tramainepaul
If you have not read the book, you may enjoy this movie. However, like most Jane Austen fans, if you are a Ken Follett fan, you require only two things in turning books into movies: 1) an attempt at accuracy with plots/characters, 2) changes that only ENHANCE the movie. Sadly, this does neither. The characters are changed. The plot is changed. I am wondering throughout series if why Ken Follett didn't sue them for using the name of the book as that was the only thing that remained unchanged. This movie is a poor man's Ken Follett novel. This is the tootsie roll that you eat last after you have eaten good Halloween candy. This is the person who thinks since dirt looks like cocoa powder, he can use dirt to make brownies. This my friend is dirt in brownies. I am a little sad and confused that they would even use the title of the book if they planned to use nothing else. Also, there seemed to be a campaign to make the movie as horrible as possible. However, I am still watching and addicted. My goals is to see how bad a job they did. I may write another review.
M Q
Okay, as it says, there are spoilers below.I read the reviews. Seems like those that did not read the book enjoyed the miniseries, while virtually everyone who read the book did not enjoy the miniseries.I agree completely. I read the books and the miniseries left a lot to be desired. My issue is, why change the plot so significantly? In the miniseries, many key characters were missing, Caris marries Elfric,Petronella and Godwyn are murderers, the queen hates Kingsbridge, Sir Gerald was Earl, there is no mention of Shiring, etc. etc. and I am only half way through the videos. I understand cutting it short for film, but why the huge changes? And why did Ken Follett agree to this?Did he think it was an improvement on the book? (Maybe it was, I don't know). I was just looking forward to the video version of the novel. I found myself simply comparing all of the changes which seemed needless. 1) Maybe if you haven't read the book or seen the series, watch the series first. The book is much more detailed and it will still be fresh because of the huge differences.2) The only reason I gave it 7 out of 10 is that if you have not read the book, it probably would be an enjoyable miniseries. The acting is good, the characters are good. I want to be fair to the screen version and not tainted by my having read the book. (BUT WHY THE NEEDLESS CHANGES?)3) Mr. Follett, I really hope they paid you a huge amount of cash for the video rights. Not for it being bad, just for it being basically so different from the book.Hope this helps!!
Jonathan Ferguson
The plot deviates several times from the book, but in most cases, the miniseries plot is BETTER. I mean, why have Godwyn be a kind-of bad guy and then have Philemon be the guy who does a lot of his dirty work when you can just have Godwyn be totally evil? Cynthia Nixon's Petranilla character is also great & even though I can't stand her in Sex & the City she really shines in this. And having the one-armed monk be Edward II was a good idea and was what I thought was going to happen when I read the book.The softcore porn scenes throughout the miniseries are also a nice touch.My advice is: Read Pillars of the Earth but skip the miniseries & Watch World without End but skip the book.
Angel Clare
While the production quality was excellent and the acting above par (the actors did what they could with the script), this mini-series was a huge disappointment.I was an enormous fan of the previous series ("The Pillars of the Earth")--indeed, enough of a fan to sludge through the tastelessly pretentious and mind-numbingly boring novel afterwards--so I was keen on a sequel series. Alas.Major issues: None of the protagonists had *any power whatsoever* the entire length of the series. None. I understand the whole "rising above the odds" trope that the plot was going for, but this series took it too far. "The Pillars of the Earth" used this trope, but perhaps due to actors with less charisma, or a weaker script, or something else, "World Without End" was simply painful to watch. Even the conclusion was weak--bad guys die in a hurry, hooray. The protagonists are never empowered. The antagonists, of course, are both many and powerful, and even receive the better half of the script.I couldn't cheer for any of the protagonists. One, because they never won anything; and two, because they were hardly given enough character for me to cheer for.You could call this a "sprawling epic," but I would place the emphasis on "sprawling." It overreached itself and fell on its face, sprawled on the muddy floor to be--hopefully--forgotten.
AD
