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 want to say that I have read the Book "The Mysts of Avalon" and loved it. I also watched the movie and loved it. If you loved the book love the book, but do not think this movie is bad because it doesn't follow the book. The key points are there as are the emotions of the women who forged a legend. Anjelica Houston leads an ensemble cast as the retelling of Arthur and Camelot's story is told from the lips of its main villain. While it lacks the book's web of stories it envelopes you in the safety of the Arthurian Legend we all know and love and also paints the tails and tribulations going through that time. The music and the costumes are impeccable as the actresses give Oscar worthy performances as the ladies of Avalon. A must see for any fan of the legend. If you like Marion's book it does not necessarily mean you will not like the movie, it just means you will have to think outside the box.

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.

I enjoyed this movie, but the book is even better. However, it does make you look at the Camelot stories in a different light. Morgaine was always made out to be an evil manipulative woman out to destroy King Arthur. This story gives a totally different perspective. You get to see how she was manipulated into having relations with Arthur without her knowledge. She had Mordred taken from her and raised by her sister to be a man who only wanted to destroy Arthur and Morgaine in order to take the throne and have power. In the end, Morgaine was the only person who truly cared about Arthur and made sure to take him home to Avalon at his death.