Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

machei I give it the two points for being pretty and making the attempt, but the end result was just so bad when considered as a whole. The first hour had me excited that they may have gotten it right, the next had me squirming in discomfort, and the last had me sorely disappointed in a way that I haven't been since the movie adaptation of "A Prayer for Owen Meany"... and that was at least a little forgivable in that Irving had the foresight to disassociate Simon Birch with the book as much as possible.This is NOT the book. This actually insults the book pretty heavily. It might have been better if they'd called it by another name and said it was "Inspired By..." or something, because saying this is based on the book is selling a bill of goods that doesn't deliver. It is about as loosely based as one could imagine.Honestly, why can't producers make a GOOD version of the Arthurian legend? Game of Thrones has proved it could be done. But this steaming pile, along with the blandly mediocre "Excalibur" seem to suggest no one is willing to take the source material and make a great movie out of an equally great novel.I hold out hope that someone steps up and takes another crack at MZB's book--it's well worth telling right.

adrianedler 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.

LionGirl2k 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.

electrictroy 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