User reviews

Overlong and ultimately unsatisfying mythical nonsense. The cast are strictly average and Kreuk is as typically bland as ever (check out TV series Edgemont for her best role). Canadian actress Jennifer Calvert is amazing as always and here gets a meaty leading role as an aide to the main villain. Katharine Isabelle features only briefly as the wizard friend's beautiful sister (and then spends her role looking a bit shifty as if she might fancy the main wizard, though this is never played out). Nothing else makes any impression. The music, set, costumes are all there but make little impact. Watch this to discover a true (and undervalued) actress (Jennifer Calvert) but not for a good time.

Let's get one thing straight right away, I haven't read the books! so those who have may not agree with me.

When I first picked this thing up I read the back cover and it talked about comparing it to the lord of the rings and harry potter, well they shouldn't have, when I first started watching this I kept looking for strange unfamiliar and mythical animals but none were apparent, it also starts out very slowly but then again it's almost 3 hours long so it can take it's time (which it does). After about 2 hours I realized that this is by no means in the same league as harry potter or the lord of the rings because it has no budget, at least nothing up to the likes of a Hollywood movie. But unlike other movies I've seen, that squander their budget on low quality CGI that makes the whole thing unwatchable and laughable, this movie instead focused it's budget on creating sets and costumes that are nicely done and detailed, and in those few scenes where they actually do have CGI, it's at least passingly decent.

The story isn't too compelling but enough so to maybe keep your attention for all 3 hours of it, but many ends are left open that leave you pondering later... uh why was that again?. I want to stress again, I haven't read the book, I hear this movie butchers them, but as a film unto it's own it still delivers an OK story.

Acting is around par for most involved, expect as much as you normally would from a made-for-TV movie.

All in all a decent movie to kill a lot of extra time with, even though there are a lot of other better alternatives out there.

First of all, I have not read the books, so I can only review this as a standalone work. On that level, I give this show a 7/10 rating. Good, but not great. A reasonable story and mostly good acting keep this show watchable and the viewer interested. On the weak side, some of the acting is quite bad and many of the story elements seem rushed over and superficial. It's quite easy to see that this is based on a book (books, actually) because the screenplay is quite bad at "telling" and not "showing" many details. I had to laugh a few times as a character would say something that was obviously for our benefit (the viewers) and not for the person he was speaking to.

Getting into some details, I liked Chris Gauthier's as Vetch and Sebastian Roche's as Tygath. I thought these actors breathed more life into these characters than was in the screenplay (Roche was also a good villain in the TV series "Roar"). I thought Shawn Ashmore's Ged was a little weak at first, but he did grow on me. Kristin Kreuk did what she always does, stand there a look pretty without adding much. The worst acting came from the actor who played Ged's father. Uh.

The special effects were barely passable, with some scenes not quite even reaching the standard of a computer game cut screen. However, some of the real life sets and locations were quite nice. The music went unnoticed, which in a way is good.

The biggest laugh/letdown/whatever was waiting to see Amanda Tapping. I had no idea who she would play, but she was listed in the opening credits and the SciFi channel's promos also made mention of her being in this show. Imagine my surprise when she was only on screen for a few seconds and utters one line! If I ever get into acting, I'm getting her agent because that's some fine PR work there.

So, as a standalone piece of work, Earthsea was worth watching and I would watch any additional sequels. However, it's very apparent that there is a much better piece of work underneath it all, so the real legacy of this miniseries is to inspire me to read the actual books.

Legends of Earthsea has a quality cast and acting -- though a cast that was largely south Asian or middle eastern might have been truer to the original story -- and also does nice things with settings, sets, and computer graphics, and could be an enjoyable TV movie in its own right, if the viewer were not aware of and comparing it to the original story.

The great shortcoming is the script and storyline, which has mangled the first two books of the Earthsea trilogy -- one of the greatest pieces of writing in the fantasy genre by one of the greatest fantasy and science fiction writers -- into a very mediocre, formulaic fantasy production with a story that bears only a passing resemblance to the original. The story suffers from a peripheral character, the Kargad king, being blown into a major character to provide a central villain, all but destroying the nuance and social complexity of antagonism in the original stories. The original stories have a strong theme of growth through the lifecourse of the central character, Ged. Collapsing the stories together and shortening the time frame has required a number of story changes which weaken this central theme. A number of changes have been made with respect to Atuan that play into a sappy, very unsatisfactory ending.

If you want cheap entertainment this is a good movie. If you want truly great stories, and fantasy reading that offers insight into your everyday life and commentary on the world, read the books instead: A Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, by Ursula LeGuin. The later Tehanu continues the story of Ged, but is, IMO, less deserving of praise.

Having seen the movie, I thought it was the pilot for a new series and I didn't really understand why they created a mythical land just for one single movie. The movie, though, was nice. Wizards, priestesses, evil English speaking warlords.

However, I later found out that it relates to a series of books written by Ursula LeGuin in '68. Therefore I proceeded on reading them. It appears that the movie is largely based on the first two books. A lot of stuff was added and a lot more stuff was removed to make the film, but I do think the result is a good one. Two completely different story lines from two books that relate very little to one another were mixed into this light fantasy movie.

The cast was also nice. I liked Danny Glover in the role of the wise sage, I even liked Shawn Ashmore, although I don't think he did a great role. Kristin Kreuk has that unreal beauty on her, while Sebastian Roche is delightful in the role of the evil (and completely invented) King Tygath.

I couldn't believe the bad comments here. Most of them are just from people who think a book should never be made a movie unless every scene is translated word for word. My personal opinion is that the books would have sucked as two different movies. And as fantasy movies go, this was utterly acceptable.

Rather than compare it with the books, just accept it as a different work and enjoy it for what it is. No doubt it could have been better, but nothing is perfect.

Treasure in, Garbage Out. This can hardly be called an adaptation of the novel, as the miniseries has almost nothing in common with the books except a few - not all - of the names. The story has not been changed, but discarded, and a hackneyed Swords & Sorcery 'epic' put in its stead. Ged's solitary search for understanding is replaced by a buddy flick, with Vetch now providing comic relief. In a curiously inconsistent approach to political correctness, women are introduced to Roke, but the black characters are played by white actors, with only one notable exception. (Yes, Ged, Vetch, Jasper, Nemmerle - excuse me, 'Archmagus' - were all black in the books.) Heck, even the Shadow isn't a shadow anymore. Any resemblance to the book is strictly for market appeal.

As a movie/miniseries, it fails. The dialogue is laughable, the acting generally wooden, the special effects not up to the grand effect desired. This would-be LOTR/Harry Potter comes across more as Dungeons and Dragons. Glover mails in his lines, Ashmore fails to achieve the depth of character necessary to make the audience feel the change before and after the incident on Roke Knoll, Calvert turns Kossil into another tiresome scheming vixen; Roche at least has fun with the only role with no counterpart in the novels, and he hams it up royally.

It's simply amazing that the script ever got greenlighted.

Like most of the Sci Fi channel offerings, they hyped it with the impressive cast and interesting commercial spots. Intrigued and with a memory of the original version of Ursula LeGuine's TV movie The Lathe of Heaven I sat down to watch. I admit that I didn't read the books before sitting down to watch the mini-series. Perhaps this may have helped. As it is I will go with the plot the TV gave me. Ged, the young wizard, is head strong and full of pride. He knows he's destined to bigger and better things than a mere village black smith. Things happen, he goes off to learn how to become the great wizard everyone he meets tells him he's destined to be. Having grown up with a steady diet of fantasy and sci fi as a kid, the first thing that jarred me the main character didn't speak with an accent. Now, this doesn't matter to the overall story, but it was a bit disconcerting, and therefore led to a diminished suspension of disbelief. The other issue was the CGI graphics could have come out of a badly made video game, and lost the sense of wonder they should have had. Several years ago some of the same people who produced this produced Dune. Dune had a high budget, and was well realized, but the graphics in that were only slightly better than what Earthsea had to offer. What saved Dune, and held back Earthsea was the acting and directing. Both stories are great fantasies, but only one was well realized. Shawn Ashmore, the actor who played Ged in Earthsea, unfortunately seemed to be phoning in the beginning of the story. He didn't really want to be an impetuous youth, and wasn't truly believable until he managed to get away from the village. Everything was too muzzy when people were outside and every time somebody uttered the name of the planet they lived on, you felt as though they too were trying to convince themselves. This does not lead to a well told story. There are some nice parts and interesting ideas, but everything is told too quickly. It felt like there were missing plot points and time passed, but was rather invisible to the people living there. If the series had been better directed then my guess is there would have been far more believable and less loose ends. If it's a well directed and well acted sci fi yarn go for Dune, and if it's fantasy then Merlin, or better yet, read Earthsea and find the images in your own head. I know I will.

I am a huge fan of the Earthsea books and have been since the 1970s. I was so excited to hear the books were being adapted into a mini-series, particularly now with the CGI possibilities out there. To say this was a huge disappointment is the understatement of my year. Unlike some, my dismay is not because they changed the story from the books - screen adaptations do that all the time, sometimes to an extreme degree like here. But for that kind of adaptation to be good, you still need good casting, good writing, good acting, and good direction. There was none of that here.

Even my husband, who is not a fan of the books, didn't want to keep watching it (we tuned out after about 45 minutes and then looked in twice more for about two minutes each), purely because the script was so wooden (oh, for the lyricism of Le Guin's original prose!) and the line reading by the actors was so poor - it was like watching a high school play without a breakout star. They took what was a subtle, UNIQUE (the operative word to the max) series of books and made it grotesquely derivative - heartbreaking, given how truly original Le Guin's world was. She had no Sauron or Voldemort equivalent in her books (think about it, you fans of the books) - her whole point was there is only the evil that men do. In her Earthsea, no one is completely evil but everyone is capable of evil acts (even Ged). But obviously Hollywood can only deal with external, black and white conflicts - and so it had to invent a big bad villain (with only a glancing association with an original Le Guin character). I started out very nervous about this, because Ged was cast with blond curly hair - but I couldn't have possibly imagined how profoundly awful it would be.

Please, everyone who is reading and writing these comments - don't blame Le Guin. This mini-series has virtually NOTHING to do with her books.

In Earthsea, a world of one thousand and one islands, priestesses leaded by the High Priestess Thar (Isabella Rossellini) lock in the tomb of Atuan the diabolic Nameless Ones. However, the ambitious King Tygath (Sebastian Roché), who intends to unite the realm, wants also to release the demons to learn their secret of immortality, and uses his mistress Kossil (Jennifer Calvert) to poison Thar. Kossil expects to be nominated the next guardian and get the keys and enchantment that keeps evil apart, but Thar selects the pure Tenar (Kristin Kreuk). Meanwhile, in the island of Gont, the reckless and rebel son of a blacksmith Ged (Shawn Ashmore) dreams on being a wizard. He is sent to the island of Roke to learn magic, but in a dispute with a corrupt mate, he summons a powerful Nameless One that becomes The Gebbeth and wants to devour his soul. Now his only chance to survive is to follow the lead of a dragon and find the two parts of an amulet to destroy the Nameless Ones.

"Earthsea" is a delightful travel to a world of fantasy and magic and very underrated in IMDb. The story is attractive, the cast has great names and the special effects are excellent, considering this is a movie for television. I glanced some reviews in IMDb and I noted that users that read the novels are giving the lowest ratings. Of course a movie will never be better than a book associated with the imagination of the reader, since the language in cinema is completely different, there is the need of giving adequate pace, explain situations through images and so on in a limited running time. How explain in a movie, for example, that Kossil is the mistress of King Tygath and that is the reason of her betrayal, and not loyalty to Tygath? I believe that the "bedroom scene" briefly explains their relationship. The acting is very good, and the CGI is never lame; actually it is great for a TV movie. If the reader of my review enjoys fantasy movies like "Merlin", "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter", he or she will probably appreciate this film. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Poder das Trevas" ("The Power of Darkness")

Based on a novel by Ursula K. Le Guin, this is one of those fantasy stories with wizards, High Priestess,' evildoers and magic. A young up-and-coming wizard, Ged (Shawn Ashmore) and an occasional friend are tasked with saving their world "Earthsea" from recent bad old evil ones. Meanwhile back at the temple a sister Kossil (Jennifer Calvert) with a nasty attitude and a vile of poison is trying to usurp the High priestess position from Thar (Isabella Rossellini). Will the wizard succeed in his mission? Will the slinky sister fulfill her mission?

Well costumed, has fair graphics, and contemporary dialogue.

Before watching this story, you may want to read some of Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces"

And if you are a fan of Isabella Rossellini, she has a great series of shorts Isabella Rossellini's Green Porno Live (2015)It is all about bugs, fish, and other such creatures.

This was the most appalling adaptation of a story I have seen in quite some time. It does violence to the fundamental story line of LeGuin's books--no wonder she has publicly distanced herself from it.

For one thing, Ged (that's his true name, by the way, and everyone on Earthsea has them) is not a petulant teenager. He is impetuous, but not petulant. There was also no Christian subtext in the books. Ged did not rise from the dead; he was re-born when he received his true name, but that happened when he was seven, and is something he shares with every other Archipelagan.

The people of the Archipelago are red-brown to black. They are not pasty Chlorox white. A series that had non-whites as its protagonists was a rare thing in the sixties and seventies--whites don't need to appropriate this one now.

The God-King was not trying to conquer all of Earthsea in order to conquer death. He does not succeed in an attack on Roke, and he does not knife the Archmage.

Normally, I understand the compromises necessary to translate a book to a film. The two move at different paces and have different story telling needs. So if dialogue wanders, or secondary plots disappear--fine, so long as the original author's intent and main story line are preserved. This adaptation (in which the producer, Robert Halmi, claimed to speak for Ms. LeGuin (and called her "miss"--MISS, to a woman who has been in the forefront of feminism for over thirty years!!!!!!!)) did not even maintain the same story or the same intent. LeGuin has noted that the whole story revolves around two young people coming into their power--and the responsibilities and problems thereof. There was none of that in this story. For shame, anyone responsible for decisions about this film: you did terrible work this time around.

I myself haven't read the "Earthsea" books but really want to. But they couldn't stick to everything in the books it would make it WAY too long, and they had to sum everything up into four hours. Same with LOTR or HP I could sit here and name SO SO SO many things wrong with those movies, but that isn't the point. Even though I hear the books are WAY better I think it was a pretty good show. I love the whole fantasy deal, actually after seeing this movie I've started writing my own fantasy story it got me motivated.

For those who have read the books may not like it, those who haven't (like me) if are into fantasy and such would. I think the movie flowed nicely, wasn't too fond of the ending, it just.....ended. But other then that I think Earthsea was good over all.

I enjoyed the movie. The books the movie was based on were excellent. The acting was very good. Especially Danny Glover and Isabella Rossalini. But the flow of the plot was choppy at best. The "visions" of the two main protagonists didn't give us a basis for the attraction and trust at the end. Why were the "nameless one's" such a big deal? And the main plot of the books, Ged's struggle to know himself and defeat the "Gebbeth", was almost lost. Then there is my pet peeve as a long time sailor. In a movie that takes place on a world of Sea and Islands why were the sailing craft so poorly done? I did not see a single ship or boat with any standing rigging to support the masts. And I never saw enough wind at any time during the show to push a boat, all the sails were limp. The wind in an archepelago would be very strong. I have to say that I really did like the sets, costuming, and special effects (other than the boats). So many Fantasy and SF films over do these items to the extent that they are a joke.

It never ceases to amaze me how some hack screenwriter can think he's gifted enough to take award-winning, much-loved source material and alter it nearly to the point of unrecognizability. This can never lead to a good outcome. This miniseries was further proof. What a complete waste of time and money. Stilted, wooden acting, lame dialogue, and pointless major plot changes (not to mention detail changes) resulted in one of the worst book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. Several times I found myself wondering whether the people responsible for this mess had ever actually read the books. And what was up with the casting? I've never seen a bigger load of actors who are simply wrong for their parts.

How do they get funding for this stuff? I just don't get it. They should just give me the money instead -- I could have made a better adaptation with my video camera, a plastic swimming pool, and a stick of modeling clay. Unbelievable.

Now, I can see many of the others reviewing this movie and posting their comments are those who read the books, or books as it may be. My sister read A Wizard of EarthSea, but the reason I wanted to watch this was because I'm into Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, and this looked similar. Before you start going in about that, let me just say I found out quickly that it was NOT. Those of you who are so desperate to connect this to the others fantasies of our time need to just chill out and look at them for a minute. Yes, there are wizards, and magic, but come on, that's why it FANTASY. The main plots, characters, motivation, and, above all else, MESSAGE, are totally different. I've seen a lot of movies, and read a lot of fantasy. Yes, EarthSea may not have had the best lines, or Oscar acting, but for being a TV movie, I thought it was really good. I was very glad to see it was NOT Disney-ish in the slightest. Those of you who are flipping out because it's changed from the books, well you also need to chill. That's what happens when books get made into movies. If they didn't change it, it would REALLY suck. Books are books for a reason, and can't be movies without some alteration. Many would say they altered it TOO much, but if you're that hung up on it staying the same, go read the books and stop worrying about the movie. Overall I loved EarthSea. I thought it was great, despite minor flaws. (Ged tends to get a bit wordy). All I've been reading are reviews tearing it up, so I just wanted to write a positive one, and say that this is a good movie, if you can look at it as it's own movie in it's own right, and stop comparing it to others.

The Sci Fi channel should have put some of their marketing money into production, because this was not only a BAD adaptation of an incredible book, it was the worst I've ever seen. If you have read the books, you'll know exactly what I mean. If you haven't, go to the library or bookstore (they're worth owning) and spend the time in the book instead of wasting it on this worthless show.

A few key points of my utter disenchantment (pun intended): 1) Ged was the same age throughout the entire movie when in the books we get to follow him from age 10 to 80. 2) There is absolutely no sex in the book, but you get a nice bedroom scene in the first 5 minutes of the movie. COME ON. The books offer MORE than enough material to engage the reader. You don't need to whore the characters, although Sci Fi managed to make one up for just that purpose. 3) Bad acting. It took me back to the days of MTV's "Undressed". 4) Lame ass CGI. After seeing Sci Fi do OK with Dune, I was hoping for much better graphics in this movie. 5) Most importantly, Le Guin's books won awards for what they are. IMHO, Sci Fi showed an inordinate disrespect for that by bastardizing the plot into something completely different. BOOOOOOOOOO!

To sum up, don't see it. Don't even give it a second glance. Anyone associated with this atrocity needs to have their head handed to them on a magician's staff. If you want to see an Earthsea worth seaing (a pun on the level of the Sci Fi production), get the books. Or borrow mine; but you'll have to wait a few days as I read them again to regain the enchantment.

One of the main problem is the massacre of most of the motivations that guided Ged & helped me relate to him as a character. In the original, Ged started out with a delight in control over other creatures; this delight was warped by his pride, which was the origin and core of the conflict. His desire to impress arises from his interactions with a witch's daughter, leading to his first summoning of the shadow (not to mention the fact that the daughter plays a key role later in the story). In an equal-and-opposite kind of way, Ged's pride and power unleashed his own potential destruction. The mini-series detaches the characters from almost any sense of motivation, turning them into pieces passionlessly moving about in something akin to a bad D & D adventure.

For the record, I voted with a rating of 2/10. Under ordinary circumstances, I need to black out from the pain before I rate something this low; unfortunately, the fact that the movie claims to somehow be related to Le Guin's series warrants a further deduction for misrepresentation.

This was a great movie/miniseries. I haven't read the books yet, but now I'm going to. The first half was very good, and the second have was excellent. There was a lot going on, a lot for very different characters to deal with and made for a very interesting and exciting movie. It was also was emotional and thought provoking. Personally, I'm hoping for a sequel. Also, there was a great cast, with a lot of recognizable actors (there is a cast list in the description the site provides so I won't list them again here) They were incredibly well cast in their parts making the movie as great as it was. Also, I would like to say that that the actor who played Ged was really cute.

I would like to hold out as a little ray of light amongst the sea of overwhelming negative reviews of the 2004 "Earthsea" miniseries. Yes, I have read LeGuin's "Earthsea" trilogy, and will gladly concede that there are some points of divergence between the books and this television adaptation. As with many things in life, however, all things are relative: this miniseries could have been much worse! The acting is passable, and I found it entertaining to watch, once I accepted that it wasn't going to be minutely faithful to the books. In short: it's a lot better than nothing for now. Watch it and enjoy it for what it is.

If you want to see adaptations which have REALLY massacred the original literary plot, try watching (as much as you can stomach) the 2002 version of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine". (The 1960 version comes highly recommended, however!) And for the worst ever sacrilege done to a sci-fi literary classic, check out 1998's "Nightfall". It's unfortunate that Isaac Asimov was still alive when that abomination came to light.

Two-thirds through last night's show--the first half of EARTHSEA--I muttered to my wife, "This is so bad." She said, "So tomorrow you'll be at the computer typing up your gripes to someone." I looked at her indignantly and said something like, "Ah, why waste my time?" Of course, she was right, so here I am. An Earthsea adaptation is long overdue; I'm just so sad that it was done so shabbily, with such an eye (apparently) toward anticipating what the unimaginative masses would like to see, as opposed to the rich, subtle, mystical world that Ursula Le Guin so beautifully created in her great Earthsea novels. I don't have the heart (or time) to break the mini-series down, bit by bit, to show what's wrong with it. Let's just say that the screenwriters, producers, and director insisted on reshaping a great work of popular art into a cookie cutter shape, substituting clichés for subtleties and an "epic" (read Lord of the Rings) war story for what should have been a personal struggle with good/evil. Worst, I suspect that in Part II, tonight, we're all gonna see Ged, whose little cheek scar only adds to his overall "hotness," smooching a princess (the SMALLVILLE babe). This thing is almost as bland as last month's elections. Mr and Ms. Producers, either do Le Guin justice and tell the story right or don't bother!

I've never read the Earthsea books but I liked the movie. Other than the commercials which amounted to about 1 hour and 1/2 (I know because I edited them out while tapeing it and the movie came out to about 2 hours and 45 minutes)It was a fun little flick that I would have gladly payed 6 bucks to see in a movie theater instead of that Oceans twelve crap I had to sit through. I think the people who are posting against this movie are die hard fans of the book and are being overly critical. It's not a masterpiece and the acting is not the best, but it has an interesting plot, some nice visual elements and sparks the imagination just enough to be enjoyable for those who will let themselves like it. What I liked most about it was that it wasn't drenched in symbolisms that are actually valid, so you can watch with out becoming introspective. As for the issue about Ged's race I think the Shawn whoever he is is a decent leading character even if he is white. At least he's kind of cute, and Tenar is really pretty so younger viewers might like that.