Load of rubbish!!

I'll tell you why so serious

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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.

I have not watched very much actual television over the last few years so I never know what is coming on. But one bored evening I was flipping through channels and I accidentally caught the movie on from the beginning of the film... needless to say I stopped on the channel to watch this movie instead of turning off the TV and finding something else to do as usual. I was completely impressed and captivated by The Mists of Avalon (2001).The Mists of Avalon (2001) is an impressive made for TV movie. I found myself engrossed in a soap-opera like story of Avalon/Camelot. The relationships between the characters where intriguing to me. I've never seen a more detailed story of the Arthurian legend. This movie is worthy of watching to anyone that enjoys tales of Camelot.9/10

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.

I was very excited when I learned that my favorite book, "The Mists of Avalon," was being made into a mini-series. Unfortunately, the title and characters were the only things this mini-series has in common with the book. Now I realize that this was a long book and that some parts of the storyline would have had to be sacrificed but there were major events and even a few main characters that were simply not there. The basic spirit of the story was gone and the storyline mangled almost beyond recognition. The book's author, Marion Zimmer Bradley, must surely be spinning in her grave. I believe she would be greatly disappointed with this adaptation of her truly wonderful and innovative tale of the women who were the real strength and power of Camelot. Do yourself a favor. Skip this mini-series and read the book.