User reviews

Eh, let's just call Tales from Earthsea a case of growing pains for Goro Miyazaki. 

It's not a bad movie. It's just unremarkable in every way. It doesn't have the creativity, emotional depth, or beauty of Spirited Away, the visual wonder of Howl's Moving Castle, the scope of adventure of Castle in the Sky, the lovable characters of Kiki's Delivery Service, or the sheer delight and fun of Ponyo. 

If I had to choose a defining feature for Earthsea, I honestly don't know what it would be. The music is fine, but nothing extraordinary. The character designs and artwork are dangerously close to generic, the story lacks tension and feels almost inconsequential, and the writing is bland. Where's the heart? Where's the humor, the passion, or something that would draw me into the narrative?

I found myself not caring much about what was happening, and more concerned with how much time was left until the movie was over, than anything else. My  expectations for Studio Ghibli are far too high to embrace a movie like this that barely scrapes above mediocrity, and from what I've heard from fans of the Earthsea literature, this isn't the adaptation they were hoping for, either.

I am a great fan of the LeGuin books, and when I learned that Studio Ghibli was going to be involved in making of the film I eagerly looked forward to its release. I hoped it would make up for the awful SciFi Channel-aired film. The good news in this outing is, there is genuine respect for the source material, even if it is not done genuine honor.

The plot of the film is an amalgamation of elements of several of the Earthsea books, creating a new villain and having characters interact that indeed barely met in the books. While I could not help but feel disappointed by these changes, the film is still visually enjoyable to behold. It does not compare as favorably to Howl's Moving Castle, a story drastically altered from its own source material that still manages to stand on its own as a story.

I could not help but think, as I watched the character Arren develop, why? Why, when there is such wonderful source material, that his introduction came across so muddled and poorly reasoned. I viewed the film with someone who had never read the books, and she really enjoyed it. Despite the film's shortcomings, you generally care for the cast by the end.

Films experiencing production hell are rarely as good as they might have been, no matter how good the director is (c.f. Gangs of New York and AI) and this one is no exception.

Taken on its own terms, Tales of Earthsea is a competent, if not breathtaking, start for Miyazaki junior, and bears comparison to the lesser Gibli canon without scaling the heights of its major work. It is unfair to compare it to My Cousin Totoro, Spirited Away or Graveyard of the Fireflies; but it is also a shame for the fans of Earthsea. They didn't get a top director at the top of his game.

The principal problem with the film is that it doesn't seem to know what to do with the books it is based on. Are they source material to be pillaged? Are they stories to be adapted? Are they concepts to be explored? In the end Miyazaki opts for a mix: the narrative structure is broadly based on the third novel (The Farthest Shore), with a significant sub-plots from both the first (The Wizard of Earthsea) and the fourth (Tehanu). Into the mix he throws some recognisable manga/anime formulae (the arch-enemy; the ronin henchmen; the violence) which cut across the major themes explored by the novels and alluded to by the film.

If this all sounds like a disaster, it isn't exactly. The plot functions: evil wizard, through pride, upsets the balance of Earthsea forcing archmage, Sparrowhawk, in the company of a young prince, to do battle to restore the balance, destroy the evil and face down their own demons. Had Miyazaki been more ruthless all would probably have been well – for anime fans anyway. But there are too many blind alleys, lose ends and needless distractions – all nods to the books - which make the first half of the film in particular feel like a second rate brass band meandering painfully around a Brassed Off version of Adagio for Strings. The narcotic Hazia, for example, which dominates the beginning of the third story, is introduced early in the film and then simply abandoned. Later, Tenar's back-story fades into nothingness leaving the audience with a forcible impression of a producer impatiently looking at his watch. The whole effect is not homage, but distraction – and a film that it is at least 40minutes longer than it needed to be.

Ursula LeGuin, who wrote the Earthsea novels, had suggested to (Hayao) Miyazaki that he create new story for Ged, uncluttered by her previous stories, set in the many years between the first two books. This would have made for a less ponderous film.

Regarding the technical side of animation; it appears the younger Miyazaki was aiming for the dreamlike quality of animation so characteristic of his father's work. Again, he has some partial success in this regard, although it is undeniably more clunky than other Gibli titles. But a lot can be forgiven for his reliance on hand-drawn animation, and there are some moments of real beauty – windblown grasses, rocks on the seashore and chill sunsets. This, along with some strong characters and a much tighter second half, make Tales from Earthsea watchable film, if a slightly underwhelming one. But better than Disney. 6/10

After watching this film I was pleased with the overall feel and look the production. Most notably I was impressed with the studio's visual creation of Earthsea. While the artistry and animation quality does not entirely measure up to other recent Ghibli studio films, I felt it did create a rich and colorful setting in which the story unfolds. A solid score also helps to shape the vibrant world that the movie conveys. However, I wouldn't consider all this to be a faithful representation of Ursula k. Le Guin's literary Earthsea, but rather something unique on to itself. One thing in particular that I think separates the film setting from that of the books' is the absence of the sea. I'm not saying its not there, just that it seems to mostly be in the background.

As for the story I don't think it stands out as anything great. It was limited from the start. The movie like the book is a single episode in a much larger tale. In no way could it possibly encompass the magnitude of the Earthsea series, let alone the main events in The Farthest Shore. It would simply be too much to present in a canvass of its length. As a result It lacks the epic feel of Princess Mononoke or the closure that comes at the end of Spirited Away. In other respects though, the film borrows heavily from Ghibli's previous works, mainly with the characters. They are shadows of former Ghibli creations, but due to their interaction and set of circumstances they retain some originality. I might also add that they come off as serious, and are far removed from the playful personalities that give other Ghibli films their charm. This said they still manage to play out their given roles and drive the story forward. From beginning to end the film holds up in large part because the setting never loses its feel.

I enjoyed this picture in spite of its flaws, again because of it's look and feel. For once I could see winged dragons clash and wizards face off in a Ghibli film. In my opinion Goro Miyazaki did a decent job bringing it all to life. At the same time, I hope he will learn from this experience and strive to do better next time. After my seeing Gedo Senki he has my support.

I like both Studio Ghibli films and Ursula LeGuin's 'Earthsea' books, but this film did little for me. While the backgrounds and 'set pieces' were striking, as expected in anime from this studio, the realisation of the characters left a lot to be desired, especially Ged who was bland and Cob, who was oddly androgynous. I also found the voices used in the English version either dull (Timothy Dalton's generic 'gentle English lord') or silly (Cheech Marin's hodgepodge of accents). The biggest weakness, however, was the story, which was just boring - by the time things began to happen, I'd stopped caring and was just waiting for the film to end. Pity: LeGuin's 'Earthsea' series could make a fantasy epic to rival the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy or the 'Harry Potter' series, but so far, all we have is a second-rate anime and an awful made-for-TV 'sword and sorcery' romp.

Tales From Earthsea does not warrant the overly critical criticism thrust at it by film critics, which lambaste this production as a cinematic experience which sacrifices substance for style. Tales definitely must be praised for its artistry and you can clearly see where Goro has picked up tips and learnt from his father. The set pieces are just incredible detailed and for want of a better word phenomenal. They are mind blowing in their detail, and successfully capture the spirit and feel of a world, which helps in the audience immersion. Accompanying this is a sensational swirling score, which really is nothing short of moving, and I would be incredibly surprised if anyone watching some of the epic grandeur of the scenery did not have their eye quiver even slightly. Style this film has in abundance, but what about substance?

Well, this is possibly and most probably the films undoing. Critics lambaste the film for having too many "convenient" moments, i.e. characters 'conveniently' turning up in certain places as a means of plot furtherment, with no real contextualisation. That's fair to a degree, but let's tackles the why nots before the why. The viewer must remember that this tale is the third installment from a book of four, that Goro Miyazaki (with the backing of Ursula Le Guin I might mention) has had to attempt in bringing this third installment to life in its own unique way while at the same time trying to make it stand out singularly, so that the other segments become superfluous. Obviously to the Le Guin fan this is impossible (as I have been told), but you have to try and give the director credit for this as he is somewhat successful. Yes there are many moments where you sit and think "what on middle-earth are they talking about?", but if the director were to reveal all it would take much longer than he 115 minutes than it does. Also, I was unfortunate enough to see the English dubbing in cinemas, although in my defence short of getting an illegal copy which really isn't my want, Tales From Earthsea is only being shown in about three cinemas UK-wide, so I had to travel an hour to Birmingham, so I'll take what I was given. But having said that, the voice-actors used for the parts did their jobs exemplary, and you never felt that they were out of place or wrong for their characters. However this it is from here the holes begin to emerge.

The script used in the English dub is severely ham and cheese. There are moments, which is seemingly typical in Japanese to English dubs that the English writers feel the must explain everything as opposed to let emotions speak for themselves so moments are hammed up, and there unnecessarily cheesy lines which are somewhat cringe worthy. But I feel where most people will feel let down is the character development. Most of these characters, yes whilst having been first created in the source novel, on screen appear as mere shadows of their former selves, as they have all been borrowed from previous Ghibli films. Eran comes across more as a fusion of Chihiro and Ashitaka than an individual character and a lot of the time we are expected to go along with plot moments without truly understanding the reasons as to why, or the reasons as to why the character has chosen this specific path. It's deeply infuriating, because the film is rather charming for all its flaws, but you cannot escape from the fact that the characters do not have moments to develop and those that do follow a very clichéd path. Various other plot moments go AWOL during the re dub and I wonder whether the English subtitled version will reveal much more. Perhaps it will push the film a star higher to seven, but I doubt much more than that.

Tales From Earthsea is by no means a write off, it is a thoroughly enjoyable film if you take it out of context. Its artistic flair is there in abundance and is as gorgeous a film as Hero or Spirited Away, coupled with the score it provides plenty of moments for jaws to be dropped. However, placing it into context what many critics, and I suppose myself to an extent, cannot forgive is that this film came from the hallowed Studio Ghibli, and while yes this is the legendary Miyazaki's sons first outing, and while certainly not a bad one, it just does not stand to be compared with the many greats Nausicaa, Laputa, Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Grave Of The Fireflies. It certainly is a film you would be happy adding to the collection because it is inoffensive and if you store your critical instincts to one side for the two hour duration, you will really enjoy it as an engaging and enjoyable picture, but you will never be able to enjoy from a cinematic standpoint. It is a shame seeing as there is much going for it, and much indeed going for Goro, who as I previously stated has a keen eye for scene-scapes and detail in the animation. Tales scrambles up to be a solid three star film, but I do hope that at the Studio they do decline the option to do anymore of the source materials, at least for the moment, or at least until they script it perfectly. If Howls Moving Castle and Tales From Earthsea have told us anything, it's that source material is best left where it is, and that the imagination of Miyazaki (we've yet to see if the son matches the fathers talent) creates a far superior enjoyment factor, and a far superior film. We await in hope.

I am a huge fan of both Ursula Le Guin and Studio Ghibli but the story and the presentation just weren't all they needed to be. The fragments of story they excerpted from the novel lacked cohesiveness, so the characters' stories were truncated and lost. The art work was true to the beauty of Ghibli. I'm disappointed that I can only give this film a 6 (fair) out of 10. {Animated Fantasy}

I saw this movie had bad reviews before watching. While watching it I kept waiting for the part that was bad. I didn't find it...

I don't know why it has got so much hâte I don't know what people were expecting. It seems that everyone loves comparing everything with everything else. Can we not just take things as they are any more? Forget the rest of studio ghibli. I löve the fact that the studio is so diverse and make films that vary so much in style.

Beautiful themes. Beautiful animation as always. Strikes a real chord with me and you really end up rooting for Arren by the end.

Can everybody please just learn to be present and mindful and just take things as they are rather than comparing all the time. This would be a great step for humanity.

I haven't read the books yet so I can't comment on that. There's clearly a lot that could be done with the characters, the world and the magic here. Yet the film isn't very interesting. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but there's nothing that it does great - character, scenes, drama, worldbuilding, tension, action, etc. - so it ends up disappointing.

Better than I expected, a fantastic debut from Goro Miyazaki (son of Hayao Miyazaki) and a worthy addition to Ghibli's consistently brilliant catalog. It follows the prince Arren, as he runs from his kingdom and encounters a wizard named Ged. From here, he is drawn into a classic good versus evil battle. Goro Miyazaki's film bares a lot of similarities to his father's films, but lacks some of the whimsical nature that makes Hayao's movies so distinct. Tales from Earthsea is a more subdued film than films such as Spirited Away and Porco Rosso, and doesn't really hit the emotional or imaginative heights that Hayao Miyazaki's films do. But this isn't always a bad thing - It's simply Goro's style, and this element makes his film a more traditional, perhaps more sensible narrative. Goro has taken a somewhat conservative route with this film - visually and audibly it's classic Ghibli, full of lush environments and excellent animation. In terms of narrative, it carries classic Ghibli (particularly Miyazaki) hallmarks - epic battles of good and evil, cathartic journeys, and the hospitality and grace of ordinary people - but it also has more of a traditional narrative. Good and evil are, unlike many his father's films, clearly defined, and the events of the film lack the extravagance (and imagination) of Hayao's films. It's a wise move - rather than try to re-invent the wheel, Goro has made a wonderfully solid and cohesive film.

To simply compare Goro Miyazaki (and his film) to his father is unfair and sells a great movie short - he has obviously inherited a tremendous flair for storytelling, and with Ghibli's animation team behind him, has created a fantastic debut film. There's another Miyazaki in town - and i can't wait to see where he goes next.

This is by the son, not the master. As a Studio Ghibli piece, it's not bad, no Ghibli film is ever bad. It's just not there yet. The things we all know and love about Ghibli- the clouds, the sky, the Joe Hisaishi piano driven music are absent. Those things gave time to take in the majesty of the piece, and to think about the action- so rare in a piece of animation.That was one of the most salient points about Japanese animation- there was time to think. Disney is forever action and then the song- then more action. This has very little, in fact none of it, and the music is from the western action-action-action school. Many cuts are just plain irritating- they're too quick and what follows is not a progression or step forward- they're just jarring. The remedy comes with improving technique- easily rectified by experience and age. That said the story seems to be truncated and not having read any of this sort of book- as Clive James said- I too was inoculated against mythical beasts and magic at an early age- I find there's perhaps too many things going on. There's the court scene- we never go back for a resolve- the dragons- seem to be just there as dragons and could have been just as easily sheep, whales or guinea pigs. But without them there wouldn't have been a wow! Totoro had many wow objects- the tree, the Totoro itself, the Catbus. Spirted Away had legions of wow things. The spirits, the dragon, the witch, the railway, the bathhouse. Princess Mononoke had the Akudama, the forge, the boar beast, the great forest spirit, the battles. Tales From Earthsea had some of the same feel as The Little Norse Prince- one of the early Ghiblis- with which it shares its semi-Nordic/Celtic scenery. Overall it's good, but it's not great.

I've just come back from seeing this movie in the cinema. Being a devoted Studio Ghibli fan, going to see one of their movies on the big screen was an exciting event for which I had high expectations (I avoided reading any reviews). I am sorry to say that these were not met.

Having never read any of the books this film is based on, a lot of it didn't make any sense. Most of the concepts and character motivations are not given adequate exposition and a lot of things that you think will be resolved and explained as the movie goes on are never expanded upon (or indeed, resolved). Without giving anything away, the main character commits an outrageous action (especially for Ghibli heroes) at the start of the film, but the motivation for said action is not adequately expanded upon and he never really redeems himself (which makes it very difficult to engage with him for the rest of the film). It nearly felt like I was being punished for not being familiar with the source material.

The middle section is very slow moving, in fact nearly all of the action is to be seen at the beginning and towards the finale. Coupled with the lack of exposition on what's actually going on, it seemed like the film was just treading water, waiting for something interesting to happen (and in a 130 minute film, that's a bad thing!).

The ending, while being emotionally rousing and a spectacular set-piece, doesn't really make a lot of sense, as nearly all of the film focuses on a different protagonist than the one that eventually ends up saving the day.

Technically this film is not a patch on Spirited away, Howl's moving castle or Princess Mononoke, in fact the animation is more reminiscent of earlier Studio Ghibli films, such as Nausicaa (however these had wonderful stories to make them instant classics). The only thing that distinguishes it are the lighting effects, which are often superlative.

The music is great and very atmospheric.

Overall I'd have to say that it's worth watching when it comes out on TV, but not good enough to warrant making a trip to one of few cinemas showing it in the UK, or buying it full price on DVD, and this is something that I never thought I'd hear myself say as a die-hard (and now very disappointed) Studio Ghibli fan.

One final thing, this film has no sense of humour. The movie takes itself overwhelmingly serious with none of the "larger than life" magic that people have come to associate with Studio Ghibli.

This anime film tries to portray the third book of the Earthsea trilogy. That's the hardest to do, in my opinion, as it involves more mature understanding and emotions. As such, it does a decent job, but not much more.

The animation is nice, although you would not expect this level of simplicity to a 2006 production, especially from Ghibli. The soundtrack is uninteresting and when Therru starts singing in the field it's just ridiculous. The characters all say the same things like it's some well known wisdom, while both Arch-characters (the good and the bad wizards) do not do almost nothing in the whole film. Yet, the film is sound, one can certainly be entertained by it.

But what I cannot forgive is that the story is almost unintelligible to someone that did not read the book. Even having seen the 2004 TV production Earthsea, which merges together the first two books, you are still left in the dark.

Bottom line: it would have been average to good, yet I have greater expectations from Ghibli's adaptation of a book trilogy such as Earthsea.

I really don't understand why writers change the stories when there are books. It's very simple, all they need to do is using the book to make a movie. But no, they have to change it completely.

There are conflicts with the books and it is very annoying.

I rented this film because it was from Studio Gibli--and they've made a lot of terrific films. However, I think it's one of their least productions--and if you are looking for a film like "My Neighbor Totoro" or "Ponyo", "Tales of Earthsea" may leave you cold. It turns out that the film left the author of the original book (Ursula LeGuin) cold--as she was apparently surprised at home violent this film was--and how unlike her story it was.

Although this is a Miyazaki directed film, it's actually by his son, Goro. Hayao was apparently busy on another project and so direction of this epic cartoon was delegated to him. And in many ways it looks like a Hayao Miyazaki film...but if you pay attention closely, you'll easily be able to see the differences. In particular, while the best scenes in "Tales From Earthsea" are every bit as good as any other Miyazaki film, many times you see lapses--scenes where the animation is frankly no better than a typical anime show. I found it frustrating as the film switched from a gorgeously rendered scene to one that just looked slapped together hurriedly. Also, this film is very dark--a lot like Hayao's early films ("Nausica"). It has a lot of blood for a cartoon--and even an attempted rape scene. Clearly it earned its PG-13 rating.

The story is typical of many fantasy stories and ultimately you can easily see where the plot is headed. There's an evil wizard and the spirits of goodness must prevail. However, it seems to take forever getting there. The pace, to put it bluntly, is glacial. My daughter adores Miyazaki films, but midway through the movie she went to bed. Like so many other viewers, she was hoping to see something reminiscent of "Sprited Away" or "Ponyo". Instead, it was a bit like a long-winded and more boring version of "Howl's Moving Castle"--and like that film, it seemed to have little respect for the source material.

Overall, I'd give this film a 6. If you are patient, it IS worth seeing but I certainly would not show it to most kids. Poorly paced and unevenly animated, it is certainly among the least watchable of Gibli's films. On the positive side, the DVD package is nice and you can watch the film in the original Japanese (like I did) with English subtitles or you can watch it with an American cast of voice talent.

If there's one movie that's often considered the worst film from acclaimed animation powerhouse, Studio Ghibli, Tales from Earthsea seems to be that one. Directed by legend Hayao Miyazaki's son Goro, the film was well received in Japan but internationally polarized audiences. To this day, many die hard Ghibli fans deem it to be the black sheep of the studio's efforts, in addition to Hayao Miyazaki himself not considering his son ready for true director status at the time. Having watched it myself, while I do get a good chunk of the criticisms, I actually found myself enjoying it for the most part.

Set in the land of Earthsea, the film follows a powerful wizard named Sparrowhawk seeking a mysterious force that threatens to bring humanity into internal darkness, Along the way, he rescues a runaway prince named Arren and joins forces with a priestess and a witch girl to defeat an evil foe seeking immortality. Now despite a cool premise like that, the movie actually takes its time getting to the epic stuff, as a good chunk of the first and second act are spent on the gang tending things on their farmland and the city near the king's castle. However, much of this time is spent on letting the characters' interactions with one another speak for themselves. Arguably, what the film gets right the most is how it explores human nature and evil in a way that shows how organic these feelings can be, from contemplation of death, to needing a purpose to live, and even how seeking immortality means throwing off the circle of life. It's rare when I see fantasy movies delve into such serious territory as the struggle between light and darkness in such a humane and fascinating ordeal.

As for Arren himself, given how many dark thoughts that he has yet can't comprehend , even by trying to run away from his troubles, is at his most intriguing and relatable whenever he has to face the grief leads to him having to discover himself a lot more in order to become a more noble person. By contrast, the witch girl Therru values life because of what it offers in spite of every being having to die someday, hence making her sympathetic if nothing else. In addition to Sparrowhawk and his friend Tenar making for a solid contrast between noble sorcery and mortal kindness, the villainous warlock Cob is arguably the best character in the whole movie. With a set goal to control life for good, his calm and whispery presence makes him so unsettling from how much he would destroy anything in his way. With Sparrowhawk's wishes to restore balance to the universe and Cob's wish to alter it, as simple as this dynamic is, it works in a fantasy world where control and order must remain intact. After all, there can't be real light without darkness.

Now with all of that said, the film's weakest moment would have to be the climax where things start to really fall apart. Without going into too much detail, this plot point falls into the typical fantasy trope of the hero rescuing the damsel from the evil doer, and let's just say Cob is taken care of by a plot contrivance. In the words of Ursula K. Le Guin, who wrote the book series this movie was based on, the movie ends up showing evil as "comfortably externalized in a villain [...] who can simply be killed, thus solving all problems," thus making the complex concept of light vs. darkness more disappointingly oversimplified than anything. On the upside, as is the case with the average Studio Ghibli affair, the artwork is gorgeous. While not quite as imaginative as Spirited Away or grandiose as Princess Mononoke, the backgrounds have so much rich detail and color that it's no shock Goro Miyazaki was a landscaper prior to making movies. The characters also have nice little attributes to their designs, from Arren's depressed facial expressions, to Therru's faded scar, to the overall creeper attire on Cob, etc.

So in the end, while the third act of Tales from Earthsea may have been a let down, the rest of the movie at least has some substance to offer in terms of its themes relating to contemplating death over life, stunning art direction and surprisingly relatable characters. I'm sure this movie might not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you're still curious, give it a watch. And who knows, given it was based on a book series, you could end reading them to heighten your love of the movie overall. Goro may have gone on to better works since this (From Up on Poppy Hill & Ronja), but it's good to know where he started off, if not perfectly.

This is a surprisingly good film--and I'm not making the expected follow-on disclaimer, "...for a beginning director." This was a good film by anybody's standard.

Gedo Senki, or Tales from Earthsea, seems to be one episode of a series of tales where Ged (Gedo) is the central character. This 'episode,' then, would be about his encounters with a seventeen-year old prince, named Arren, and a mysterious young girl, named Therru. It's based on Ursula K LeGuin's Earthsea series which I must admit I have not read. I hope the film kept to the spirit of the original story and the author is pleased with the Ghibli presentation.

As the story breaks out, there are strange things happening. People seem to be lost in their purpose and dragon sightings are being reported. After a meeting between the King and his ministers on the topic, Arren, the King's son, assassinates his father and steals his sword. The first thing that hit my mind when watching the opening sequence was the somewhat low resolution background--most uncharacteristic for Ghibli films, which tend to be spectacular in color and detail. The color was there, but the detail looked like a watercolor in some images and paint by numbers in others. The foreground characters were slightly less detailed than what Hayao Miyazaki might have done, but they were not as distracting as the background.

At this point, Ged, who travels under the name Haitaka (the Japanese spelling of the name) encounters Arren in a battle with wolves. Arren seems possessed, and it takes a little time for Ged to calm him down. The voice actor for Ged is Bunta Sugawara, the gravelly-sounding voice of Kamajii in Spirited Away. The voice gives him the air of experience, age, and wisdom. While acted well, Bunta's voice seems a little on the old side for the character on the screen, who appears to be around forty.

The pair goes to a city where Arren chances across Therru as she is trying to escape some nasty soldiers. Therru is a completely fascinating character--and easily the best in the story. She is gentle, but very strong willed. When Arren saves her, she turns on him. They meet later coincidentally and she resumes her hostility toward him. It takes a while for her to warm up to him. When she finally does so, she becomes fiercely loyal to him.

The story develops nicely from there, though I can see it might not be fast enough for those who like lots of action all the time. Tales from Earthsea has some irretrievably evil characters, so the director's father, the great Hayao Miyazaki, would have rewritten the story and likely would have faced the ire of the original author.

Take a bow, Goro; you did good. I give this a nine out of ten rating.

I am a fan of both Ursula K. Le Guin's books, and Studio Ghibli's animation. I've read all of the Earthsea books, and I've seen most of Miyazaki's work, some of the movies dozens of times. I was putting off watching this adaptation, having read Le Guin's review of it, but I finally saw it and I am sorely disappointed. First of all, why are all the characters white? In the books, the peoples of most of the islands are dark-skinned (light brown to pretty dark), with the exception of the inhabitants of the Kargad lands, who are white. Notably, Tenar comes from Kargad and her white skin is the main reason why she is distrusted by the people in the village she lives in - in this adaptation, everybody is white, and so the women's dislike of Tenar was completely unmotivated, so they made her into a witch. The adaptation mixes together three different books, and rewrites all of the characters so that they are not complete and are unmotivated. If this was an adaptation of Lord of the Rings, it would be about the journey of a village of Hobbit-Elves in a fleet of ships to fight Sauron and his army of intelligent spiders. It is impossible for me to realize how anyone would be able to follow this movie without having read the books, and I myself was only able to figure out what I am supposed to think about why the characters in the movie did what they did because I recalled the original character and mentally "added" the aspects that the creators of the adaptation simplified, changed and botched. The characters are unrealistic and announce their lines with little motivation (as in you don't know why they're saying something and what it's supposed to mean), and not only they, but most of the elements of the plot and the world are unmotivated, like the people who made the movie introduced them but then forgot that they were supposed to make sense. One example is the very first scene of the movie, with two dragons fighting. Why are all those people so surprised when they see the dragons and when they fight? The books weave the world of Earthsea into one internally coherent and motivated whole, but in this movie all we get are like section titles on the index page. The main plot theme of the movie, of the wizards losing their powers, as well as the other main themes of dragons, the Equilibrium, the abuse and disregard of women from certain characters, Jungian shadows, and the story of Therru, are completely unexplained and just presented in a way that makes them pretty pictures but not a masterful story like in the Earthsea books. Even the typically gorgeous animation and artistic quality are in my view one of the worst in Ghibli's roster (apart from the beautiful backgrounds). The only thing that stands out is the Japanese voice-acting, which is top-notch, with Yuuko Tanaka's Cob the most masterful performance (although I had to get used to a female voice on that character), and Aoi Teshima's Therru also standing out. The score is also pleasant to the ear, as always in a Ghibli production. All in all, it's a hunge, washed-down, simplistic disappointment. Please do not ever watch it if you have not read the first four Earthsea books, even if you're not planning to read them - you may wind up with the whole set after a plane crash on a desert island one day, and then what you see in your mind will be sullied by having watched this adaptation.

Perhaps it's because I haven't read the source material, but I cannot quite understand this film's detractors.

With Yoshifumi Kondo's untimely death, I used to fear that there would be no able successor to continue the work of Hayao Miyazaki and Takahata. That fear is now most definitely alleviated. In this film, I see hope for the future.

Goro's style differs slightly from Hayao's, but is every bit as beautiful. Even more so, it could be argued. The themes of longing for life and fear of death are well carried, though admittedly some elements of the plot, such as the dragon storyline seem somewhat forced in.

This makes very little difference in the long run of the movie, however. Goro has proved he is just as able as his father is to make viewers laugh, cry, sigh with relief, and gasp in awe.

Ghibli is in safe hands. The magic will continue.

As many have guessed I am very fond of Studio Ghibli and their films. While I did like it in general, Tales from Earthsea lacked that extra something that made me love Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, My Neighbour Totoro, Grave of the Fireflies, Whisper of the Heart and Castle in the Sky as much as I did. The storytelling is rather clumsy and hackneyed in places, and some of the dialogue is rather hit and miss, and I also thought there was some lethargic pacing in the middle. However, the animation is absolutely gorgeous and the music is beautiful too. The characters are decent and likable enough, and the voice work from the likes of Timothy Dalton and Willem Dafoe is fine. Overall, decent but not great. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Although I am a fan of most Ghibli productions and Ursula Le Guinn's fantasy series, I could not help but feel disappointed at Ghibli's latest production.

Ghibli Studios has long been hailed as the Disney of the East, led by Miyazaki Hayao's leadership and captivating masterpieces (Totoro, Laputa, Nasuica, etc.). Even the more serious works by Takahata Isao had strong messages underlying every story (Pon Poko, Omoide Poro Poro, etc.). Miyazaki Goro's debut is a novice's work-in-progress and an apprentice's workshop exercise, at best.

The rearranging of Earthsea's storyline was interesting to figure out, but filled with flaws. The theme of Book 1 "A Wizard of Earthsea" was applied to a different character (Arren), whose prior mistake in life was not clarified well in terms of motive. Reference was made to Book 2 "The Tombs of Atuan" but without any hints that lend itself to proper character development (Tenar). Book 3 "The Farthest Shore" served as the drive for the main story but some major themes and fascinating western lands of the dragons were left out. Book 4 "Tehanu" serves a different purpose in the Earthsea series, especially for Ged, and so that theme was also not properly presented. In addition, the depiction and explanation of one of the main Book 4 characters, Therru, was lacking and so most audiences might be confused by the eventual ending of the Ghibli adaptation. However, Miyazaki Goro should be applauded at least for trying to adapt this legendary work into such a compact amalgamation.

Comparisons to the books aside, as an animated movie, the real problem with this production is that it fails to really capture the audience. Miyazaki Hayao had a sense of touch when it came to building mystery and creating curiosity among the audience regarding the storyline, while offering good pacing with action and character/story development. Even Takahata Isao's slower more serious stories had deep nostalgia built into his moralistic messages. Gedo Senki failed to capture the audience by building enough mystery, hence interest in the development of the story, or offering purposeful action scenes, or enriching the dialogue well enough to deliver a deep philosophical message behind the now already unoriginal existential questions for living. But, simply as a stand alone story, it falls flat. If these were done well, the story rearrangement from the original would add on to make Miyazaki Goro a genius.

Still, there is some value to this film. The music and song lyrics (Japanese version, at least) captured the essence of the original themes best. Fans of Earthsea and Ghibli, however, may get a kick from either trying to figure out the storyline rearrangement or identifying Ghibli icons that have shown up in past works. Other than that, it would seem like just a sub-par animated movie for TV.

The animation and art style are excellent, it's a joy to watch.

However the story feels like it gets nowhere and will leave you confused as many a things are not explained (directly or indirectly).

Watch it for the animation and to say you watched all of Ghibli's films.