User reviews

"Labyrinth" is an entertaining mini-series disclosing two stories, one in 1209 and the other in 2012, in France. Alais Pelletier Du Mas (Jessica Brown Findlay) is followed in the Middle Ages, when the Crusade attack the City of Carcassonne where she lives with her father and her evil stepsister. In the present days (2012), her descendant Alice Tanner (Vanessa Kirby), who is a teacher working with her archeologist friend in a dig, is chased by a mysterious ring that is looking for three ancient books and a ring to achieve power and eternal life through the Holy Grail. The historical event and the fictional present are entwinned and is attractive for a television mini-series. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Labirinto" ("Labyrinth")

Love the Cathars, would be happy to have one for a neighbour. The concept of liberal Christians that believed in equality for all, accumulation of wealth was bad, sex was healthy and believed in reincarnation is very interesting. The fact that, in the 12/13th century, philosophically they were kicking the roman catholic churches butt says a lot. Tying that in with the holy grail and mixing it in with factual historical references gave this mini series a lot of scope. The reference to carrying our past with us in our blood is very reminiscent of Frank Herbert's Dune and the inference of a genetic memory.

However, the heavy handedness of the direction and use of cliché characters and tropes that did not make sense left me squirming in my seat. Especially in part 1 and the end of part II in the medieval period it felt as if the Cathars had some rabid twitter account saying "Dear bad guys guys want to know all our secrets?....". Yes we know it's the good guys against the bad guys but how come the bad guys seem to know more about what their counterparts are doing than they do? Damn you twitter account!!!

Speaking of which, I felt sorry for Katie McGrath who portrayed a cardboard cut out of her Morgana character in the Merlin series. She's a good looking woman and a fine actress but did she seriously have to lose her clothes so often? She was only one of many flat characters with trite dialogue. There is one scene where she can see someone shake his head in response to a question she asks when she is looking away from him. At this point I was also shaking my head as the dialogue/monologue leading up to this point felt like a quick fix to try to explain her motivation for being such a nasty piece of work and failing miserably.

When it came to the end it felt that I had only seen half the production. It felt as if a whole group of scenes had been cut out and re-spliced leaving me trying to figure how we got to F from A without B, C, D and E. If I'm being kind I would like to think that due to external pressures that a real cracker of a production is out there waiting to be shown at a future date.

As it was I found myself just becoming more frustrated as things made less and less sense. Even the role of the grail in the end becomes diminished except potentially as lesson teacher to humanity.

On the plus side Jessica Brown Findlay playing the medieval heroine was the closest to a fully formed character in the whole story and I'd like to see her in more roles. Production was good especially in the medieval scenes and the filming felt clean and slick. I now feel enlightened as I've had a chance to meet the Cathars, not to be confused with the Kardashians. Giving it 5 out of 10 as I feel like I only saw half of what could have been.

First of all, I think the story on Cathars is a brilliant topic for film - barely touched in films. I'm disappointed that not everything was filmed in location (Southern Africa? Why? Languedoc and around wasn't good enough?). The other thing, but it's a personal thing, the archaeological excavations were rubbish - nobody digs like that! (but I'm an archaeologist, so it's my thing). I didn't really enjoy the modern part of the story because of acting - actors and actresses were very stiff and unnatural. It looks like the modern story was directed and filmed by somebody else, but the Medieval part was much better in execution. I give 9 for the Medieval part and 3 for modern part, so it's 6 in general. My opinion is based on the first episode.

I watched this while on holiday and was quite literally blown away.

I knew a little about the book (i'd read half of it on holiday before accidentally leaving it in hotel room) and what I'd remembered seemed almost identical to what was realised in the film.

The story flicks back and forth between Alice in the modern (played by the excellent Vanessa Kirby) and Alais her medieval counterpoint (played by Jessica Brown Findlay- Lady Cybil from Downton Abbey.

The subject matter (the quest for the Holy Grail) could easily have been silly but somehow everything feels very convincing and real. It is a little violent at times but it was a violent period so I suppose it had to be.

There are a lot of characters in the story so there's a lot to take in in episode one but it all builds up to an amazing battle that looks like it was made for cinema instead of TV.

Overall amazing TV that really took me by surprise. Now I want to read book again.

The miniseries deals with two women , modern-day Alice Tanner (Vanessa Kirby) , a volunteer at a French archaeological excavation who finds the skeletal remains of two people in a cave , and medieval Alaïs Pelletier Du Mas (Jessica Findlay) , who lives through the Crusades and Cathar slaughters in medieval France , both of them are seeking the Holy Grail . As there are three sacred books that reveal the secret of the Holy Grail from the Crusaders and various tracks as a labyrinth-engraved ring that lead to resolve the enigmas . In 1209, newly married Alaïs to Guilhem Du Mas is living in Carcassonne , a stronghold of Cathars defended by Viscount Trencavel (Tom Felton). Meanwhile , it is besieged by Simon Monfort (John Lynch) and Guy D'Evreux (Tony Curran) leaders of the Crusaders . Hunted by the Inquisition and deserted by the nobles of their districts, the Cathars became more and more scattered fugitives : meeting surreptitiously in woods and mountain wilds .

This is an epic film mingling actual events along with past happenings by means of a lot of flashbacks ; as while in contemporary time occurs an intrigue starred by Vanessa Kirby , in Middle Age when the city of Carcassona has been declared heretical by the Church being starred by Jessica Findlay , and his nasty sister Katie McGrath . The most interesting moments concern about the historic events dealing with Catharism , a movement that thrived in some areas of Europe , particularly southern France, between the 12th and 14th centuries , the followers were known as Cathars and are now mainly remembered for a prolonged period of persecution , it appeared in Europe in the Languedoc region of France , as here are shown impressive battles and strong massacres , they are the highlights of the movie . Acceptable mini-series , though sometimes result to be pointless , non-sense , and confuse . Based on the bestseller by Kate Mosse who plays a small role as Montsegur Guide . The picture was professionally directed by Christopher Smith , though it has some flaws and gaps .

This one being based on historic facts as : Pope Innocent III attempted to end Catharism by sending missionaries and by persuading the local authorities to act against them . In 1208 Innocent's papal legate Pierre Castelnau was murdered while returning to Rome after excommunicating Count Raymond VI of Toulouse . Pope Innocent III then abandoned the option of sending Catholic missionaries , launched the Albigensian Crusade which all but ended Catharism . The crusader army came under the command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged . The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay alongside the Cathars. Their first target was the lands of the Trencavel, powerful lords of Albi, Carcassonne and the Razes—but a family with few allies in the Midi. Little was thus done to form a regional coalition and the crusading army was able to take Carcassonne, the Trencavel capital, incarcerating Raymond Roger Trencavel in his own citadel where he died , allegedly of natural causes; champions of the Occitan cause from that day to this believe he was murdered . Simon de Montfort was granted the Trencavel lands by the Pope and did homage for them to the King of France, thus incurring the enmity of Peter II of Aragon who had held aloof from the conflict, even acting as a mediator at the time of the siege of Carcassonne. The remainder of the first of the two Cathar wars now essentially focused on Simon's attempt to hold on to his fabulous gains through winters where he was faced, with only a small force of confederates operating from the main winter camp at Fanjeaux, with the desertion of local lords who had sworn fealty to him out of necessity—and attempts to enlarge his newfound domains in the summer when his forces were greatly augmented by reinforcements from northern France, Germany and elsewhere. Summer campaigns saw him not only retake, sometimes with brutal reprisals, what he had lost in the 'close' season, but also seek to widen his sphere of operation—and we see him in action in the Aveyron at St. Antonin and on the banks of the Rhone at Beaucaire. Simon's greatest triumph was the victory against superior numbers at the Battle of Muret—a battle which saw not only the defeat of Raymond of Toulouse and his Occitan allies—but also the death of Peter of Aragon—and the effective end of the ambitions of the house of Aragon/Barcelona in the Languedoc . The Battle of Muret was a massive step in the creation of the unified French kingdom and the country we know today—although Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry V would threaten later to shake these foundations. The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice. What remained of the city was razed by fire. After the success of his siege of Carcassonne, which followed the Massacre at Béziers in 1209, Simon de Montfort was designated as leader of the Crusader army. Prominent opponents of the Crusaders were Raymond Roger Trencavel, viscount of Carcassonne, and his feudal overlord Peter II, the king of Aragon, who held fiefdoms and had a number of vassals in the region. Peter died fighting against the crusade on 12 September 1213 at the Battle of Muret. Simon Montfort was killed on 25 June 1218 after maintaining a siege of Toulouse for nine months .

A TV miniseries adaptation of the Kate Mosse novel LABYRINTH. I made a point of reading the book before watching this, and I found out that I didn't think very much of it at all. The miniseries would be an improvement, right? Well, it is, but it's certainly not a "great" piece of entertainment, saddled as it is with various flaws and contradictions.

The good news is that although it follows the same basic plotting as the novel, pretty much every scene and sequence is changed slightly, enhanced to be more entertaining for TV audiences. Thus it's also a lot more explicit, with some bloodshed and nudity thrown in for adult viewers.

It's better than the book because it doesn't drag so much, preferring to get on with the narrative instead of throwing in the three-pages of travelogue stuff that lets Mosse's writing down. The enhanced levels of violence make this hard-hitting in places, but the calibre of the acting is a disappointment. Some of the established supporting actors are okay - John Hurt, Tom Curran, even Tom Felton in a Orlando-Bloom-in-Kingdom-of-Heaven type role, but the leads are weak, particularly Vanessa Kirby. Who ever thought she'd be experienced enough to carry the central role?

There are still problems with the story, namely the sub-DA VINCI CODE antics of the modern-day tale (which could have been removed completely), although the historical stuff is more interesting. Some of the direction is also a little cheesy, especially when it descends into sub-Shakespeare melodrama at the climax. Still, I suspect those unfamiliar with the story will enjoy it more than I did...

I liked it and I enjoyed the historical fiction drama. It the age old story of the love of power vs the power of love.the dual stories worked for me just fine in my veiw. A wonderful ending with a sense of natural justice. The holy grail is an interesting theme the ongoing development of love the creators love for all. I hope to see more films like this those thas t connect us with our ancestors. A reminder that all the wars are for naught be they religious , ideological or for power and greed. The script is good interesting the actors were excellant in their characterizations the visuals and costumes were authentic looking. Cheers to all the cast.

My wife had read the book and while she said it wasn't one of the author's best, it was good enough, so I gave this a go. I've found that sometimes weaker books from an author make better films than stronger ones, and while I was a little dubious of the subject matter, I thought I'd give it a go anyway.

What I got was a heap of fairly risible trash, with phoned in performances, some remarkably passionless bonking, a retread of the familiar "It's all a Catholic plot!" Grail stuff, and a curiously strong desire to persecute Cathars. Not on religious grounds, mind you, just for being annoying. It's a pain when you're several hundred years too late to join in the fun :(. I'm just rather disappointed, overall. It's full of actors that I like, so I disregarded the rather uncomplimentary heads-up from the Radio Times and plowed on with it, only to come out at the end with, well, nothing.

It's quite possible that the low reviews for this series are influenced by its religious themes. Yet the producers must have been aware of the risk. Religion can be a polarizing subject. Any misstep-real or perceived-could lead to backlash.

However, I see the religious elements as metaphors, similar to how the shark in Jaws represented more than just a predator. This series, like Jaws, is ultimately about human experience. Themes of fear, guilt, redemption, and existential questioning resonate on multiple levels. When viewed this way, the characters' struggles feel more real and profound.

I give the series a 6.5 not only for the engaging characters, but also for the courage shown by the series creators.

I just finished watching the second episode and I couldn't wait for it to end. How John Hurt put his name to this I do not know. The other actors must've been hard up for work or Kate Moss is personal friends with all of them.

The long, drawn out scenes are reminisce of American TV shows that use this ploy to make a show seem longer than it really is. The public is intelligent enough to fill in the gaps- really. But maybe it was made for American audiences. It's incredibly predictable and looks like they've used left over sets (and actors) from the Merlin TV series. The plastic chain mail is unconvincing but was forgiven in Merlin, which didn't take itself too seriously.

Another component which I found irritating was the editing- extremely bad. The transitions between eras (and some scenes)is clumsy and this seems to be prevalent not only in TV shows these days, but major movies which seem to be rushed and slapped together.

I honestly thought there would be a lot more depth to the plot than there was.

VERY disappointing.

While much of the acting and production was skilled, the writing is self-indulgent, unrealistic, and reflects the severe mental issues of the creator in a very bad way. It seems as though the writer despises men, exists in a bizarre reality of their own creation, and yet has a peculiar lack of any original thought.

It is a shame when so many talented people put so much effort into to script of an inferior storyteller, who's work is colored by their own madness and therefore creates characters who cannot be related to by those with a firmer grasp on reality. Every actor's performance was excellent with the exception of Vanessa Kirby, who made me wonder if she was aware she was supposed to be acting.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. Great book. Rubbish film. That just about sums it up for me. Having enjoyed the book so much I was really looking forward to this when I stumbled upon it in the Weekend TV Supplement, but where was the pre-publicity or trailers? Maybe the TV execs knew they had a turkey on their hands when they scheduled it on two consecutive nights over a long weekend when they knew that half the nation would be on holiday. It wasn't all bad - the screenplay was pretty close to the book, which is good, but at nearly 700 pages it is a big ask, and it has to be down to the screenwriter and director to put the story across in an accessible way, and on this occasion I think they have fallen short. The locations, lavish sets, costumes, and the star cast, were all great however. But something was lacking. I wish I could put my finger on it.It was all a bit clichéd. I know the body count was pretty high but there were far too many death-bed scenes when profound words are exchanged just before they croak and the eyes go north. I rarely criticise actors because they can only work with the material they are given but it would help if they could articulate a little more clearly. Without the help of subtitles (and having read the book) I would probably not have had a clue what was going on. Poor Jessica Findlay-Brown has an unfortunate speech defect that when she speaks quietly she breaks into a whisper every other syllable. Very distracting. And central casting please note - Tom Felton, fine actor though he is, does not have the physical presence or vocal gravitas to carry off the part of a warrior leader. And why was it necessary to cast Will as an American? This is a European story about European culture with European settings and characters. No need for a token American. This film will bomb in America anyway with their bite-size attention span. Can you imagine this complex storyline on American TV with adverts every five minutes? The audience will quickly lose the plot if not the will to live! Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. There, I've said it again.

This takes place along two different timelines.

One story, taking place in our time, is a re-imagining of The Da Vinci Code, a quest for the Holy Grail, involving a naive and unassuming heroine, secret societies, rich and therefore powerful individuals and the like.

The other, taking place in Medieval times, has more betrayals, backstabbings and deaths than your average Game of Thrones volume.

It's clear, then, what they tried to do here...

Budget-wise it's decent, but the acting's very basic, and the plot twists (not that many) I saw coming a mile off... oh, and Draco Malfoy as a french prince? that can't be good.

Watchable, but way too obvious in its intentions.

Have any of the previous reviewers actually watched it? It has nothing to do with the Holy Grail and simply refers to the Grail which pre dates Christianity.

The plot was interesting and there was good use of the intertwining story. There are some unnecessary nude scenes (When are nude scenes necessary?) but I am not complaining. I enjoyed the scenes around Carcasonne and I think it will do their tourist board no harm. I agree with a previous reviewer that the modern part was a bit strange and you didn't really get why it was so important to them but overall I thought it was thoroughly enjoyable.

What a waste of time. It's a waste of my time to try to explain why.