IMDb RATING
5.7/10
6.6K
YOUR RATING
A reckless young man is destined to become the greatest sorcerer the mystical land of Earthsea has ever known.A reckless young man is destined to become the greatest sorcerer the mystical land of Earthsea has ever known.A reckless young man is destined to become the greatest sorcerer the mystical land of Earthsea has ever known.
- Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy
- 7 wins & 8 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
Overlong and ultimately unsatisfying mythical nonsense. The cast are strictly average and Kreuk is as typically bland as ever (check out TV series Edgemont for her best role). Canadian actress Jennifer Calvert is amazing as always and here gets a meaty leading role as an aide to the main villain. Katharine Isabelle features only briefly as the wizard friend's beautiful sister (and then spends her role looking a bit shifty as if she might fancy the main wizard, though this is never played out). Nothing else makes any impression. The music, set, costumes are all there but make little impact. Watch this to discover a true (and undervalued) actress (Jennifer Calvert) but not for a good time.
To be fair, "The Legend of Earthsea" isn't horrible. It crisply adapts Le Guin's powerful novels in a way that is adequate for a Sci-Fi Movie-of-The-Week. However, it clearly lacks the power of Sci-Fi's more hyped projects, like "Children of Dune" or "Battlestar Galataca". Thus, the results are stacked somewhere between adequate and mediocre.
The main problem with the production lies in that the show's producers evidently see the relation between Le Guin's Earthsea and the landmarks of fantastical fiction that followed it. Most notably, the Rourke School of Wizardry obviously draws a connection to Harry Potter's Hogwarts. (Take note, the first Earthsea book was written in 1968, so there is hardly a chance Le Guin is infringing on any actual Rowling territory). Immediately picking up on this, the movie depicts Jasper, the school rival of the protagonist Ged, as a carbon copy of Draco Malfoy - the blonde aristocrat with a constantly snobbish demeanor. This just isn't how it went in the original novel. In Leguin's "A Wizard of Earthsea", Jasper was one of Ged's friend who eventually outgrew the young wizard, eventually picking on Ged in order to appease the older crowd he hung out with. But "Legend of Earthsea" clearly makes Jasper out to be a clear-cut foil instead of a three dimensional character.
Other changes include making the barbaric Kargs more or less the stereotypical "evil kingdom", complete with an evil king with plans of . . . yes . .. world domination. He actually says "All of Earthsea will be mine!" Please. To paraphrase Le Guin, she wrote about "real people with real problems in imaginary places". The movie clearly undercuts such intentions, making a story that is only devoid of Le Guin's social statements on race and gender roles. In addition, the many original insights that haunted Le Guin's passages only lingers weakly in the frames of this soon-to-be-forgotten bumble.
**
The main problem with the production lies in that the show's producers evidently see the relation between Le Guin's Earthsea and the landmarks of fantastical fiction that followed it. Most notably, the Rourke School of Wizardry obviously draws a connection to Harry Potter's Hogwarts. (Take note, the first Earthsea book was written in 1968, so there is hardly a chance Le Guin is infringing on any actual Rowling territory). Immediately picking up on this, the movie depicts Jasper, the school rival of the protagonist Ged, as a carbon copy of Draco Malfoy - the blonde aristocrat with a constantly snobbish demeanor. This just isn't how it went in the original novel. In Leguin's "A Wizard of Earthsea", Jasper was one of Ged's friend who eventually outgrew the young wizard, eventually picking on Ged in order to appease the older crowd he hung out with. But "Legend of Earthsea" clearly makes Jasper out to be a clear-cut foil instead of a three dimensional character.
Other changes include making the barbaric Kargs more or less the stereotypical "evil kingdom", complete with an evil king with plans of . . . yes . .. world domination. He actually says "All of Earthsea will be mine!" Please. To paraphrase Le Guin, she wrote about "real people with real problems in imaginary places". The movie clearly undercuts such intentions, making a story that is only devoid of Le Guin's social statements on race and gender roles. In addition, the many original insights that haunted Le Guin's passages only lingers weakly in the frames of this soon-to-be-forgotten bumble.
**
Two-thirds through last night's show--the first half of EARTHSEA--I muttered to my wife, "This is so bad." She said, "So tomorrow you'll be at the computer typing up your gripes to someone." I looked at her indignantly and said something like, "Ah, why waste my time?" Of course, she was right, so here I am. An Earthsea adaptation is long overdue; I'm just so sad that it was done so shabbily, with such an eye (apparently) toward anticipating what the unimaginative masses would like to see, as opposed to the rich, subtle, mystical world that Ursula Le Guin so beautifully created in her great Earthsea novels. I don't have the heart (or time) to break the mini-series down, bit by bit, to show what's wrong with it. Let's just say that the screenwriters, producers, and director insisted on reshaping a great work of popular art into a cookie cutter shape, substituting clichés for subtleties and an "epic" (read Lord of the Rings) war story for what should have been a personal struggle with good/evil. Worst, I suspect that in Part II, tonight, we're all gonna see Ged, whose little cheek scar only adds to his overall "hotness," smooching a princess (the SMALLVILLE babe). This thing is almost as bland as last month's elections. Mr and Ms. Producers, either do Le Guin justice and tell the story right or don't bother!
It never ceases to amaze me how some hack screenwriter can think he's gifted enough to take award-winning, much-loved source material and alter it nearly to the point of unrecognizability. This can never lead to a good outcome. This miniseries was further proof. What a complete waste of time and money. Stilted, wooden acting, lame dialogue, and pointless major plot changes (not to mention detail changes) resulted in one of the worst book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. Several times I found myself wondering whether the people responsible for this mess had ever actually read the books. And what was up with the casting? I've never seen a bigger load of actors who are simply wrong for their parts.
How do they get funding for this stuff? I just don't get it. They should just give me the money instead -- I could have made a better adaptation with my video camera, a plastic swimming pool, and a stick of modeling clay. Unbelievable.
How do they get funding for this stuff? I just don't get it. They should just give me the money instead -- I could have made a better adaptation with my video camera, a plastic swimming pool, and a stick of modeling clay. Unbelievable.
Let's get one thing straight right away, I haven't read the books! so those who have may not agree with me.
When I first picked this thing up I read the back cover and it talked about comparing it to the lord of the rings and harry potter, well they shouldn't have, when I first started watching this I kept looking for strange unfamiliar and mythical animals but none were apparent, it also starts out very slowly but then again it's almost 3 hours long so it can take it's time (which it does). After about 2 hours I realized that this is by no means in the same league as harry potter or the lord of the rings because it has no budget, at least nothing up to the likes of a Hollywood movie. But unlike other movies I've seen, that squander their budget on low quality CGI that makes the whole thing unwatchable and laughable, this movie instead focused it's budget on creating sets and costumes that are nicely done and detailed, and in those few scenes where they actually do have CGI, it's at least passingly decent.
The story isn't too compelling but enough so to maybe keep your attention for all 3 hours of it, but many ends are left open that leave you pondering later... uh why was that again?. I want to stress again, I haven't read the book, I hear this movie butchers them, but as a film unto it's own it still delivers an OK story.
Acting is around par for most involved, expect as much as you normally would from a made-for-TV movie.
All in all a decent movie to kill a lot of extra time with, even though there are a lot of other better alternatives out there.
When I first picked this thing up I read the back cover and it talked about comparing it to the lord of the rings and harry potter, well they shouldn't have, when I first started watching this I kept looking for strange unfamiliar and mythical animals but none were apparent, it also starts out very slowly but then again it's almost 3 hours long so it can take it's time (which it does). After about 2 hours I realized that this is by no means in the same league as harry potter or the lord of the rings because it has no budget, at least nothing up to the likes of a Hollywood movie. But unlike other movies I've seen, that squander their budget on low quality CGI that makes the whole thing unwatchable and laughable, this movie instead focused it's budget on creating sets and costumes that are nicely done and detailed, and in those few scenes where they actually do have CGI, it's at least passingly decent.
The story isn't too compelling but enough so to maybe keep your attention for all 3 hours of it, but many ends are left open that leave you pondering later... uh why was that again?. I want to stress again, I haven't read the book, I hear this movie butchers them, but as a film unto it's own it still delivers an OK story.
Acting is around par for most involved, expect as much as you normally would from a made-for-TV movie.
All in all a decent movie to kill a lot of extra time with, even though there are a lot of other better alternatives out there.
Did you know
- TriviaUrsula K. Le Guin, author of the novels on which the production is based, was critical of the adaptation. Among her complaints was the "whitewashing" of her characters' races (in the novels, few of Le Guin's characters are white). Le Guin also resented a statement published by director Robert Lieberman intoning that she approved of his take on her story.
- GoofsShortly after Ged and Oigon turn their backs to the goat, the crystal from Oigon's staff falls to the ground. After the cut, the crystal is back.
- Quotes
The Dragon: Ask me two questions, wizard, and I will give you the answers.
Ged: Isn't it usually three?
The Dragon: Yes, but with that you're back to two.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Troldspejlet: Episode #33.9 (2005)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Terremer - la prophétie du sorcier
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime45 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was La prophétie du sorcier (2004) officially released in India in English?
Answer