Labyrinth

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.