpy male thing that MZB originally wrote well, so in that sense they were true to character.Great Music, Cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is AMAZING, the costumes by James Acheson & Carlo Poggioli were pretty fantastic and Julianna Margulies are the reasons I would give for watching this film. But if you, like me, were hoping for a version of the MZB book, don't bother. Again, this is a completely different story, and not the best one either.

As the stories of Arthurian legend (maybe myth?) have evolved through re-tellings and expansions over the centuries, this retelling also goes in directions from Marion Zimmer Bradley's book, which openly created a different presentation and interpretation of the stories of Camelot. Morgan Le Fay, demonised in the Tennyson presentation where she had been a somewhat neutral character in previous renditions. Viviane had been the villain of most renditions meanwhile. I cannot profess to have read every telling over the years of the Arthurian tales, but being a student of multiple religious faiths including "English paganism" (not simply that of the Druids, but also the little people) I can see much of the potential of the book.Unfortunately, the faith issue was not the topic of the movie, nor was the ability of Arthur, first through force against the Saxons, and then through conversion to Christianity of those same Saxons, to unite England. Instead we have the Saxons still attacking at the end in the movie. Instead, we have characters as sculpted in the book presented in a low budget production with leaps in the story meant for people that haven't read the book to get a sense of the voices. Acting does accomplish some leaps over problems in the story, but read the book, read the early texts, maybe then read the Tennyson rendition.Could a big screen rendition handle this better? I doubt it would have enough time for the stories along the way, which contrary to the view of the director explain much of the book. A mini-series, as this originally was, with another two hours (this is already 183 minutes) could have better developed key aspects, such as Lancelot's marriage, and the important plotting Morgaine undertakes in Wales, as well as Gwenhwyfar's abduction and Igraine's death. Even the death of Viviane and Raven's prophecies were mishandled, losing key understandings of the different faiths. Maybe somebody with the time, budget, and in need of a sweeps blockbuster will try again, but then again, maybe the tale works only when transferred from the words on the page to the images of the mind.Maybe the best that can be done with cinema is either the musical Camelot, or Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the Arthurian tales are too broad to cover in one presentation. That said, the migratory sparrows are dropping more coconuts around here, I need to go pick them up.

Even the historical documentary would be more entertaining than this 4-hour trash. I would use the word "ponderous" to describe this show, because watching it felt like a homework assignment, instead of fun.Also, this series can't seem to make up its mind: Is it telling a true history of Arthur? Or a fantasy about magical realms? It does neither job well.Instead I would recommend you pick up the miniseries "Merlin" which more accurately portrays the Arthurian legend - a world where magic exists (the Celtic Druid mythology), and provides the foundation for the non-realistic portions of that legend (like the magic sword Excalibur & the Lady of the Lake).Skip this miniseries. It's boring drivel.troy

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 :PConsidering 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