The Pillars of the Earth (2010) User Reviews

Epic novel brought grandly to the screen

[dave-sturm · 9/10 · 21 August 2010]

I have read everything Ken Follett has written, but I pretty much had him pegged as a writer of extraordinarily readable suspense potboilers. Better than Stephen King, but no Cormac McCarthy. Then, in 1989 he unveiled "Pillars of the Earth" and I was stunned. Follett gave full rein to his incredibly vivid and compelling storytelling abilities. When I finished I was sad. I could no longer follow the adventures of these heroic and scheming English men and women in the the tumultuous 12th Century, a time of uncertainty over who should be on the throne.

I have now watched the first six episodes (available on Netflix for instant viewing) and am dying to see the final two when they come available. I didn't know what to expect, but I can declare myself fully satisfied.

What worried me most going in was the series was what the tone would be. Follett is a master of grand, operatic gestures. The mini-series captures that.

He also is far from shy about sex, barbarism and vulgarity. There's a scene when the monks put Ellen on trial as a witch that made my jaw drop. No F-bombs, but one startling c**t bomb. The incest theme between William and his mother is not explicitly shown, but very clear.

Occasionally, it's a bit "stagey" and the CGI is good, but not state of the art.

Still, "Pillars" is a triumph of epic storytelling.

Godd, but could have been great

[lastcall-1 · 7/10 · 7 November 2010]

Ken Follett's novel is an all time classic,and it was great to see it put on screen. The result is good. I watched the whole miniseries in one day; once you started you cannot stop, like when you read Follett's book. The cast is perfect. Ian Mc Shane is brilliant as always, and all those wonderful English actors and actresses are perfect. One thing bothered me a lot though; the monuments, the clothes, the furniture look more renaissance than 12th century, and it's a shame because it spoils the credibility of the movie. It did not surprise me though, knowing that it was produced by Ridley Scott. After his awful Robin Hood, you knew what to expect. I wish it would have been as accurate as Jean Jacques Annaud's "In the name of the Rose". It would have been a masterpiece instead of the pleasant mini series we have here. Ar least, it is very entertaining .

A rough-handed angel

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 8/10 · 7 January 2011]

Set in England during medieval times, this is a fictional account of what happens after a dying king's proper heir dies in a shipwreck. There are many characters(including a family that seek to construct a grand cathedral, two siblings who lose their nobility and try to regain it, and several men of God with more or less pure intentions… and granted, not everyone is actually necessary) and a lot of plot, and it can be dizzying at first, but it is worth your attention(if you like what you see early on… it ain't gonna change). While I have not read the novel and can make no comparisons, I watched this with two people who love it and they both said that it wasn't the exact same and that they still enjoyed it a lot. This is gripping right off the bat, and it keeps to an intense pace throughout. There are many developments, and while it can at times come off as just going back and forth between the same couple of options, you tend to follow them with interest surpassing that of the best banks. The tension and suspense are great. This has good and well-delivered dialog, with many memorable lines(and razor-sharp points about what it was like back then). The exploration of the awful situations that people could be and were stuck in back then, on account of the system, religion and their lack of rights is excellent and chilling. This is realistic(a lot of the way), authentic and has an incredible richness of detail. The strong feminist behavior of the women in this would not have been tolerated as we see here. This has mostly credible psychology, including for the villains(if one or two are black and white in depiction). The acting, writing and direction are marvelous, and the music is as well. This has amazing production values. No one is sacred, anyone could die at any time in this. The twists and unexpected turns of events keep you guessing how it will end, and it is fairly satisfying. There are power struggles, deception, politics and manipulation aplenty. This does seem to think itself Shakespeare at times, using effects right out of Macbeth and Hamlet. There is dramatic license leading to things that couldn't happen… happening. This has some humor. There is some action, and it works well. You can tell this was executive produced by the Scott brothers. The atmosphere is fitting, this always builds the right mood. This can be called a soap opera to some extent, though I would classify it as one of the better ones. Redmayne is a Christian Bale wannabe once he starts talking(he does thankfully refrain from the pitiful Eastwood impersonation). There is a lot of disturbing content, a bit of blood and violence, sexuality, nudity and a little strong language(largely it isn't gratuitous). I recommend this to any fan of epics. 8/10

My favorite book of all time was turned into an ambitious, dramatic and emotional miniseries, that could hot have been better!

[fred-kolb · 23 July 2010]

I always wondered why nobody ever thought about turning Ken Follett's brilliant epic "The Pillars of the Earth" into a movie. Without a doubt, it is the greatest book I have ever read, with a cleverly constructed and well-researched story, engaging characters and is full of intrigues, violence and sex. There is so much going on in the book that not a single page seems to be wasted, which is saying a lot about a novel that has over 1000 of them. Now, over two decades after the novel hit the bookshelves, Ridley and Tony Scott bring you an eight-part miniseries that promises to be one of the best ones I have seen in recent years.

It is 1135 and a dark time in the history of England. 15 years earlier the king's only legitimate heir died during the sinking of a ship, and England's monarch has neglected God and the church during his reign. The priests and bishops are most eager to ensure a religious man ascends the throne after the death of the king, and in return for swearing allegiance to them, they promise Stephen, the nephew of the king, to put him on the throne. A fierce battle of succession ensues between Stephen and King Henry's only legitimate child Maude. In these times, a young and ambitious monk named Philipp is made Prior of Kingsbridge, a fairly large city that has suffered in recent times and that is in dire need to have its church remodeled. Tom Builder travels through England with his son Alfred, his daughter Martha and after his wife Agnes died in childbirth, they are joined by the two outlaws Ellen and Jack. Finally, Tom finds a job in Shiring, but the Lord Bartholomew is conspiring against the new king Stephen and the William Hamleigh, who was rejected by the lord's daughter Aliena, finally sees an opportunity to take revenge. Philipp, Tom and his family and Aliena are faced with several challenges and hardships, but their paths cross in Kingsbridge, and they all will play a vital role in the construction of the brand new cathedral.

Two episodes into the miniseries, I'm quite impressed by how much the atmosphere of the book was kept and although I was prepared to be disappointed, I am really enjoying it so far. It seems that the best and most expensive stuff was just good enough for this series and the medieval cities of the book such as Kingsbridge and Shiring look stunningly real. I am glad that eight episodes were dedicated to tell the story of "The Pillars of Earth" instead of merely a two-hour movie, although it's not nearly as epic as Ridley Scott's big movies such as "Gladiator". The series does have combat scenes, but ultimately it's more of a dark drama, focusing on characters and relationships before anything else.

The miniseries stays very close to the plot in the novel, and only minor details were changed. One of them is that Tom knows that his son is raised in Kingsbridge from the beginning, and in the novel it's only revealed at almost the very end. And then there is the king, who dies at the beginning of the novel, but here lives through almost the entire first episode. Those are merely small deviations though, unnecessary perhaps, but not really something to make a big deal about. The series was mostly shot in Hungary and Austria, although most scenes are actually confined to the insides of a castle or a town. On a side note, there's a lot of blood, obscenity, violence and nudity in the series, and if you have seen HBO's "Rome", you should already know what to expect.

While there are not too many big names in the cast, some of them you have probably heard of and those are the ones standing out acting wise as well. Ian McShane was the perfect choice to play Bishop Waleran, and he is wonderfully slick and cunning as the main antagonist of Prior Philipp, played by Matthew Macfadyen. I actually find Macfadyen to be almost a little dry in the role of Philipp, but since the character is described with exactly that word many times in the book, I guess he should be commended for his performance. Rufus Sewell so far is the best of the actors in the series, and he is very emotional as Tom and exactly how I imagined him from the books. Natalie Woerner, a German actress, really stands out so far as Ellen and it's unbelievable that she is 43 years old already. She and Sewell have an amazing chemistry together and I completely believe the character's passionate, but scorned upon relationship. Hayley Atwell and Eddie Redmayne as Aliena and Jack will have more to do as the series progresses, as will David Oakes who doesn't seem evil enough for William quite yet. Anatole Taubman, whom you might know from the last James Bond film, is also quite good as Remigius, the manipulative sub-prior of Kingsbridge and Donald Sutherland also appears as Bartholomew in a few episodes. The cast is not well-known perhaps, but definitely strong and I really like what I'm seeing of them so far.

I suppose the miniseries won't be quite as epic as the book, but from what I'm seeing so far it will be a big candidate to pick up a couple of Golden Globes and Emmys in the miniseries category next year. "The Pillars of Earth" deserved a fantastic adaptation, and I'm glad to see that the producers and the director Sergio Mimica-Gezzan were seemingly ambitious enough to ensure that this would be a memorable series, worthy of this great book. But watching the series, no matter how good it is now and will be in the weeks to come, will never be an adequate substitute for actually reading the book.

Grand, thrilling epic respectful to its source material

[longcooljolie · 10/10 · 8 August 2010]

Ken Follett is one of the most brilliant novelists of modern times. His stories immerse and engage the reader into worlds so real that it seems possible to step into them.

"Pillars of the Earth" is one of his most popular books. Originally published in 1989, it gained a cult following through word of mouth then achieved even greater prominence when Oprah discovered it just a few years ago.

Tandem Productions and Tony and Ridley Scott took the risk of adapting the sweeping historic novel into a miniseries. The novel is such an intricate spiderweb of lust, revenge, and triumph of an iron will that the mere act of adapting the screenplay for sound-bite and short attention span 21st century viewers was a daunting challenge.

The makers of "Pillars of the Earth" succeeded in what seemed like an impossible challenge. They have followed the novel's plot entirely,making minor tweaks and changes for the sake of exposition and moving things along.

The two hour premiere manages to thrust the viewer into 1100s England and reveal the complicated origins of the civil war with the ship burning and the crisis related to heirs of the throne. A monk overhears a plot to overthrow the king and tells his brother, who tells an archbishop, and the brother becomes a prior by helping the archbishop become elevated to bishop.

Why is that detail important? The new prior, Phillip, has decided to rebuild his cathedral by making it a "compass to God" and this event becomes central to the story "Pillars of the Earth." While wars and strife erupt around it, the beautiful cathedral rises from an English meadow.

The special effects and art direction masterfully create the grimy, gritty world of 1100s England and the stark contrasts between privileges of royalty and serfs wallowing in the mud beside the hogs they keep. Public executions and dismembering are commonplace as one plot change involving the deposed Earl Bartholomew of Shiring (portrayed aristocratically by Donald Sutherland) tears at the heart.

While the novel relied on straightforward storytelling, the miniseries offers deftly executed, haunting flashbacks to establish the mysterious Ellen's role in the dirty laundry of Percy Hamleigh and Archbishop Waleran's past. Her husband had been mysteriously executed around the time the ship burned. Ellen's son Jack, who is portrayed as an artistic savant, becomes a force in building the cathedral.

King Stephen also plays a larger role in the miniseries. His father portrays a ghost in his dreams in a manner similar to Hamlet, creating a torturous tumult of inner conflict in him. Best of all, Ian McShane as the absurdly evil Bishop Waleron Bigod explodes from the screen with a voice that booms like a thunderclap as he progresses from one dirty deed and double cross to another.

Eddie Redmayne as Jack Jackson, one of the central characters of the story, deserves special mention for his deft portrayal of the sensitive but strong character. Rufus Sewell as Tom Builder also shines, especially during one early intense scene where he forces the nasty William Hamleigh to pay him and his helpers despite being out-armed.

Some viewers may blanch at the changes involving the relationship between William Hamleigh and his mother, Regan. Even a casual review of the works of Shakespeare reveals that incest ran rampant through royalty during the middle ages, so the plot detail is historically relevant and manages to create additional atmosphere and tension.

Overall, the television miniseries should thrill the fans of the novel. Even the opening credits contain a clever, metamorphosing animated sequence and a stirring dramatic musical score punctuates and accentuates the grandeur.

Pillories of the Earth

[janarrah1 · 10/10 · 9 August 2010]

I'll admit that I almost gave up on this series after the first episode. So many plots shown briefly and so many characters! But I had just taken a course on the period so I battled through it. Luckily, they've been doing many repeated showings of the episodes, so I watched the first episode a second time and the series has won me over.

Now if you've read the book, of course, you're going to be a little disappointed. You've spent many hours with these characters and formed your own images and opinions about who they are and what they look like. The author had the luxury to spend as much time on each one and each scene to craft all the details. The series has only 8 hours so many details and subplots will have to be altered just a bit. And many of the reviewers who have been devoted lovers of the book have complained either that it would be impossible to catch every detail or that the series creators left out so-and-so detail but the fact is that you can't satisfy the nit-pickers. After watching the first 4 episodes, I've become entranced by the characters and the epic. Sure you have to invest some effort into figuring things out at the start. Sure some of the historical inaccuracies when it comes to the portrayal of printed books centuries before they could have existed are a bit jarring. But the important facts are that these are small trade-offs when you consider the big picture. They only make me more intrigued about how anyone could become learned in a time when printed information was difficult to come by.

The acting is uniformly fine and I've come to like the good guys and feel my skin crawl when the evil ones make appearances. I really do hope that they do a second series and I'll be at the edge of my seat for the final 4 episodes of this one. It's been ages since an historical mini-series has succeeded as well as this. Let's appreciate it and hope that it lights the spark for many more to come. It's not sitcom pablum and big ideas deserve to be thought about deeply. Put in the effort and this series rewards.

Gripping brilliance

[Leofwine_draca · 10/10 · 13 March 2012]

Ken Follett's lengthy historical novel THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH is far too intricate to adapt into a feature-length production, so producers instead opted for this miniseries treatment which gives a full 8 hours to the plotting. And, quite simply, it's wonderful. THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH has it all and is up there with the best miniseries of all time – I'm thinking BAND OF BROTHERS et al. From the very first episode I was engrossed in the wonderful storyline which brings history to life via living, breathing characters caught up in intrigue, danger and romance.

As somebody who hadn't read the novel previously, I had no idea what to expect. There's the usual historical backdrop stuff of warring kings and queens and battlefield showdowns, but the miniseries works so well because it focuses on the interactions between a dozen or so major characters. The thrust of the story concerns building a cathedral, but into this comes a myriad themes: drive, ambition, jealousy, love, possessiveness, religion, anger, hatred, incest, desire, and everything else besides. Essentially this is a production that explores the human condition in serious depth.

The casting is excellent: Ian McShane excels as the sinister, plotting man of the cloth, Bishop Waleran, while Matthew Macfadyen is similarly fine as his nemesis, the pious Prior Philip. We get solid turns from seasoned veterans like Donald Sutherland and Rufus Sewell mixed with upbeat and engaging performances from the likes of Eddie Redmayne and Hayley Atwell, both of whom shine (especially the glorious Atwell). Although this is made for television, the battle sequences are realistic and bloody and there are strong scenarios involving rape, incest and murder which you don't see coming.

Leading characters are bumped off in unbelievable plot twists and none of the eight episodes flag, each serving to add to the mystery and leave you wanting to find out what happens next. By the end, I was breathless and a changed man: I felt like I'd had my eyes opened, similar to when I saw the LORD OF THE RINGS films for the first time. This is definitely the best thing I've seen all year, and indeed one of my favourite productions of all time. If only Ridley Scott would put more effort into producing stuff like this instead of wasting his time with the Hollywood-ized likes of ROBIN HOOD

I'm not as eloquent with words

[c_mcnaul · 10/10 · 27 October 2010]

I read many of the first reviews on Pillars of the Earth. I'm far from being as well versed in writing such eloquently about the series as many others.

However, I am very pleased with this series. I was saddened that The Tudors ended, especially ending so weakly as it did. The British have a history of covering up their rulers indiscretions, to portray them as upstanding examples of humanity. I still enjoyed watching the history unfold every week.

Pillars of the Earth was more realistic and believable without all the exaggerations. Perhaps it's because I could relate to the lives of the common folks who are the real backbone of any country. Since I began genealogical research, I find history more fascinating as my ancestors lived during those eras, and some even participated in making that history, or helped shape those Pillars of the Earth.

I look forward to more episodes to savor each week to come. I have not read the books, mostly due to schedules that kept me from taking advantage of some down time. Perhaps now that I have more time on my hands, I will explore the avenues of literature again. It's been too many years away from that pleasure.

I'm sure I will find the books quite satisfying, along with the future series.

Good for thrill seekers, bad for book lovers

[darkshadow538 · 6/10 · 5 September 2010]

Being a reader of the book this show was a great excitement for me. I was extremely surprised to see it being made but it was a happy surprise for they where making it the right way, in a mini series not a movie, a movie would have been horrendous and ruined the whole thing. That being said I went ahead and viewed the entire series from start to finish. To begin, the actors that played all the parts were absolutely fantastic, they were exactly what i was led to believe when i read the book to perfection. The story was not to far stretched from the truth and I was not entirely disappointed. However with this being a miniseries i was to believe that they would have kept the story as the author had wrote it, a master piece, while this show is good it is by no means a masterpiece. The story that they tell in this show does not stray to far out of line until the last 3-4 episodes. Then it becomes a great a reckless attempt at making a show more on a budget then on what the author created. There was no Richard going to the crusades for the king in the book he went because he killed Alfred for raping Aliena. There was not incest subplot between William and his mother. Williams wife did have a child but because she was so young when she did was unable to bear another. William became sheriff much sooner. William killed a bishop and thats why he was hanged not for some accident. The list goes on and on. If the creators of this miniseries had simply followed the book and extended the series a little bit then maybe they could have made a better show. All this being said, as i stated before, I was not entirely dissatisfied with the show. It was good in its own way. It was simply a disappointment to not see so many stories told by Follet that were either misrepresented or not represented at all. All in all its a good statement of what the book was sort of about but because of the so many eliminated plot lines and characters I ended the series thinking.. That kinda sucked. If your into swords medieval times and ways of thinking this series is for you. If your a strong supporter of the book not so much. As always this is simply my opinion and i am perhaps too in favor of keeping written things in there true form. Please make your own opinions, perhaps watching the series will prompt you to read the book, if so then the series has accomplished something better then itself..

Riveting adaptation!

[galaxychick · 8/10 · 8 August 2010]

I haven't read the book. And now I'm totally hooked to TPotE by this series. The novel version of a story being the best way to enjoy it, it's sometimes a small blessing not to be familiar with it before hand when coming across its screen adaptation. One will be blessed with the candid enjoyment of the unbiased mind.

TV miniseries are I think the best way to adapt such big, complex, epic novels. You get a little bit more time to develop the storyline even though having to deal with the elision required for any screen adaptation. This series is nicely paced (though the 4 years jump in episode 4 felt a bit odd, and more on that below), the set, location, and costumes are superb, the musical score is breath taking, and the casts gives an all-around nice performance.

There are some aspects, however, that caused me to frown a bit. For a story that is that epic and complex, I find the main antagonists displayed so far (Waleran, the Hamleighs, etc.) quite one dimensional. They are almost "cartoonish" in their villainy, displaying unparalleled and complete evil. I understand that this depiction may be for the screen adaptation (unless this was the way it was in the book), but it doesn't need to be so blatant. We get it that they are the bad guys, but every one has many facets and/or layers.

I also had some continuity issue specifically with episode 4 (The Battlefield) when the story jumped 4 years ahead. Aside from baby Jonathan now a boy, and Martha a bit less petulant, every one else looked and acted the same. Not only do people change in 4 years, these are medieval times with conflicts around. I would expect a bit more wear and tear, or at least a bit more visible physical changes on the characters. I guess we shall see how they work this as the series and the story time line progress and must again jump several years ahead.

In all, TPotE is great entertainment. If only we had more of those on TV. My measure of a good adaptation is whether or not it inspires me to read the book it's based on. After I watch this enjoyable series, I certainly will.

Not nuanced, but interesting medieval story

[steiner-sam · 7/10 · 24 August 2022]

It's a historical drama set in the 12th century in the fictional English town of Kingsbury. It follows the efforts to build a cathedral against the backdrop of the civil war between Maude, the daughter of Henry I, and her cousin, Stephen. The war occurs after the suspicious death of William, Henry I's heir, at sea and Henry I's suspicious death in 1135.

There are many characters. These include Tom (Rufus Sewell), a master builder, who envisions building the cathedral, and his son, Alfred (Liam Garrigan). There is Ellen (Natalia Wömer), a mysterious woman living in the forest, and the mother of Jack Jackson (Eddie Redmayne), a gifted artist. There is Philip (Matthew Macfadyen), the honest head of the monastery at Kingsbury. Waleran (Ian McShane) is the corrupt archdeacon on the make with his eye on eventually reaching Rome. The Earl of Shiring (Donald Sutherland) has a daughter, Aliena (Hayley Atwell), and a son Richard (Sam Claflin). They try to recover their land after Waleran manipulates its transfer to the Hamleigh family headed by Regan (Sarah Parish) and her evil son, William (David Oakes). And then there are the competitors for the throne--Stephen (Tony Curran) and Maude (Alison Pill). Gordon Pinsent has a minor role as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As one would expect, there is much fighting and a fair bit of coupling. Unfortunately, the characters are not very nuanced; it's clear quite quickly who wears white hats and who are the evildoers. That said, as someone who likes dramas set in medieval times, I enjoyed the brisk pace of the action and the broad sweep of history portrayed in the mini-series.

A mostly absorbing story that compels historic research

[iamswozniak · 8/10 · 26 October 2010]

Americans probably best know the period of British history called The Anarchy through the stories of Brother Cadfael, the scientist monk created by Edith Parteger, played for television by Derek Jacobi.

The Pillars of the EArth is not Brother Cadfael's Anarchy: it is bloodier, more violent, more sexual and less historically accurate. That said, viewing the mini-series compelled my adult son and I to research the period, including the sinking of the White Ship, Maud, Stephen and architecture.

The first five hours of the series are so compelling that we watched the entire presentation on a single, rainy Sunday, stopping only to make dinner and feed the cats. The series bogs down at the end, and the final two episodes ought to have been shortened into one.

What is so absorbing about the story is how two basically ethical and honest men, the lead characters Tom Builder (Rufus Sewell) and Prior Philip (Matthew Macfaydan) struggle to maintain their integrity in a political situation that forces them to compromise and how their images of themselves are disturbed when the genuinely manipulative characters accuse them of self-interest and ambition.

Among the producers of the series are the brothers Tom and Ridley Scott, whose work, such as their television series Numbers, often examines relationships within families. It is hardly surprising that their Scott Free Production company was drawn to this project which has the violence and scope of their films, Gladiator and Blackhawk Down.

I have never read writer Ken Follett but, according to a synopsis of his novel, the film differs significantly from Follett's original conception. Perhaps, Follett's device of having Tom Builder's heir, his stepson Jack, journey to Campostella to learn mathematics and architecture from a Christianized Arab architect, is the most notable difference. While the need to compress the 1,000 page novel in terms of distance, plot and the number of characters is evident, perhaps, the politics of today intervened in the filmic conception of the story. In that, the movie-making is as political as were the events of The Anarchy.

My son remarked that it is a shame that "the only actor (Donald Sutherland) is killed so early in the story," but Tom Sewell whose gaunt features are familiar from several movie and television roles is strong as Tom Builder. WHile Matthew Macfaydan may stumble a bit in the latter sections of the movie, his Prior Philip is sympathetic. Veteran actor Ian McShane is villainous as the aptly named Bishop Waleran Bigod (he is only called Waleran in the film) without chewing scenery. PErhaps the weakest of the main characters was Maud. The problem may not lie with actress Alison Pill but with the script which forces her to be dramatically introspective and to mutter platitudes.

There are problems with the film that are part and parcel of the genre: too much deus ex machina; too many proto-feminists among the women, and laughably coy camera angles that almost exposed the actresses' breasts during sex scenes while avoiding (gasp!) any glimpse of a nipple. (In other words, you see as much as you would visiting a public high school.)

All in all, this is an entertaining spectacle and there is no need to shrink from the 8 hour viewing time.

Worth Watching

[Caps Fan · 6/10 · 6 September 2010]

Ken Follett's graphic, brutal, but compelling portrayal of life in 12th-century England during the chaotic reign of King Stephen has long been a favorite of mine. I even had a sneaking liking for the villains! So I was looking forward to this ambitious television version. It is a true international effort - produced jointly by Germany and Canada, shot mostly in Hungary with a mostly British cast – and weighs in at 480 minutes of TV time.

In broad outline, this version remains faithful to the book as we watch Kingsbridge Cathedral being built by our heroes, led by Prior Philip and Tom Builder, against the background of civil war. Meanwhile, the villains will stop at nothing to prevent its completion, using trickery, blackmail, torture, and even murder to get their way. Guess who prevails in the end!

Adjustments are made to the story, usually upping the violence from that shown in the book. Most striking, however, is the complete omission of the murder of Thomas Beckett, Prior Philip's presence to witness it, his role in bringing the perpetrators to justice, and the subsequent public repentance of King Henry II, which brings the book to such a satisfying conclusion.

Some changes are made with regard to characters too. For example, Regan Hamleigh is shown murdering her husband and displaying an incestuous attraction to her odious son William, neither of which figures in the book. Meanwhile, King Stephen is much more prominent than in the book and Waleran Bigod (a remarkable performance from Ian McShane) is much more graphically evil.

The cast is mostly fine. Rufus Sewell, however, seems oddly disengaged as Tom Builder, sometimes giving the impression that he'd rather not be there. Nor was I too sure about the sets; they often looked cramped, even false. Shades of the 1980 TV production of "The Martian Chronicles"…

It would probably have been easier to make a bad job of this than a good job. In the end, this production tips more to the good than the bad and is certainly worth watching. I don't think I'll be buying the DVD though…

Rating: 6/10.

Disappointing Adaptation

[dailerenee · 3/10 · 25 March 2019]

If you haven't read the book, then you'll likely view it differently, but if you have read and enjoyed the book, be a bit wary. This adaptation boasts a spectacular cast but it utterly mangles Ken Follet's story. Most of the raw plot elements are there but the depth is replaced by a lot of superfluous drama and sex. The story obviously needed to be simplified to be scaled down to a mini-series, but why add a weird oedipal element to an already complicated story? Many of the changes are so strange that they seem to simply get things wrong in addition to making necessary omissions.

All that aside, the most disappointing thing is that the novel's driving theme of architectural advancement is totally botched. If you're a fan of the book, the fact that Alfred builds a rib-vaulted ceiling is almost insulting!

Oh quite good!

[sibparry · 27 July 2010]

Very good, it is always difficult to find 'drama' that is quality and not overdone, over-the-top or tired. The acting in this is excellent all around and it is definitely worth watching; at least from the two episodes that I have seen thus far. Considering I haven't heard hardly a thing about this until I watched it I am very impressed.

The storyline seems to contain fairly valid historical accounts of the time if not the lives of individuals. Keeping in mind it is not as mystical as I would have thought from the title and even the previews I've now seen since I began to watch it - it has made up for that with a strong story and lovely backgrounds for visual appeal and 'time proper' settings. Can't wait for more.

Excellent characterization, even with unnecessary plot changes

[abs_is_back · 9/10 · 9 May 2011]

I tried to watch POTE when it 1st came out and, being disappointed at the changes from the plot of the book, decided not to watch the rest. I read a great deal and while I understand that books must be condensed for filming purposes and that this sometimes may call for changes in the plot, I am very loyal to the books I read so plot changes bother me a great deal.

Finding this listed on Netflix, I decided to have another go at it. For anyone who has not read the book, by all means, watch it - it's great drama. For those who have read it, by all means, watch it - it's great drama. Forgive the plot changes (some were brilliant and some were frankly unnecessary and convoluted), but concentrate on the characterization instead. In good films, you can kept watching bad or uninteresting plot if characterization is good enough. In POTE, ALL of the major roles are well acted and true to character. All, which is rare at the best of times in a film with such a huge cast list. I wonder how many of the actors took the time to read the book or talk at length with Ken Follet.

I went into this thinking that I would probably give it a 6-7 if the acting was good enough to earn higher, but with points taken off for stupid plot changes. But the more I watched, the more I was drawn in. I have missed sleep to finish this thing because I couldn't sleep for thinking about it. It is just really GOOD, because the characters are believable, even at points when the plot is not. You simply believe these people would react to their lives the way they do - even evil characters are understandable for what they do. That is fabulous characterization.

So for loyalty to the plot, it gets about a 5-6. For making sense of the plot, it gets a 7. For historical accuracy, it gets a lower rating than I'd give the book, but I don't expect movies to teach me history anyway and the book is fiction, not history. But for the acting, the costumes, the photography, and above all the characterization, these things combined bring this miniseries to a 9.

For readers, do expect to see some pretty major plot points taken out and some are entirely replaced with new stuff. You may or may not agree with all the changes or that they make the plot tighter or better. But if you can ignore that and go with it, go with the characters in their various journeys through life, you will love it.

For those who haven't read the book - DO. There is much more to the story, more to these characters. You will be a bit confused that some of the plots don't show up and others are in their place, but the detail that is added, plus having more time with the characters portrayed so wonderfully in this film, will make the time worth your while.

One series, two experiences (spoilers!!)

[Appearance · 8/10 · 18 July 2011]

I saw Pillars of the Earth without reading the book. I then red the book and watched the series again. This review has the aim to compare the two experiences.

Pillars of the Earth is, as a stand alone series, excellent. The title sequence alone gave me goose bums the first time I saw it. It gives you high expectations and you're not disappointed. Great production design, passionate drama, endearing characters. Not one boring moment. It's not perfect, with a rushed and silly ending as one of the little weaknesses I can remember.

We can safely say that one of the strong points is the cast. Hayley Atwell as the strong, damaged and beautiful Aliena, Eddie Redmayne as the mysterious and talented Jack. Matthew Macfadyen as the dry, naive and smart prior of Kingsbridge. Without talking about Rufus Sewell as Tom Builder and Natalia Wörner as the independent mother of Jack, Ellen. They are all perfect. Ian Mcshane as the cunning Waleran Bigod is maybe the only one too perfect for the role, replaying some medieval sadistic version of Al Swearengen, his character in Deadwood. But that's hair-splitting. The second strong point is the story, of course. I would never have imagined that the building of a cathedral would be so complicated. Between quarrel with the neighbours (the evil Hamleighs), permit from the King (who's not 100% in power), and cunning from the boss (Waleran), some people would lose their might to live;

That brings us to the book of Ken Follett and the adaptation by John Pielmeier. (Himself playing excellently one of the monks that advises Prior Phillip). Being completely taken by the series I had nothing to complain about his adaptation. Once I red the book and saw the series again however… First of all the series feels rushed. I have red some review that Pillars lacked time. Once you've red the book it's so obvious and true. Why did they specifically chose an 8 episodes series and not 10 episodes. Besides the obvious financial reason I see none other. It's classically known that some things are left behind when a book is adapted to screen. Here they have added things. The King Stephen hallucinations and nightmares. I didn't miss it in the book;-) This arc is kept during 4 episodes or so, with Jack going with Prior Phillip to Lincoln. When you see this in the series after reading the book you know it's a bogus excuse to get Jack in Lincoln so that the king can attempt to murder him. I guess they wanted to improve the suspense so that people would tune in for the later episode. After reading the book it doesn't feel so natural as before. It feels manipulative. The two final episodes are the most different from the book. As a book reader you miss two three things that were in the book. The little squabble between Aliena and Jack feels forced. The pursuit of Waleran in the cathedral seems more silly than before. But the final image is one of the strongest you could have visually imagined to end this series. And the actors, as predicted, were well chosen. Reading the book I could not imagine other actors playing the parts.

So they did a very good adaptation but sometimes it feels like they did simplify and not adapt . And they added an unnecessary dramatic arc and it's a pity. But nevertheless they succeeded in most of the challenges that a book as Pillars can present and thanks to the series I discovered the books and it deserves to exist on its own and they deserve all the congratulations in the world to have given us a so qualitative series. A dilemma presents itself: will I read "World without end" before watching the series? I think I might. … I will

Great mini-series, should have been longer

[Drive_Angry_99 · 9/10 · 23 May 2011]

I have watched this on Netflix, and I devoured it in two days. I was a big fan of the book, and at the beginning the casting caught me by surprise for a few characters which I imagined differently (Philip in primis), the acting was really good, especially by Ian McShane's Waleran and Natalia Wörner-Ellen.

The adaptation does take some liberties vs. the canon, but the narrative flows very well and shows the multiple story arches, which are one more interesting than the other. Great costumes and settings, good use of the accents... there is so much going on for this series that I could go on for much longer.

A must-see for the readers and the non-readers alike. Ken Follett has a small cameo towards the end... a' la Harry Potter.

Truly fantastic filmmaking!

[nallukka-804-356972 · 9/10 · 6 January 2014]

My summary and high star rating make my overall assessment of this miniseries obvious overall, but I at least want to chime in on a couple of things I constantly see and hear in reference to this along with most other book-to-film adaptations.

As with ALL film adaptations, this will NOT-and in fact CAN NOT-be identical to the book, and if that is what you expect or even desire, let me paraphrase author John Green regarding his book The Fault In Our Stars becoming a movie (when mostly young readers freak over the blue-eyed main male character being changed to a guy with brown eyes or the actress playing the main protagonist, who in that book happens to have cancer, being "too pretty" as if nobody with cancer can be attractive-granted the readers ARE mostly teenage girls--anyway, back to what he expressed several places to varying degrees of detail and all that): Of COURSE the movie will differ from the book-one consists of scribbles on paper and the other of moving pictures and sound! More importantly in my estimation is the arrogance of MANY readers. Arrogance? Yes, I DO believe it arrogant to presume YOUR way (when saying you/your, I refer to the person doing the fussing) of reading and interpreting a book and indeed the motion picture YOU envision while reading-the on the fly movie of your mind-is somehow more "correct" (I think there are as many correct interpretations as there are readers/viewers/listeners/consumers of whatever medium) or true-to-the-author's-vision or other self-righteous nonsense we all manage to find some time for when we could be volunteering to clean up the streets or teach or mentor youth whatever we're good at/knowledgeable about etc! I guess my key criticism is far less pertinent to the film than the people griping about it-something to be aware of in nitpicking is that what YOU find very important and worth emphasis is NOT going to be identical to what other readers do or what brush strokes-the broad swipes and the minutiae alike-were truly indispensable and/or moving/crucial to the plot's advancement or a character's portrayal/even all that memorable to the author and all the editors and friends whose input contributed to its making. I hope my little moment on a case of Dr. Bronners didn't waste every reader's time entirely. It's GREAT to be passionate about books-how rare and foreign (and ironically disconnected) we often feel in this tech age! Just remember that as critical as the book absolutely is to the movie or television program bearing its name, our brains filter and process scribbles, sounds (non-word ones in particular), and pictures differently-even stills and moving pictures are handled differently, as in they light up the brain differently when we're scanned.

With that very long bit of feedback issued, my assessment is actually rather simple. The sets and the stunts are SO awe-inspiring that you could almost pair them with awful character development and still give it okay marks! The story, though, is SO well-acted, engrossing, and rich, carefully pieced together with impeccable timing and interactions you can almost feel the love, anger, jealousy, and utter turmoil from an absolutely GREAT cast--HUGE props for SUCH powerful older figures and especially for NOT making it a film of only overly pretty people! It is WELL WORTH watching in a long happy marathon or across two nights of grim weather. I believe it is much easier to stay with the story and appreciate how incredibly complex and nuanced it is, what an ambitious endeavor with a beautiful result they've brought to us. I also recommend you watch the special features making of pillars bit-it's about half an hour and you'll leave wanting to fist pump the air seeing this fantastic work come to life from a few different perspectives and a dozen different (camera) angles. Anyone wanting to get into film or at all intrigued by the process should really applaud this as they truly somehow organized something utterly MASSIVE in scale and right down to makeup and a good hundred animals to work with, they made it work AND HOW... Sure it isn't true to history, only based ON it. There's no way they could logically follow the book to the page-too much not only had to be cut or rearranged but also ADDED, pieces we fill in where books leave big gaps movies cannot-but at the end of the day this is marvelous and does a great deal of honor to the books, making details about building a cathedral just as beautiful and gripping to watch unfold as to imagine while following paper-staining scribbles.

Don't expect to see the book

[imdb-4788 · 6/10 · 17 November 2010]

Yes, the actors are good and the whole thing looks like I imagined it while reading.

But otherwise it's nothing like in the book. The story is the same but as good as every detail is wrong. The characters are forced to be black and white as if viewers could not follow the (really not very difficult) character development like in the book.

More sad, the movies has nothing of the spirit of the book: the deep love between Ellen and Tom is nowhere to be seen, Philips decision to send Ellen away for one year is now a trivial story about witchcraft and so on.

I have no idea why they took the book for the movie...only the names of the characters and the cities are the same, the rest is what would never have been a bestseller: a trivial story with badly developed characters.

An Awesome Book To An Awesome Mini Series!

[afallenangel572 · 10/10 · 28 November 2014]

I had only recently discovered the book by Ken Follett, I wish I had read it sooner and discovered this series. I was told by my professor that I should read this book. I Immediately went to my local book store and picked up a copy. I hesitated reading that book because 1. I am an atheist and reading about people building a cathedral was unsure of that, and 2.It was a pretty big book (Don't get me wrong I love to read I read all of the time I have shelves filled with books). If It weren't for my boyfriend telling me to read it I couldn't have experienced such an amazing story. I finished the book in less than three days it consisted of sitting in my apartment and drinking energy drinks through the night while my BF snored from the room over. Let me just say Wow! The characters were awesome and I loved the whole theme of the book. I didn't care If It was for religious people. Because it was really inspiring. I was then told it was a book series (I nearly died on the inside). I discovered the mini series when I went to look up the book series and fell on this very page. To my surprise there was a mini TV series. I quickly got onto Netflix and searched if they had the show. I had to pay an additional 7.99 but I was so happy they did have it. I told my BF (Liam) And he was actually shocked there was a show. We both watched it on our TV that night and became hooked on this mini series.The actors were amazing and Eddie Redmayne is so cute! The show is beyond amazing I loved to see all the characters and fight scenes.Of-course Liam looked forward to the fights. I also loved the concept of a witch which I have to say is real intense. Whenever something happened to Jack I would be there Like "No Jack!!! Oh god I hope he's OK" Like hyperventilating And Liam just staring at me. Yeah embarrassing. I recommend this series to just about anyone I loved it and watch it all the time. Yeah you can call me weird. But I loved seeing the pictures I thought of in my head come to life and seeing the Cathedral was just spectacular. Although the show is a bit graphic (*Cough* *Cough*) I think you should watch the show you will truly feel inspired and mixed emotions. I hope to find more amazing and inspiring shows such as this one. And recently I went to see Eddie Redmayne In The Theory Of Everything. He was brilliant his performance was beyond anything I've ever seen he is an amazing actor you should go see his movie. I'm still amazed at how great this show Is I am now reading the next book. I do wish the series could continue to go on but it's still amazing and I love it!!!

As a TV show, okay. As an adaptation, extremely disappointing.

[altereggo123 · 6/10 · 4 September 2023]

Very important: Read the book. If you don't feel like reading, listen to the audiobook. Watch this as a last resort.

So much from the novel has been omitted or altered in this adaptation that I really couldn't enjoy it. The opening scene of the book is the most powerful in it and makes the novel impossible to put down. It's not in the opening of this series though it could have been. (There are fractured flashbacks to what happened, but it's ruined.)

Yes, the book is very long, but it could have supported a longer series. There is plenty of intrigue and suspense in every chapter to sustain interest, no risk of viewer boredom. There are terrible shows that run for many seasons. Why limit this amazing novel to an eight episode adaptation? The result is major omissions and oversimplifications, with much shallower plotting and characterization.

I watched mainly because I had read the novel a while ago and wanted to refresh my memory before plunging into a new Ken Follett novel in this series. The novels can be read independently, but I just thought I should remind myself of some of the story before continuing on. Now that I've done it, I'm sorry I spent the time watching this. What a lost opportunity for a great TV series!

The best miniseries I have ever seen!

[Kanyl · 9/10 · 10 June 2013]

Right from the start, this series made me believe that I lived in this world. The atmosphere, the immersion, the music, the characters and the story is just top notch!

The ONLY thing I did not like about it, were the brutal fighting scenes with a lot of blood "exploding" from the bodies or the heavily sex- and beating scenes. But even so, it made the series realistic and it also enhanced the good parts! Anyway, some might like this and it is not a huge letdown, but it might not fit to a younger audience! (This is why I rate it with 9 instead of 10)

I could write the whole day why I love this series, but I don't want to spoil anything. I highly recommend that you watch this series, because it might also become one of your favorites! I have seen much in my whole life, but this one takes the first place so far!

It is simply amazing!

It's ok

[Jimmycakes · 6/10 · 9 December 2021]

Just finished the first episode, I'm really taken back by how fast paced it is, there's no build up, it's like it tries to get the introductions out the way as soon as possible and I hope it's because it will slow down and expand on the story in the other episodes.

Set design is nice, lots of immersion.

What a sorry mess

[jjnxn-1 · 1/10 · 30 April 2013]

Almost total bastardization of a great novel. Whoever adapted the source material obviously didn't understand it and its strengths. They weakened both of the major characters, Philip and Aliena, and for whatever reason brought the royals who were just shadowy supporting characters in the novel too much into the fore. This IS NOT a worthwhile version of the book but some tired retread of the battle for the throne of England during the same time period with the novel's title stuck on. Aliena is miscast with an actress without the necessary fire to make her live on screen and although Matthew MacFayden is a fine actor there is little he can do to make Prior Philip the strong central character he should be since he has been adapted into a gullible milksop. The less said about the distortion of the character of William, a truly reprehensible devil in the book, into a dominated rather churlish mama's boy here the better. There are some good performances, notably Rufus Sewell as Tom Builder, but it is just not worth the effort to sit through this sorry enterprise.