Pillars of the Earth

:

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

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. 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 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    Starz'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    … Expand
  2. 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, 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;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.    … Expand
  3. 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 good job! I'm eagerly awaiting the miniseries for a World Without End!
  4. lilkillpappy
    Nov 3, 2010
    0
    Horrible horrible horrible!! Loved loved loved the book. This movie is absolutely nothing like the book. They edit out the best parts of the book, and add a bunch of crap to it. These people should be ashamed for making such a pile of crap. I bet they never even read the book
  5. LondonHerts
    Aug 16, 2010
    2
    Plodding and just rubbish, has some very odd editing, McShane in a bizarre performance and Matthew (Spooks) McFaden (?) has an accent that defies logic and geography in equal measure. Gave up during Episode Two and thought well...hope the Cathedral gets built and who cares
  6. Kongzi
    Aug 16, 2010
    6
    I have watched 4 episodes so far of the series, and I found it quite enjoyable and interesting. Also another reminder of the power of the church in these days. They not only influenced peoples souls but also mingled in the affairs of the country. I thought the actors are playing their parts very well.
  7. elvolador
    Nov 24, 2012
    9
    I never read the book but this mini-series brought me much, very much knowledge on the building of a cathedral, I think it was very well done and the last scene was just breathtaking I clearly adore this mini-series and I recommend anyone to watch it
  8. Jazzychef
    Mar 14, 2013
    4
    thought this series to be very weak, having read the book aswell. i put the responsibility on folletts inability to write realistic 3 dimensional characters.the good elements from the book, the dark potrayal of a hard time period is not conveyed to the screen. for example the whole cast look like they just had a hot shower and a good meal. if i go camping for just one night i look likethought this series to be very weak, having read the book aswell. i put the responsibility on folletts inability to write realistic 3 dimensional characters.the good elements from the book, the dark potrayal of a hard time period is not conveyed to the screen. for example the whole cast look like they just had a hot shower and a good meal. if i go camping for just one night i look like rubbish compared to any one of these characters. to me the novel was quite average, but the tv series went a couple of steps in the wrong direction. either lose any attempt at medievel realism and make it a fantasy. or lose folletts childish characters and replace them with interesting downtrodden morally ambiguous people that reflect the setting… Expand
  9. UncreativeName
    Sep 4, 2016
    2
    Well... this TV Serie or Movie or whatever that it is..it's just bad... the sceneries and the decoration it's just bad, sometimes there's unnecessary scenes... and plot too.
    Please don't watch this Serie or you are gonna just get bored..
  10. Sven381
    Mar 17, 2019
    9
    Like all adaptions of novels, Pillars of the earth changes things from the book, but the story mostly still works like the story works in the book.

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

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
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
  1. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    80
    The abundance of material plays out naturally, in a nicely arranged script by John Pielmeier that leans heavily on the R-rated soap side of things. You'll probably get lost in the high melodrama while watching this massive chess game, where the pawns are as prominent as the bishops, the king, and the queen.
    Read full review
  2. Boston Herald
    Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    83
    The Pillars of the Earth, a six-part, eight-hour miniseries debuting Friday with a two-hour punch, delivers enough surprises to enthrall any thriller buff.
    Read full review
  3. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Paige Wiser
    88
    Ken Follett's 1989 historical novel had a resurgence in popularity as a 2007 Book Club selection, and should finally achieve world domination with this adaptation. Who knew the Middle Ages were so soap-operatically . . . dark?
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »