• Network:
  • Series Premiere Date: Jun 30, 2010
  • Season #: 1
Pillars of the Earth Image
Metascore
67

Generally favorable reviews - based on 19 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 23 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Set in twelfth century England, Pillars of the Earth is a tale about love, war and religious strife during the building of the Kingsbridge Cathedral.
  • Genre(s): Drama, Action & Adventure
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 19
  2. Negative: 2 out of 19
  1. 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?
  2. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    80
    While the climax isn't entirely satisfying, Pillars does create strong roles for its female characters, Natalia Woerner's earthy Ellen and Atwell's determined ingenue balancing Parish's delicious wickedness. Frankly, the whole exercise would be worth the price of admission (or rather, subscription) simply for the cobra-eyed McShane.
  3. This requires commitment, it requires paying attention and it has few cartoonish interludes to give the audience a breather. It also reminds us the value and satisfaction we can find in a complex production executed well.
  4. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    75
    Admirers of the novel probably will be pleased. Average viewers who never read the novel (or any historic fiction) will be either confused or bored--possibly both.
  5. Things get pretty wacky by the end--actually, they get wacky well before the end--but however unlikely, the proceedings are kept watchable by a cast that notably includes Ian McShane, Donald Sutherland, Rufus Sewell, and Eddie Redmayne.
  6. 63
    Yes, there's enough here to keep you tuning in. Just don't reach for the stars. They're out to lunch.
  7. 12
    Nothing about the slipshod writing or frenetic direction makes these people compelling, and some of them come across as downright cartoonish.

See all 19 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 8
  2. Negative: 3 out of 8
  1. 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! Expand
  2. 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 Expand
  3. 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 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
  4. 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 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
  5. 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 Expand
  6. 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 Expand
  7. 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; 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

See all 8 User Reviews