Customer Reviews

Earthsea

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(67)

 

 

First off, I am not a slave to the book when judging adaptations. I understand and appreciate that what often works in books doesn't always translate onto the big or little screen. BUT, having said that this is NOT an adaptation. Instead it feels more like the Ciff notes as written by someone who has never read the books. I know that movies have to leave out a lot of details, but "Earthsea" leaves out nearly every detail. Instead, it feels like a total strip down of the story; like Ms. Le Guin's discarded first draft.
As a fantasy by-the-books movie, I can recommend this only to people who are just looking to pass a few hours.
But, as has been expressed below by Ms Pamela Thomas, I am worried that people will see this and completely ignore the books. If I hadn't read the books and saw the movie my first reaction would be: "Oh boy, those Le Guin books sure are overrated." And that can't be further from the truth!
Skip the movie, read the book!

I can't review this miniseries as an independent example of fantasy film-making. I am a huge fan of the books and can only judge it by how well it does as a cinematic adaptation.

It fails miserably.

It's not just that the writers fail to get anything right beyond the names, and sometimes not even that:
- "Ged" is the wizard's secret name, "Sparrowhawk" is his commonly used one
- Ged and the other Archipelagans are aboriginal peoples (LeGuin says they are like the Inuit), not white
- There are no girls at the school at Roke
- Tenar is recognized as the incarnation of Arha when she is 5 years old; she does not take a "test" to become the priestess
- Kossil is old and fat, not young & beautiful, and no men come near the temple
- Nemmerle dies after using up all his magic after Ged summons the gebbeth, not in battle
- the Kargads never attack Roke or go to war or come to Atuan during the story; the Kargad king is not in the story

That's only a part of how wrong the scriptwriters went. But more importantly, they didn't understand what the gebbeth represented. It was Ged's own shadow side; it represented the dark side of ourselves that we all need to learn how to deal with if we are to become whole. Because they didn't understand that, they fell back on a standard-issue good vs. evil plot. Nothing we haven't seen before. The uniqueness of LeGuin's story is lost.

It's a great shame that the Sci-fi folks fired the first screenwriter, Phillipa Boyens, who helped adapt "The Lord of the Rings" to the screen and is a LeGuin fan. We'll never know how good her script was.

[...]

Throughout the last two decades of the 20th century the fantasy genre gained a large number of followers, which initially might have been influenced by encounters with J.R.R. Tolkien's adventures or roll playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons. This group of people has steadily grown through the help of computer games, books, and other media that brings the audience away from the reality of the human existence. Thus, the Sci-Fi Channel delivers the Legend of Earthsea to this growing fan base.

The televised miniseries Legend of Earthsea is an adventure that brings the audience away from reality to the world of Earthsea where the world consists of a vast number of islands. The author Ursula K. Le Guin created this world and she has a large number of dedicated readers. More can be found on her website, www.ursulakleguin.com, in regards to her books and comments in regards to the TV series.

Legend of Earthsea opens in a small island village where the blacksmith's son, Ged (Shawn Ashmore) discovers that he has magical powers. Ged, a restless young man, saves the town from an attack through the use of magic, which brings forth the wizard Ogion (Danny Glover). Ogion requests that Ged becomes his student, but Ged's father initially rejects the request. Nonetheless, Ged becomes the pupil of Ogion, as he begins his journey on becoming a wizard.

On this journey the audience gets to follow how Ged is coming of age through foolish magical stunts and deadly encounters with dragons and other dangerous creatures. Ged builds lasting friendships and eventually discovers the wonder of love. Through many adventures with Ged the audience will experience both suspense and drama with some wisdom.

The mini-series seems to be based on a number of clichés from other fantasy films such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Willow (1988) among other films. This hurts the story, as does the visual experience through some CGI effects that come across with visual awkwardness. If one truly wants to experience the world of Earthsea the audience should reads Ursula K. Le Guin's books, which are far superior to this TV story.

Earthsea had great potential, as the books offer a solid foundation upon which a film can be made. However, it seems that this film shows the affects of too many chefs, which leaves the audience with a somewhat flat fantasy experience. There are interesting subplots and themes, but it never takes off and flies by itself. It merely remains standing on the ground displaying a monument without value, which in the end will leave most viewers disappointed. It might only be a rental recommendation to those hardcore fantasy enthusiasts that watch everything about an alternative reality.

The writers of the screenplay should incarcerated to insure they never again commit such an reprehensible, odious, unforgivable insult to art.

To those who have read and loved the Earthsea series be informed that the resemblance of the movie to the book stops at the title. In an attempt to make this classic more palatable to a mainstream audience they have 1) dumbed it down excessively ; 2) added a wholly unnecessary love interest; 3) added a cardboard cutout "evil" king.

Aside from the failings of the plot, the use of modern vernacular in a fantasy setting and (aside from Danny Glover who did a reasonable job) they have added insult to injury by choosing actors whose performances, to be very kind, left much to be desired. Then again maybe it was the once again the fault of the screenwriters - "Take her away!" "Throw him in the dungeon." "That is how I reward failure!" Oh please. Its not that I mind kitsch or even cliché, as long as its well done.

While there are many questions I would put to the screenwriters and whoever okayed the script there is one that sticks in my mind... How did a homing pigeon find a ship at sea???

The are two good points to this film that make parts of it worth watching (mind you I said parts)- 1) the dragon is well done and the scene with the dragon is the best in the film, 2) Kristin Kreuk is lovely and a delight to lay eyes upon.

If you want a good sword and sorcery film there are a number of alternates - Lord of the Rings (of course), The Thief of Bagdad, Excalibur, Willow, Clash of the Titans, Jason and the Argonauts or (for a humorous take) The Princess Bride.

Or better yet, skip the movie and reread the books.

If it were physically possible to make a *worse* adaptation of Ursula K. LeGuin's award-winning EarthSea series, I'm sure SciFi would have tried. The actors, all talented, make the best of their material but there's not much there to work with. The mistakes, the bloopers, the incoherent storyline...has Ed Woods been reanimated, and why?

Don't waste your money!
If you are a fan of the Earthsea series of books, you will be sorely disappointed in this miniseries. I was so disappointed, I couldn't even finish watching it when it was originally aired on the SciFi Channel! The acting was poor and the dialogue was contrived. It had none of the sublime spiritual beauty of Le Guin's text, and the inner lives and struggles of the characters were not as clearly portrayed. In all, I found it to be juvenile and superficial. There is absolutely nothing of the spirit of the books in this miniseries!
Apparently, people who have not read the books have enjoyed this miniseries. I tried to imagine what I would think of it if I had not read the books, and could only conclude that maybe I would have liked it if I had seen it during middle school or earlier. In otherwords, adult fans of fantasy: don't waste your money.

Like other viewers I was looking forward to this with anticipation. However was saddened and disappointed at the hatchet job done to these two fine Ursula Le'Guin novels.

I realise that there will always need to be some changes in the translation from book to film, but many changes were for no reason. For example why swap Sparrowhaks name around making his use-name Ged and his secret name Sparrowhawk. thats an unnecessary change which simply upsets fans.

There are others, for example the non-death of the Archemage. The relationshop of Ged to his father - in the book this was practically non-existent.

Even the major changes - making the priestesses on Atuan good and tasked with the job of containing the old ones (ratherthan worshipping them), bringing the Gebbeth story arc to its conclusion in the tombs, the reference to Jasper getting the Mage of Pendor role (was Geds in the story for a very important reason - he needed to learn humility and failure to counter his original arrogance), the ridiculous introduction of the Kargad king etc. All serve to marr the story

Having said that, the story was Ok. If different names etc were used and this were set in a different world I would probably have enjoye it more and scored this higher, but the SciFi channel just blatantly cashing in on Lord of the Rings by claiming this is a dramatisation of another popular series ruined the story for me, seriously marring the entertainment of this and leaving me quite disappointed. The first two books would have translated perfectly well to film without minimal changes, especially since most of the events in each book happen simultaneously - whilst Sparrowhawk is growing up and learning to be a wizard, Tenar is growing up and learning to be a priestess.

If only Peter Jackson would do a remake.

This film version of the classic Earthsea books bears almost no resemblance to them whatsoever - even the names of the characters were reversed. If you loved the books you will most likely hate this movie.

As a work of art, the film is not bad, I suppose. The visual effects are decent and the sets are pretty good, but the acting is mediocre. Overall the film is underwhelming compared to other recent fantasy adaptations.

It's been a while since I read all the 'Earthsea' books but even my imperfect memory could tell me that this was dreadfully wrong. What a pathetic rendering of a marvellous tale. Without Le Guin's wonderful language, a TV adaptation was always going to be risky, but this just fell flat on its face. My teenage son wandered in, looked, laughed, and went out. I just sat and watched in anguish. Who, having seen that and not knowing the original, is going to go out and read the books?

But that's what everyone must do - read the books and let your mind supply the visuals.

Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea books are full of magic, mystery, philosophy and intensely powerful storytelling.

But you wouldn't know it by this lackluster adaptation. Instead, "Earthsea" aspires to be "Harry Potter" in a medieval "Lord of the Rings" setting, with two plots mishmashed haphazardly into one, shoddy special effects, laughable action scenes, and some seriously wooden acting.

Rebellious, impatient Ged (Shawn Ashmore) attracts the attention of the wizard Ogion (Danny Glover) when he magically rescues his village from raiders. He joins Ogion as an apprentice, but soon proves too impatient -- and so Ogion sends him to the wizard school on Roke, where Ged soon proves to be one of the most gifted pupils. But his pride and anger become his undoing, when he accidentally summons a foul demon.

Meanwhile on the island of Atuan, the High Priestess (Isabella Rossellini) is slowly wasting away, and she hastily selects her successor, teenage Tenar (Kristin Kreuk). What no one knows is that the king of the Kargides is having her poisoned, and his priestess lover is trying to find a way into the labyrinth below, where the dangerous Nameless Ones are kept. To save all of Earthsea, Ged must brave its most terrifying dangers.

"Earthsea" basically is two books' worth of plots crammed together, but not well -- the entire tone is changed to "Harry Potter in Middle-Earth," with the plucky wizard pupil on a roadtrip with his funny chubby buddy against the forces of evil. The entire time at Roke just reeks of Hogwarts.

Even if judged purely on its own merits, "Earthsea" is still a disaster -- the direction is clunky, and the special effects are amateurish at best. Moments that should have been brilliant, such as Ged's climactic confrontation with the Gebbeth, fall flat. By the time we get to the drippy, sentimental climax, the entire plot spirals into a Disneyesque lovefest that is nothing short of nauseating.

And the script isn't much better. In fact, it's simply atrocious, full of unintentionally hilarious moments (a lisping dragon), deus ex machinae, a surprisingly silly demonic threat, and horribly written cliched dialogue ("So this is our destiny?" "If not us, then who?"). When Vetch and Ged dress up as Kargides to fool an idiot commander, you know the movie has hit rock bottom.

It doesn't help that Ashmore and Kreuk are tolerable actors at best, but they get progressively more wooden as the plot continues. They're only saved by the greater talent of the other actors -- Chris Gauthier is lovable AND smart as Ged's best buddy, and Glover and Alan Scarfe are given too little to do as some paternal old wizards. (And Amanda Tapping has a split-second cameo)

Isabella Rossellini deserves special credit as High Priestess Thar. I'm not sure what an actress of her caliber is doing in a movie like "Earthsea," but she saves every scene she's in -- she's warm, kindly, wise, powerful and devastating in her disapproval.

The Sci Fi Channel tried to have it all in "Earthsea," but ended up with a muddled mess that tries to be everything, and ends up with nothing. Cliched, cutesy and only redeemed a little by some good acting.