Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

alexandresobreira-12-509311 I was compelled to add this after reading several reviews: I think the scriptwriter knows about Ged's name inversion. He or the producers just thought that Sparrowhawk was not catchy enough or was too long. So they decided to reverse the order. Considering the writer had the gall to say that his adaptation reflected LeGuin's TRUE intentions (prompting her to write her reply - by the way, isn't the book's copyright hers? And so, shouldn't she have been able to veto anything based on it? I don't know how international copyright laws work on this. Now, on to my review. Well, I think that an adaptation of a book to film medium should follow the book. Actually, I'd like it to slavishly follow the book insofar as the medium allows. But I don't judge the adaptation for not doing that. I like the Lord of the Rings movies and they deviate from the books in several essential points, not the least of which is ignoring the fact that Tolkien creates his characters to be Aristotelian examples of superior men, even though LOTR is not a tragedy, but a comedy (technically speaking). In terms of adaptation of the books, this miniseries is awful, totally disgusting. The Godking of Awabath is changed into a warlord that wants to conquer the Archipelago, Kossil is his mistress, quite the young and attractive woman, who wants to gain the power to summon the nameless ones (who are a sort of black gremlins with bat wings ??), Tenar is chosen by the last high priestess of the tombs to take her place as keeper of the key to hold the nameless ones prisoners. By the way, it's one of them that is after Ged. The Iskyorh gebbeth becomes the archfiend of the whole trilogy and has a showdown with Ged at the Tombs of Atuan, where Ged incomprehensibly decides to release the nameless batgremlins and their evil upon the world. Nemerle does not die, but remain the leader of the resistance against the Kargs, who have conquered Roke with the help of Jasper ??? Also, poor Nemerle looks suspiciously like a Dumbledore... Should I go on? However, that's not the reason I'm rating it so low. What I really hated was the fact that not only were the actors terrible, even poor Isabella Rossellini and Danny Glover, because their roles were so bad, but the series is only a long series of clichés strung together. The whole Karg invasion plot is there so the film doesn't have to deal with the true issues of the first book, which is Ged's search for his own identity. The central issues of the other two books, namely, how once can gain freedom through trust and by looking beyond the bars of one's cage and acceptance of mortality as essential to life, are thoroughly ignored. The Archmage and the other wizards of Roke are reduced to a position of almost comic relief to the series (even worse, poor Vetch IS in fact treated as a comic relief character). So, we are down to a soppy, ridiculous adventure crafted for the so-called young adult public. By the way, I'm 50, but if I were a young adult I would feel very insulted by how imbecilic current day scriptwriters (especially Hollywood) think young adults are.

dilbertsuperman This has your typical made-for-television quasi-medieval fantasy realm crap where swordfights never draw blood and the stunts are generally CGI or very simple run-of-the-mill boring stuff. This is a good kids movie but for adults it's just to inane, boring and bland to really stand out as anything worth watching. This is basically a director trying to jump on board the Harry Potter craze using a Television Show Movie budget.. you see the usual television quality CGI effects, a derivative script and bland actors and actresses who have no idea who their character is. The only acting that occurs in this movie is two people- the Head Magus and the Head Nun of the order that watches the unnamed ones. Other than that it's a bunch of drug addicts that just woke up blandly reading their lines and assuming their costume will make up for them not working very hard at the job of suspending disbelief. Isabella Rosellini has been taking more matronly looking roles these days, but she is still a classic beauty of the sort that drove artists insane during the renaissance- the movie is worth watching just to see her. If you want to see this legendary woman in a real movie- watch BLUE VELVET- a very harsh and brutal flick when she was at the height of her epic beauty- she burns into the screen like a fever vision in that one! In this movie she is pudgy, pasty, yet you can still tell she's completely gorgeous beneath it, a very good casting choice for her role as the head nun.As far as suspending disbelief... There's a lot to disbelieve in this movie- like.. disbelieve you should watch it!! PLOT: The son of a blacksmith's mother died when he was a child- he was raised by his father, a blacksmith, and an old witch that his mother saved from the sea long ago- as such he has magical powers- powers that he wants to develop so off he goes to hogwartz.. oh wait this isn't harry potter- but it sort of IS!! The rip-offs are many but the movie is saved a little bit by several good looking women to watch and a little bit of bearable CGI effects.. sometimes this movie is OK, but then the direction comes back in and ruins it completely- making it a bland, boring affair lacking in imagination and budget to convey a story worth telling in a format worth seeing.If you want to see what this movie was shooting for I think you would watch a Harry Potter movie followed by Willow followed by Dungeons and Dragons(which was terrible).

prkamm 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.

Kras543 When I watched the movie, I noticed that it was the first two books put together. It was job nicely done, changing from Ged to the Tombs of Atuan. Although what I didn't like was the part where they added the Kargad King or where they released the Nameless Ones and forged the amulet of Erreth-Akbe together and saved the world from the Nameless Ones after releasing them like five minutes ago. What I also didn't like was the change that every priestess, Tenar, Thar, and Kossil worship the Nameless Ones and that Thar was the ultimate priestess, and a succeeder is chosen, not like in the book, Tombs of Atuan. In the book there is Thar, high priestess of the Twin Gods, Kossil, high priestess of the God King and, Arha (Tenar), High priestess of the Nameless Ones and high priestess of the Tombs of Atuan. In the movie there was three people arguing for the place of Thar "high priestess of the Nameless Ones and Tombs of Atuan". Phhhhh!! Also the constant dying in the Tombs of Atuan, leaving Tenar as the only significant character in there was quite baffling. Yes in the book Thar dies because of disease. Not because of poisoning from Kossil. Also there was no "Rosa" servant who was strangled by Kossil and there was no Kargad King to kill Kossil. Otherwise, the movie had nice screenplay, and fairly good actors. For those who haven't read the books and !MAYBE! for those who have read them, this movie is worth seeing despite its many bad sides.