Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Lammasuswatch I note that some other reviewers here mention that they gave up watching this series part-way through Episode 1. That was probably wise, especially if you like Ken Follett's books.The series from the first book "Pillars of the Earth" was fairly satisfying. So how could "World Without End" be such a fizzer? Where do I begin?Perhaps, with all the production companies involved - from at least three different countries - simply too many cooks spoiled the broth. You get the impression that someone asked all stakeholders to fill out a questionnaire on what they wanted. Then all answers were compiled, and someone decided to include them all. None of the stakeholders had read the book? No problem.The studio moguls obviously wanted at least one international draw-card among the cast. Who gets top billing here? Cynthia Nixon! (Who?) She stood out all right, but for absolutely woeful acting. Very ably assisted by a number of ham-acting sequences by much of the cast at one time or another. (And most of these people can actually act, so you really can't blame anything except poor direction or the awful script.)I often marveled at the way the miniseries characters were turned into cartoon caricatures, making any logical character development almost impossible. The most ludicrous example was changing relatively minor book character Petranilla into a vehicle for Cynthia Nixon to channel mass murderer Lucrezia Borgia - but laughably. And while the fatal character flaws of Godwin in the novel interestingly turn him bit by bit from a basically good person towards ever greater moral degradation, the treatment in the miniseries has him labeled 'baddie' about as soon and unsubtly as possible. I'm sure black stetson hats would not have been thought amiss by some of the people putting this film together.But every character was pretty one-dimensional, good or bad. And to be honest, it was difficult to care too much about what happened to any of them. And what could even the best actors and directors do with this screenplay? Besides its careless historical deficiencies, it often just didn't come together dramatically or logically. From a rather awful first episode in which the clichés come thick and fast, the miniseries actually improves for the middle episodes, but it does eventually get tedious with the continually repeated pattern: 'goodies try to do good, baddie thwarts this for no good reason, goodies back to scratch, next item'. It's turned a complex and generally very satisfactory novel into R-rated late-night soap opera. Historical accuracy is an obvious casualty. Other reviewers have pointed out things wrong with this historically, but no-one else seems to have seen the most obvious and careless error. After witnessing a battle in France, nuns Caris and Meir are seen returning to England by ship, with this shot labeled on screen "Autumn 1341". And in the same scene we see they are accompanied at the dock by (drum roll) plague-bearing rats. Then shortly after, of course, the Black Death makes its entrance. Except that the Black Death didn't even get to Europe until 1347, and certainly not to England until 1348! The director could have got away with no date labeling here, since there was none that existed or that at least stood out anywhere else. But to get the onset of the Black Death - one of the defining events of British and European history - so publicly wrong! All you have to do is look up Wikipedia to check this! But guess what? No-one had the sense to.I was wondering if this gaffe was a result of the international crew? Was the label actually supposed to read "Autumn 1347"? (Which would have been accurate.) Could it have been that a European crew created this graphic, misreading an English "7" as a European "1? Who knows? But that may be an explanation rather than an excuse. The fact that no-one bothered to proof-read this date is completely symptomatic of the carelessness with which this series was put together.Historical accuracy apart, the plot doesn't flow logically either. I have seldom seen a story "tie all strands together" so unsatisfactorily in its concluding episode. It's not this way in the novel, but since the script artificially extends the life spans of the two now principal baddies (Godwyn and Petranilla actually die about two thirds of the way though the novel during the first wave of the Black Death), the miniseries has to somehow kill them off spectacularly. But it even manages to turn these sequences into somewhat ridiculous anticlimaxes.And the final battle! Clearly the medieval miniseries rulebook states that any remotely medieval story must end in an epic final battle, although there is no hint of such in the book and it certainly doesn't suffer for it. Having the series end with the king's army attacking Kingsbridge might have worked, if it were not so unconvincing logically and dramatically. (That's ignoring its historical inappropriateness, but when has anyone in this series cared about that?) Virtually everything about it from the tactics of both attackers and defenders, through to the fight of the two kings does not work logically. (No-one seriously notices that another knight has a sword to the throat of Edward III?!) And then Edward suddenly calls the whole thing off, with everyone obediently stopping the fight. (And really - Thomas Langley IS Edward II? Did no-one ever recognize their former king? Seriously?)I was not able to recall how this miniseries had ended the morning after I watched this last episode, despite wracking my brains and being able to blame neither alcohol nor Alzheimer's. All I actually remembered was laughing in disbelief for the last few minutes. Such was the impression it made. I give "World Without End" a reluctant two stars for the fact that it got better in the middle - for a while.

cscsmith21 First off, I read the book which was okay but a bit repetitive of Pillars of the Earth. I was really looking forward to this series but ended up massively disappointed by it instead.Cynthia Nixon should go back to Sex and the City because her performance was 100% rubbish. God, if I saw her "I have a cunning plan" expression once I saw it a thousand times. She couldn't do anything with the character. Not that the rest of the cast were 1000 times better. Peter Firth was the only one who did well and Gwenda at least seemed interesting but neither were given enough time or breathing space to grow more.On top of that, some things are just implausible. Like how does Mother Cecilia get to be head of the nunnery and the town without learning how to spot and understand troublemakers like Godwyn. Politics, as Prior Philip understood, is part of being a leader of any description. Plus there is Gwenda, forcefully called "the Saxon" as if the writers were so lacking in confidence in this show that they hitched it "Pillars". Sort of "wink wink nudge nudge you remember Ellen don't you". Incidentally, the series creators lack of confidence is something that is obvious all the way though the 8 episodes.Another issue was its out and out invasion of history. Where Pillars would have local and town leaders meet with historical figures, this was possible because Kingsbridge was near places those people would conduct their business. Finesse, in other words. World without End pulls history around to have the likes of King Edward III give inordinate attention to, and finally launch an all out war against, Kingsbridge when he's only just begun invading France. I mean they have him specifically say Kingsbridge.There are other things too. Like how, when the plague strikes, does the character of Merthin know about "quarantine". He actually says quarantine. I'm pretty sure that wasn't invented until decades even centuries later. Or how the appearance of the statue of the Madonna changes so radically between Pillars and World without End without any of the people noticing or caring. Surely they must have realised at some point that (A) the statue was fake and (B) they weren't real miracles.The Bridge collapse was utter rubbish. Half the people looked like they were jumping off. Also, I just couldn't buy that falling off a crappy little bridge like that one would kill such a number of people as to be worthy of being called a major disaster.The way King Edward II was treated, as in the news of his "death" in the first episode, was stupid. It treated like freaking water cooler gossip or a scene from Eastenders or Coronation Street. For Gods sake, if a King back then died in mysterious circumstances, lords and peasants alike would be shitting themselves because more than likely a major war would break out.All in all, a very poor show and a slur on the fine work that was "Pillars of the Earth", both the book and the series.

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!!