Mists of Avalon (2001)
---------------
Needless to say, I'm a total loser and haven't read the book
yet, but am going to review the film anyway :). 

It's always interesting to see different versions of Arthurian
legend presented to explain the central facts: 

1) Morgaine and Arthur had a child 
2) Arthur died without a known blood heir 
3) paganism was on the way out and christianity was on the way in
4) there were various wars, conflicts, and murders

Is Morgaine an evil plotting witch bent on attaining power, or is
she a more sympathetic character just caught in a bad struggle
to keep paganism alive? Is the lady of lake really a nasty old
bag who likes to crush people with her power? or is she a woman
willing to sacrifice everyone and everything, including her own
soul, to maintain the old ways? does she really have the right to
machinate and plot with other people's lives just because she can
do it?  she seems to think so. why do other people let the lady of
the lady treat them as pawns?

This film is visually OK and the acting is pretty decent, though
I found it lacking in raw emotion and brutal base conflict. I
found that the film was trying to present everyone as being noble
and suffering through bad "fate" situations that they were caught in
and nobly sacrificing for some greater aim. I am generally snoring on
that. Nobody challenged the situations that they were put into which
is never really very enheartening. Igraine could have told everyone
to screw off when they came to take her children away but did not.
Morgaine could have told everyone to screw off and not married
the old king instead of whining that she was 'tricked'. Was she
'tricked' also when she agreed to be the virgin huntress in the
rites of beltane?  Give me a break. People that do not challenge
their religion and politics deserve to be moved about as pawns on a
chess board. They may suffer and whine about it, but frankly I don't
want to hear it. I find films where people take a stand and make a
challenge, especially against the majority or even against reason,
a bit more edifying.

Also, the film presented more of the internal plotting and
machinations of what is going on behind the scenes and people
suffering through fate, explaining why they are suffering, and
must therefore suffer for some higher "duty". zzz. Give me more raw
emotion.  Give me people causing conflict and pain because their
heart tells them to and saying 'damn the torpedos' to everyone and
the gods. Give me people that are out for themselves and only
themselves. Give me raw lust! yahoo! The lack of freeing open
conflict and lack of characters saying 'bite me' makes the film a
bit heavy.

There are some dark parts to the film which is good, but the
visuals are mainly the actors, the hairstyles, the costumes, and
the sets. There are few memorable solid visual intense Arthurian
exemplifications (there are many in the film 'Excalibur') and the
music is not particularly strong. An exception would be the the
Isle of Avalon itself. Another exception would be the the scene of
the final conflict of viviane, the lady of lake, on the steps of
camelot. The utter abject ruin and darkness of the place, featuring
heads on pikes, is well presented. The mating scene on the night
of beltane is also haunting. The scenes of the children, Arthur
and Morgaine, together and being separated are also quite good 
and rending.

Other things:

-I object to the over-narration in the bit about the dragon tatoo
on Uther Pendragon's arm being the same as the one foretold in the
spill-pattern FIVE MINUTES before in the film. Only if you are a
complete dolt would you need this connection to be overtly made
for you. Rather insulting, really. Another objection I have is to
the flashback inserts to the night of the feast of beltane. totally
unnecessary and distracting.

-some people claim that the book and the film are "feminist
revisionism". 1) there are so many tellings and re-tellings of
Arthurian legend that no one version can be claimed to be The "true"
version; also point of view (Merlin, Morgaine, etc.) is important.
2) I don't consider women submitting themselves to some cruel,
substandard, or undeserved fate particularly feminist, or pro-woman.
3) maybe I really am some male pig reincarnated in a chick
body. give me more sword fights, blood, and gore! oink!

Personally, this is not a bad film and it is worth seeing, but 
there are other films on Arthurian legend that I like better
(in order of preference):

Excalibur (1981)
---------
here is a tasty dark film.
Excellent performance by Nichol Williamson as Merlin.
Strong music and cool visuals including excalibur turning end over
end in dark air (whee!) to be grasped handily by the bejeweled arm
of the lady of the lake. This film has traditional Arthurian imagery
including the sword in the stone and the holy grail. The final scene
where the goddess ship takes Arthur to Avalon is strikingly nordic
and mighty cool. Lancelot is hot in this film and we are even treated
to some good nude body shots including naked buttocks. yippee! 
Other good images include the utlra-creepy tree of doom and Perceval's
quest for the holy grail. In many legends, Perceval is seen as weak;
however, this film presents the point of view that it is Perceval's
weakness that allows him to be sensitive to the visions of the
grail. Perceval is the only knight of the roundtable to succeed in
seizing the grail in spite of his weakness and personal doubts about
his worthiness. Watching this film, I feel the most immersed in
Arthurian legend, as if I am actually there. Very good fantasy film.

Merlin (1998/II)(TV)
------
Here is a lighter film even including a happy ending which never
happened anywhere in Arthurian legend as far as I can tell. Here
Morgan is presented as a sympathetic character who achieves
companionship, a child, and family through the old ways. Sam
Neill is great as Merlin, Martin Short is good as the gnome/elf
thingy, Frik, and rotates well between several incarnations of the
creature. Visuals are great, interesting camera angles and groovy
special effects; there is much magic in this film. Includes dual
performance by Miranda Richardson as the Lady of the Lake/Queen Mab
of the Fairies, Isabella Rossellini as Nimue, Merlin's lady love,
Rutger Hauer as Vortigern, and Helena Bonham Carter as Morgan le
Fey. Billie Whitelaw is also good as Ambrosia. Jason Done (The
English Patient) is good as Mordred. Includes the voice of James
Earl Jones as the rock of ages. A strong fantasy film.

King Arthur, the Young Warlord (1975)
-------------------------------------
This is a fun film starring 70's hearthrob Oliver Tobias. Give
this film a chance; there is good stuff in here about the Duke of
Cornwall and the training of pages. I must say Oliver is totally
hot in the film and has about a dozen different frisky cool outfits
through which he changes about every 10 minutes. Fine costumes and
the film has a nice gritty peasant authenticity (probably due to
low budget).  There are no kickass effects in this film, but 
the film's simplicity leads to its success.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
--------------------------------------
Had to throw this one in just for laughs. Love this film.  It is
a complete spoof of the King Arthur revival which was happening in
the mid-70's. The usual spiraling buffoonery and low-budget antics
(coconuts) make the film even more amusing. Good costumes and good
peasant shots. Includes amusing body slam on the French. One of
the most quoted films of all time. Pedestrians who "don't get"
British humor should avoid this film.

I am sure there are other Arthurian films about that I haven't
even seen and would be interested in hearing about them if you know
of any (good or bad).

for more details, see www.imdb.com (Internet Movie Database)