Excellent adaptation.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

I was looking for a new TV show to watch when a friend of mine told me about the Pillars of the Earth and recommended it. After watching it for ten minutes, I was already in love with the characters and the plot. It totally amazed me until the last episode: the story is so well constructed, the realism of life in middle age so well implied, I was caught in it in the blink of an eye. I strongly recommend this show, as well as Ken Follett's original novel, to anyone wishing to see something different from modern and traditional American series. This one is a real outstanding masterpiece. However, I was a bit disappointed with season 2. While season 1 was totally inspired by Follett's novel, season 2 seems to be a marketing product with less authenticity, and left me quite frustrated because of its banality. But it is still worth being seen, though.

That is what me and my significant other call this exhausting tripe of a show. Its only redeeming quality is the music - the wonderful Gregorian chants have really been the high point of several episodes. Other than that, it's just gratuitous nudity, unnecessary violence, incest that apparently wasn't in the book, and uneven progression of the story. Bishop Waleran was the most enjoyable character, mostly for being so ambitious and uncompromising, albeit very flat and predictable. All in all, for a show set in the Middle Ages, it felt like watching a soap about a hippie commune in the 21st century - not what I expected or wanted to see.

First of all, I haven't read the book, this is my opinion solely on the series. I do however plan to read the book, since many other reviewers praise it so much.I guess it was a mistake to watch this right after I finished watching Game of Thrones. This is NO Game of Thrones. It is also set in the Middle Ages, but it is not "dark" enough. There is also some bloodshed, but it is nowhere close to the gore in Game of Thrones. And there is some sex in it, but again, that was more fairy tale -ish love, it was not really sexy...There are many flaws in this series, flaws that even someone not familiar with British medieval history, like myself, can notice. Stuff like how the dialogue got so out of place at certain points it made me laugh. Or how after Aliena and Richard are stripped of their title and castle, Aliena decides to make money by working as a merchant. So she just trades fur and just gets rich. Like everybody else around was just stupid and didn't think to work and earn money. She, a woman in the Middle Ages, a princess who had never worked in her entire life, could just do it.Another thing that bothered me was that the actors did not look convincingly medieval, they looked like modern people in an odd setting. I am not sure why... Maybe their make-up, or the way they talked, or the way they carried themselves in general? I cannot really place it, but they felt odd. Especially Ellen. Every scene she was in felt like I had just found Waldo! Not to mention the fact that they weren't aging... The plot covers something like 15 years, yet Ellen looks 30 when her son is 18, and 30 when her son is 30. Another problem with the casting was Alison Pill as Maud. I kept waiting for her to start playing the drums or something! She looked nothing like a medieval Queen.Moreover, this is a clear case of the good guys fighting the bad guys. The bad guys' sole reason of existence is to do bad things to the good guys. Why? We are given some reasons in the beginning, but at the middle of the series I had to try and remember what the reasons were. They seemed to do "bad" things because they enjoyed being mean. And the line "who do you hate the most?" just stresses this. It was like the Queen in Snow White asking her mirror who is the prettiest. The villains in this series are equivalent to villains from a Disney movie. No depth and no character whatsoever.The story revolving around the character of Richard also gives many opportunities for "whaaat...?"s. He was a total coward at first and then miraculously turned to the greatest knight in the kingdom, all because he went to train in France. How exactly did this happen? Then he fought for King Stephen, the one who executed his father for treason. Instead of Maud, the one his father tried to help. And so on.Why I gave this a seven then? Well, despite its flaws, I actually enjoyed it! I liked the many different character plots connected around the building of the Cathedral. Every time I visit a medieval Cathedral I wonder and try to picture its story... How it was used originally, how did they manage to build it. And I know this is not a historically correct answer, but it's a perfectly suitable fictional one. And as far as television making goes, this had a little bit of everything: numerous characters to like or dislike, love, fighting, treason, plotting. And okay I admit, I do have a soft spot for Eddie Redmayne. Even though his character comes out a bit inefficient at times, if not stupid.This is light entertainment, not history, and if you are looking for a fun way to spend a few evenings, it is a nice choice. Not a great one, but good enough.

Ken Follett's lengthy historical novel THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH is far too intricate to adapt into a feature-length production, so producers instead opted for this miniseries treatment which gives a full 8 hours to the plotting. And, quite simply, it's wonderful. THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH has it all and is up there with the best miniseries of all time – I'm thinking BAND OF BROTHERS et al. From the very first episode I was engrossed in the wonderful storyline which brings history to life via living, breathing characters caught up in intrigue, danger and romance.As somebody who hadn't read the novel previously, I had no idea what to expect. There's the usual historical backdrop stuff of warring kings and queens and battlefield showdowns, but the miniseries works so well because it focuses on the interactions between a dozen or so major characters. The thrust of the story concerns building a cathedral, but into this comes a myriad themes: drive, ambition, jealousy, love, possessiveness, religion, anger, hatred, incest, desire, and everything else besides. Essentially this is a production that explores the human condition in serious depth.The casting is excellent: Ian McShane excels as the sinister, plotting man of the cloth, Bishop Waleran, while Matthew Macfadyen is similarly fine as his nemesis, the pious Prior Philip. We get solid turns from seasoned veterans like Donald Sutherland and Rufus Sewell mixed with upbeat and engaging performances from the likes of Eddie Redmayne and Hayley Atwell, both of whom shine (especially the glorious Atwell). Although this is made for television, the battle sequences are realistic and bloody and there are strong scenarios involving rape, incest and murder which you don't see coming.Leading characters are bumped off in unbelievable plot twists and none of the eight episodes flag, each serving to add to the mystery and leave you wanting to find out what happens next. By the end, I was breathless and a changed man: I felt like I'd had my eyes opened, similar to when I saw the LORD OF THE RINGS films for the first time. This is definitely the best thing I've seen all year, and indeed one of my favourite productions of all time. If only Ridley Scott would put more effort into producing stuff like this instead of wasting his time with the Hollywood-ized likes of ROBIN HOOD