Pillars of the Earth

:

Season 1
  • Network: Starz
  • Series Premiere Date: Jul 23, 2010
Metascore
67

Generally favorable reviews - based on 19 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 19
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 19
  3. Negative: 2 out of 19

Critic Reviews

  1. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Tom Shales
    30
    The film is overwrought and wearying, salvaged mainly by its occasional gory details and a few enjoyably hammy performances.
  2. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Maureen Ryan
    12
    Nothing about the slipshod writing or frenetic direction makes these people compelling, and some of them come across as downright cartoonish.

Awards & Rankings

52
#52 Best TV Season of 2010
65
#65 Most Discussed TV Season of 2010
38
#38 Most Shared TV Season of 2010

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 34 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 34
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 34
  3. Negative: 6 out of 34
  1. booradley
    Apr 29, 2011
    0
    If this film didn't contain so much violence, sex and violent sex, it would be absolutely hilarious. The story is contrived and overwrought,If this film didn't contain so much violence, sex and violent sex, it would be absolutely hilarious. The story is contrived and overwrought, the acting laughably melodramatic and the characters universally unlikeable. Rufus Sewell and Matthew McFadyen turn in admirably understated performances, but they can't redeem a story so convoluted and anachronistic it's virtually comic; ecclesiastical Days of Our Lives, or Muppets do Medieval. McFadyen's accent is inconsistent and, as far as I can tell, totally made up (is it Welsh? Is it Midlands? It's both, and more!). Eddie Redmayne is an odd-looking Jack Builder (pretty weedy for a stonemason) with an affected working class accent that really begins to grate after the first 3 hours. His mother, a witch who distributes curses pretty liberally, somehow comes off as a gutsy heroine with an exotic foreign accent. We're supposed to adore Aliena, and to understand why everybody else adores Aliena, but she's an unrealistic and crabby female character, unsustainable over the painfully extended 6 part story. With a bad temper and cheekbones that could cut glass, there's little warmth to her character. She also miraculously gives birth within about 3 minutes after the cathedral roof collapses on her, which is almost as unlikely as using a jerry-built wall manned with peasants, monks and witches to a repel an invading army. If the producers are to be believed, people in the Middle Ages generally were overly dramatic, seriously perverse, depraved, violent and sex-mad, prone to randomly slaying, strangling, impregnating and embezzling one another. This epic is saturated with rape and blood-shed, with insinuated incest for good measure. While "loving" relationships are contrasted with unloving, it's all very lusty and rather disgusting.

    Ultimately I think we're expected to sympathise in this film, but I don't. Prior Philip is presumably one of the good guys (while Bigod is plainly bad) but he's still superstitious, a peddlar of relics and of an archaic and oppressive form of religion. The church at this time was corrupt, manipulative and exploitative. Prior Philip was complicit in this, offering absolution in exchange for manual labour. It's impossible to view the weeping virgin or Saint Adolphus's skull with anything other than derision: they're tricks of the trade, smoke and mirrors, justified because they're perceived as miracles, and therefore edifying. The film ends with a sweeping shot of a modern-day cathedral, but it isn't terribly effective. Are we marvelling at the building itself? The enduring (albeit waning) influence of the church? The crucial social infrastructure of the Church of England? I gather that's what Ken Follett was aiming for in the book, and it's a worthy topic, but surely the church is (in theory) a monument to God, the one character who doesn't get a look-in in this bloody, brawly, sexy, embarrassing epic.    … Full Review »
  2. simcloutier
    Jan 9, 2011
    10
    Very faithful to the book, this miniseries succeeds in every way. The acting is as good as it gets and the scenery is beautiful. Very goodVery faithful to the book, this miniseries succeeds in every way. The acting is as good as it gets and the scenery is beautiful. Very good job! I'm eagerly awaiting the miniseries for a World Without End!… Full Review »
  3. boscohouse
    Aug 16, 2010
    8
    Starz's new historical fiction mini-series, The Pillars of the Earth, about medieval England sets the desires of good men and women againstStarz's new historical fiction mini-series, The Pillars of the Earth, about medieval England sets the desires of good men and women against the desires of bad ones.

    The characters constantly struggle with the question of when it is better to acquiesce or stake their life on things that they want the most.

    They are forced to pick their battles wisely as each fight could mean the death of their life and legacy. For some that legacy is the thrown of England. For others it is building a masterpiece cathedral.

    The internal and external nature of these struggles add a certain amount of grandeur to the show's scope of storytelling and accentuates the central historical conflicts of the time.

    Pillars starts as King Henry I loses his only legitimate son, and heir to the thrown, to a shipwreck. Without an heir, those around him start angling to fill the power vacuum that would be created if the King should die.

    Battle lines are drawn between the King's daughter, the young Princess Maude, and his nephew Stephen. When King Henry meets his end, Stephen is handed the crown with the backing of the church.

    But Princess Maude, a new mother to a son and potential heir, resists. She raises an army with the help of those loyal to the late King. What follows is a time in England's history referred to as â    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »