alexandresobreira-12-509311 I was compelled to add this after reading several reviews: I think the scriptwriter knows about Ged's name inversion. He or the producers just thought that Sparrowhawk was not catchy enough or was too long. So they decided to reverse the order. Considering the writer had the gall to say that his adaptation reflected LeGuin's TRUE intentions (prompting her to write her reply - by the way, isn't the book's copyright hers? And so, shouldn't she have been able to veto anything based on it? I don't know how international copyright laws work on this. Now, on to my review. Well, I think that an adaptation of a book to film medium should follow the book. Actually, I'd like it to slavishly follow the book insofar as the medium allows. But I don't judge the adaptation for not doing that. I like the Lord of the Rings movies and they deviate from the books in several essential points, not the least of which is ignoring the fact that Tolkien creates his characters to be Aristotelian examples of superior men, even though LOTR is not a tragedy, but a comedy (technically speaking). In terms of adaptation of the books, this miniseries is awful, totally disgusting. The Godking of Awabath is changed into a warlord that wants to conquer the Archipelago, Kossil is his mistress, quite the young and attractive woman, who wants to gain the power to summon the nameless ones (who are a sort of black gremlins with bat wings ??), Tenar is chosen by the last high priestess of the tombs to take her place as keeper of the key to hold the nameless ones prisoners. By the way, it's one of them that is after Ged. The Iskyorh gebbeth becomes the archfiend of the whole trilogy and has a showdown with Ged at the Tombs of Atuan, where Ged incomprehensibly decides to release the nameless batgremlins and their evil upon the world. Nemerle does not die, but remain the leader of the resistance against the Kargs, who have conquered Roke with the help of Jasper ??? Also, poor Nemerle looks suspiciously like a Dumbledore... Should I go on? However, that's not the reason I'm rating it so low. What I really hated was the fact that not only were the actors terrible, even poor Isabella Rossellini and Danny Glover, because their roles were so bad, but the series is only a long series of clichés strung together. The whole Karg invasion plot is there so the film doesn't have to deal with the true issues of the first book, which is Ged's search for his own identity. The central issues of the other two books, namely, how once can gain freedom through trust and by looking beyond the bars of one's cage and acceptance of mortality as essential to life, are thoroughly ignored. The Archmage and the other wizards of Roke are reduced to a position of almost comic relief to the series (even worse, poor Vetch IS in fact treated as a comic relief character). So, we are down to a soppy, ridiculous adventure crafted for the so-called young adult public. By the way, I'm 50, but if I were a young adult I would feel very insulted by how imbecilic current day scriptwriters (especially Hollywood) think young adults are.

kittynumbers In my opinion, the movie is not horrible, nor is it completely off from the books. It is a good movie that ou can really get into, even if you only started watching it in the middle.I, and many others, would have been much, much happier if they had stayed true to the books, but in some cases, i like the movie's changes.since saying which are good and which were bad is a spoiler, i will not say, but there are moments that you'll find yourself going back to the books and wondering which you like better, thought of course, the book will always be Best. :)

dilbertsuperman This has your typical made-for-television quasi-medieval fantasy realm crap where swordfights never draw blood and the stunts are generally CGI or very simple run-of-the-mill boring stuff. This is a good kids movie but for adults it's just to inane, boring and bland to really stand out as anything worth watching. This is basically a director trying to jump on board the Harry Potter craze using a Television Show Movie budget.. you see the usual television quality CGI effects, a derivative script and bland actors and actresses who have no idea who their character is. The only acting that occurs in this movie is two people- the Head Magus and the Head Nun of the order that watches the unnamed ones. Other than that it's a bunch of drug addicts that just woke up blandly reading their lines and assuming their costume will make up for them not working very hard at the job of suspending disbelief. Isabella Rosellini has been taking more matronly looking roles these days, but she is still a classic beauty of the sort that drove artists insane during the renaissance- the movie is worth watching just to see her. If you want to see this legendary woman in a real movie- watch BLUE VELVET- a very harsh and brutal flick when she was at the height of her epic beauty- she burns into the screen like a fever vision in that one! In this movie she is pudgy, pasty, yet you can still tell she's completely gorgeous beneath it, a very good casting choice for her role as the head nun.As far as suspending disbelief... There's a lot to disbelieve in this movie- like.. disbelieve you should watch it!! PLOT: The son of a blacksmith's mother died when he was a child- he was raised by his father, a blacksmith, and an old witch that his mother saved from the sea long ago- as such he has magical powers- powers that he wants to develop so off he goes to hogwartz.. oh wait this isn't harry potter- but it sort of IS!! The rip-offs are many but the movie is saved a little bit by several good looking women to watch and a little bit of bearable CGI effects.. sometimes this movie is OK, but then the direction comes back in and ruins it completely- making it a bland, boring affair lacking in imagination and budget to convey a story worth telling in a format worth seeing.If you want to see what this movie was shooting for I think you would watch a Harry Potter movie followed by Willow followed by Dungeons and Dragons(which was terrible).

fandyllic First I will admit, I did not watch the whole mini-series all the way through and jumped around bit after the first part because I was so disappointed. I will also add that I've read the books a few times, so my expectations were probably high, especially after Lord of the Rings.Before I give my comments on the mini-series, after reading the various comments from other viewers, I'm convinced the standards of viewers have dropped and the shallowness of the average viewer cannot be overestimated. There is no way this mini-series should rate above a 5 of 10.The acting was not bad, but I did get the sense that most of the cast was completely unfamiliar with the books and the stories. The whole series felt mundane and unoriginal. The fresh minimalism of the Earthsea series was lost in the typical fantasy treatment given to the stories. As a reader, I was also disappointed in the casting and the dramatic differences between the books and the mini-series.You could tell from the casting and the way situations were changed in the mini-series that the producers were trying for a younger audience used to Harry Potter and other highly derivative fantasy works (the J.K. Rowling fans will want to murder me, of course). The books could be considered slow by today's standards, but the had an undercurrent of sadness that made them more powerful. The aura of the books was completely lost in the mini-series. There was no sense of history like you feel when watching Lord of the Rings or some of the better fantasy movies (Dragonslayer, say).The 3 stars I give the mini-series comes from the generally good production values and the commitment to making a mini-series rather than trying to compress the whole series into 2 hours or so. I would have preferred that they had just made a 2 hour movie perhaps compressing the first two books, than the radical changes and alterations that were made for the mini-series. In short, it was a typical Hollywood-corrupted production that had so much promise only to be ruined. Overall though, the mini-series was a below average effort for such a promising story. The producers of the mini-series should have just said it was "inspired" by Earthsea and used a different name. A decent example of this type of thing is the recent Sci-Fi channel mini- series, "Tin Man". They didn't call it Oz anything and totally re-imagined Wizard of Oz. It wasn't great, but much better than Earthsea.One can only hope that the failure of the Earthsea mini-series won't close the door to future attempts to re-imagine the books on film. Lord of the Rings was famously messed up by a partial animated version, so there is always hope.