Very Cool!!!

Please don't spend money on this.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Le Guin distanced herself from this garbage from the start. But barring an escape to the marvelous realm she created, no distance is far enough. I watched as much as I could, and that solely to answer one question: was the original too expensive to be done properly? Had to be, because there is no other excuse. I'm guessing the screenwriter was handed a synopsis, told to throw in a couple of babes, and hope that one-time viewers would support the project.Danny Glover must have signed on as a fan, been given a significant alas refundable front fee. Read the script. Vomited. But at least was secure in the knowledge few would watch it, and none would remember it.Do not buy this. Don't watch it, even if it's free. If you must watch it, demand payment yourself. Upfront. Refundable.Spend the hour reading, re-reading, or re!reading the book. Or listen to the audio book, which is great.

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.

I saw this mini series a couple of years ago after searching on the internet and found this film adaptation from Canada (I live in England) and I though 'great' so I bittor... err... obtained a copy and watched it all - I'm not sure how - in abject horror.Now there are numerous comments here - the majority in fact - which will tell your if you even got to reading THIS review, why it invokes such horror. Now I'm not a fan of Le Guinn, I've only read the first 'Wizard' book, not even the series. It follows a young wizard called Sparrowhawk through his life's trials as he sails around earthsea, a fictitious archipelago from ages old. It's a fairly straightforward story. However, it's such an extraordinarily exquisite and authentic experience it's emotional simply through the quality of the composition of the narrative itself, story content aside. I'm not an obsessed fan, I just know when something is really good, and this TV production ON ITS OWN was the typical trash you see on TV every day (except I quit watching TV in 1999 so I don't have to suffer) - in that sense it's fairly normal, and OK production. But in comparison to the story it's allegedly based on it's such an immense, indescribably travesty that, - well, I can't describe it. It should never have been made. They should have made a film of some talented unknown young (or old) fantasy writer in Canada instead.Why should this matter? It doesn't really does it. However as one previous reviewer said, quite rightly: "...its almost impossible for filmmakers to make a movie about a loved book without disappointing their fans." I have to disagree with other texts in this 'genre' however - Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Narnia - all clearly with staggering budgets of course and various contract obligations obviously in the case of the irritating though opportunistic and hard working Rowling. They did stick verbatim to the story lines.Anyway I don't have time to slate this really, I'm only reviewing it to give it the one star it doesn't even deserve to take the average rating down, it's much too high because of all these people who don't know any better reviewing it without having knowledge of the book. I know, it's anal, in any other case I'd really not bother, Rowling, CS Lewis (the g@y tw@t, I wish his publisher had sacked him) Pullman, even Tolkein, any book, I don't really care, I'd enjoy the book, and/or enjoy the film, or not. However there's something kinda special about this book - not spectacular, just really tight storytelling. Well you can read it and find out. This TV adaptation is agonising.My main beef is that, Lord of the Rings aside (obviously) This book, A Wizard of Earthsea, is the most worthy of making into a really long, really expensive film - more than anything by CS Lewis or Rowling (she seems to have taken the main premise of her Potter books FROM Wizard of Earthsea in fact, the magicians school.Rant over. If you've not seen this production, never see it, watch Moonacre or Stardust or something, and buy Le Guinn's books.

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.