Labyrinth Online

I watched this while on holiday and was quite literally blown away.

I knew a little about the book (i'd read half of it on holiday before accidentally leaving it in hotel room) and what I'd remembered seemed almost identical to what was realised in the film.

The story flicks back and forth between Alice in the modern (played by the excellent Vanessa Kirby) and Alais her medieval counterpoint (played by Jessica Brown Findlay- Lady Cybil from Downton Abbey.

The subject matter (the quest for the Holy Grail) could easily have been silly but somehow everything feels very convincing and real. It is a little violent at times but it was a violent period so I suppose it had to be.

There are a lot of characters in the story so there's a lot to take in in episode one but it all builds up to an amazing battle that looks like it was made for cinema instead of TV.

Overall amazing TV that really took me by surprise. Now I want to read book again.

Labyrinth tells part of the story of one of the most horrific crimes in the Roman Catholic church's history - and there's plenty to select from.

To this day, the mass-torture and murder of the Cathars is a piece of history of which many people are still unaware. It is maybe the first organized extermination of an entire culture and people by a merciless and repressive regime in Europe, centuries before the Nazis increased the number of people tortured and killed from many thousands to millions. As a Dutchman, I really only learned that the Dutch word for heretic, "ketter", derived from "Cathar".

Also unknown to most, the Inquisition was specifically created to destroy the Cathars, who were a threat to the ultimate authority of both Church and Crown. In essence, it's the state and the church coming together to indulge in torture and mass-murder.

The story employed by Labyrinth to expose the horror of the Cathar crusade and the murderers who lead it is contrived, and hard to take seriously. It's probably aimed at those that enjoyed the rip-off that was the Da Vinci Code (which is a rip-off from the book The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail) and might appeal to those who enjoy tripe like the recent Da Vinci's Demons.

Having said that, I found most of the reviews here quite harsh.

Labyrinth is a great looking piece of television, with an outstanding performance by Bernhard Schir, who plays the grim, murderous priest Paul Authie. In my view, his performance is on par with some of the best performances in e.g. the series Breaking Bad. John Hurt does a commendable if predictable job too - his character does not have that much range, but he extracts everything he can from this limitation and manages to inject emotion into a project which is is essentially a bit silly - if still entertaining.

Maybe it is my interest in this specific piece of history, revisiting historic locations I've been to myself, like Carcassonne and the ruins of Montsegur. Maybe it is the cinematography or the gorgeous soundtrack (something very much lacking in most television). Or maybe it's just that the story of the Cathars has moved me since I learned of it, and I endorse any attempt to expose the evils done.

Whatever the case, I greatly enjoyed Labyrinth, and its theme stuck with me after watching it.

Recommended to those who are willing to look for a diamond in the rough, and can forgive the heavy-handedness resulting from people being invested in some truly epic and horrific historical storytelling.

And, last but not least, recommended to everyone who needs a reminder of the evils of oppressive religion.

N.B. I'm giving this a 10 to offset the equally unfair two's and three's. I rate this a 7 out of 10.

Love the Cathars, would be happy to have one for a neighbour. The concept of liberal Christians that believed in equality for all, accumulation of wealth was bad, sex was healthy and believed in reincarnation is very interesting. The fact that, in the 12/13th century, philosophically they were kicking the roman catholic churches butt says a lot. Tying that in with the holy grail and mixing it in with factual historical references gave this mini series a lot of scope. The reference to carrying our past with us in our blood is very reminiscent of Frank Herbert's Dune and the inference of a genetic memory.

However, the heavy handedness of the direction and use of cliché characters and tropes that did not make sense left me squirming in my seat. Especially in part 1 and the end of part II in the medieval period it felt as if the Cathars had some rabid twitter account saying "Dear bad guys guys want to know all our secrets?....". Yes we know it's the good guys against the bad guys but how come the bad guys seem to know more about what their counterparts are doing than they do? Damn you twitter account!!!

Speaking of which, I felt sorry for Katie McGrath who portrayed a cardboard cut out of her Morgana character in the Merlin series. She's a good looking woman and a fine actress but did she seriously have to lose her clothes so often? She was only one of many flat characters with trite dialogue. There is one scene where she can see someone shake his head in response to a question she asks when she is looking away from him. At this point I was also shaking my head as the dialogue/monologue leading up to this point felt like a quick fix to try to explain her motivation for being such a nasty piece of work and failing miserably.

When it came to the end it felt that I had only seen half the production. It felt as if a whole group of scenes had been cut out and re-spliced leaving me trying to figure how we got to F from A without B, C, D and E. If I'm being kind I would like to think that due to external pressures that a real cracker of a production is out there waiting to be shown at a future date.

As it was I found myself just becoming more frustrated as things made less and less sense. Even the role of the grail in the end becomes diminished except potentially as lesson teacher to humanity.

On the plus side Jessica Brown Findlay playing the medieval heroine was the closest to a fully formed character in the whole story and I'd like to see her in more roles. Production was good especially in the medieval scenes and the filming felt clean and slick. I now feel enlightened as I've had a chance to meet the Cathars, not to be confused with the Kardashians. Giving it 5 out of 10 as I feel like I only saw half of what could have been.

This is a mini-series adaptation of a publisher-driven/designed 'bestseller' by Kate Mosse. The very plodding first part of this two-part TV movie adaptation certainly doesn't improve on the poorly-reviewed book. The movie does improve significantly in the second part, but anyone expecting a new Da Vinci Code or even a National Treasure is going to be in for a deeply disappointed slog. Actress Jessica Brown Findlay, and the movie's technicians and the location-scouts, obviously did their best to hold it afloat. But everything else drags the first part down. The first part's glacial pace and slapdash dialogue might not matter, if the characters and plot were at least mildly interesting. Generally they're just the movie equivalent of cartoons. The modern-era heroine (Vanessa Kirby) is especially annoying - she starts off doing utterly silly things and then spends the rest of the time wafting around looking glamorously confused. Only the medieval-era heroine (Jessica Brown Findlay) brings any sustained acting verve to the first part. The great John Hurt, aided by lashings of artful landscape cinematography, lifts the movie significantly during the second part. Findlay also performs very ably in terms of the acting range that's required from her in the final hour. The film's history/religious elements are very superficially explored, although they are quite historically and even theologically correct. But you can't help thinking that the ideas are largely there to provide a televisual licence for many bloody and gruesome scenes of torture, throat-slitting and other killings, suicides, and medieval massacres. There is some basic voice-over exposition of the more user-friendly Cathar ideas at the end - ideas remarkably similar to those permeating the movie Cloud Atlas - but these ideas lack any deep integration into the rest of the story. In the end, certain key physical items lack any explanation, and so the audience is left feeling rather duped. Overall, not a very satisfactory movie.

First of all, I think the story on Cathars is a brilliant topic for film - barely touched in films. I'm disappointed that not everything was filmed in location (Southern Africa? Why? Languedoc and around wasn't good enough?). The other thing, but it's a personal thing, the archaeological excavations were rubbish - nobody digs like that! (but I'm an archaeologist, so it's my thing). I didn't really enjoy the modern part of the story because of acting - actors and actresses were very stiff and unnatural. It looks like the modern story was directed and filmed by somebody else, but the Medieval part was much better in execution. I give 9 for the Medieval part and 3 for modern part, so it's 6 in general. My opinion is based on the first episode.

This two-part series has a lot going for it and a lot against it.

Firstly, the good points: Well produced with some good sets. The acting is generally fine except for the leading lady (in the present scenes) but that has a lot to do with the poor material she has to work with. Interesting concept, albeit slightly hackneyed. Action is generally good and John Hurt has such an enchanting voice.

However, the source material and hence the script is pretty poor. It bears the hallmark of one of those lengthy 800-1,000 page novels that are generally poorly written. I haven't read the book (and don't plan to) but I suspect it's one of those. The script has sadly had to be developed from such a poor choice.There are holes in the plot, in the characterization--you name it, everything. The lead woman in the present just wonders about aimlessly lost even those she's inherited a house from out of the blue, is missing her best friend, has just escaped bullies trying to kidnap her, is having hallucinations and eying up a potential romance—all at the same time. You get the picture.

If you can get over all these distractions, it's a watchable fare.

LABYRINTH is a two-part miniseries in which a modern woman finds her destiny linked with that of a 13th century ancestor and the Holy Grail. It's spectacularly bad, a sort of chick-lit Dan Brown which raids history for bad conspiracy theories and thinks drama consists of soap opera plots between pouting women and brooding bad boys. It's almost hilariously inaccurate, depicting Cathars as modern liberals (they weren't), female healers being hunted as witches (the Church at the time actually said witches didn't exist), Crusaders motivated entirely by greed and every other cliché you can imagine, right down to the heroine's evil sister turning out to be...her half sister! The final message is laugh out loud juvenile (essentially: be nice) and after hours of twisting Catholic theology and attacking the Church on spurious grounds, it ends with the revelation that magic is real! The dialogue is awful, the acting variable at best, the nudity unnecessary, and the battle scenes only exist as trailer fodder; to give you some idea, at one point the hero and three men all hide from arrows behind the same thin tree. The nicest I can say is that the production values are good, there's a lovely title shot and John Hurt is always good even when he's slumming.

My wife had read the book and while she said it wasn't one of the author's best, it was good enough, so I gave this a go. I've found that sometimes weaker books from an author make better films than stronger ones, and while I was a little dubious of the subject matter, I thought I'd give it a go anyway.

What I got was a heap of fairly risible trash, with phoned in performances, some remarkably passionless bonking, a retread of the familiar "It's all a Catholic plot!" Grail stuff, and a curiously strong desire to persecute Cathars. Not on religious grounds, mind you, just for being annoying. It's a pain when you're several hundred years too late to join in the fun :(. I'm just rather disappointed, overall. It's full of actors that I like, so I disregarded the rather uncomplimentary heads-up from the Radio Times and plowed on with it, only to come out at the end with, well, nothing.

I love historical fiction especially when they are made into television shows or miniseries. The show is based on Kate Mosse's novel, Labyrinth, which involves around the holy grail. Consequently, the grail in this story is not a cup or a person, its something more supernatural. Bare in mind, I have not read the book.

I honestly thought that this was going to be like World Without End, which was produced by Ridley Scott who also produced this show. The former was not a very good show. But this one was a bit better in terms of presenting the medieval world.

Basically the show has two parts shown concurrently. One is set in 13th century France and the other in modern day France. In the present, the protagonist gets involve in a conspiracy regarding the grail particularly because her ancestor was a 'guardian' of the grail throughout history. In the past, the ancestor lives among the Cathars which are consequently being persecuted by the Catholic church. This ancestor tries to protect the secrets of the grail a midst an inquisition and spiteful sister.

The highlight of the show has to be Tom Felton. Known from the Harry Potter series, he definitely delivered something different and positive. John Hurt was great as always.

What bothered me the most was the switching from past and present. Sometimes they were extremely random. While sometimes, when something was just getting interesting, the scene changes to a different time and it can be annoying.

Regardless, I thought it was an entertaining two part series. The show can be thrilling due the religious conspiracies. I can compare to the The Da Vinci Code although it has less action but more story. The story was less about finding out the 'truth' about some grail, but how people are trying to find that 'truth'.

In conclusion, I would have to say this show will only interest people who like historical fiction, religious conspiracies, or stuff like that. But it surely entertains.

The miniseries deals with two women , modern-day Alice Tanner (Vanessa Kirby) , a volunteer at a French archaeological excavation who finds the skeletal remains of two people in a cave , and medieval Alaïs Pelletier Du Mas (Jessica Findlay) , who lives through the Crusades and Cathar slaughters in medieval France , both of them are seeking the Holy Grail . As there are three sacred books that reveal the secret of the Holy Grail from the Crusaders and various tracks as a labyrinth-engraved ring that lead to resolve the enigmas . In 1209, newly married Alaïs to Guilhem Du Mas is living in Carcassonne , a stronghold of Cathars defended by Viscount Trencavel (Tom Felton). Meanwhile , it is besieged by Simon Monfort (John Lynch) and Guy D'Evreux (Tony Curran) leaders of the Crusaders . Hunted by the Inquisition and deserted by the nobles of their districts, the Cathars became more and more scattered fugitives : meeting surreptitiously in woods and mountain wilds .

This is an epic film mingling actual events along with past happenings by means of a lot of flashbacks ; as while in contemporary time occurs an intrigue starred by Vanessa Kirby , in Middle Age when the city of Carcassona has been declared heretical by the Church being starred by Jessica Findlay , and his nasty sister Katie McGrath . The most interesting moments concern about the historic events dealing with Catharism , a movement that thrived in some areas of Europe , particularly southern France, between the 12th and 14th centuries , the followers were known as Cathars and are now mainly remembered for a prolonged period of persecution , it appeared in Europe in the Languedoc region of France , as here are shown impressive battles and strong massacres , they are the highlights of the movie . Acceptable mini-series , though sometimes result to be pointless , non-sense , and confuse . Based on the bestseller by Kate Mosse who plays a small role as Montsegur Guide . The picture was professionally directed by Christopher Smith , though it has some flaws and gaps .

This one being based on historic facts as : Pope Innocent III attempted to end Catharism by sending missionaries and by persuading the local authorities to act against them . In 1208 Innocent's papal legate Pierre Castelnau was murdered while returning to Rome after excommunicating Count Raymond VI of Toulouse . Pope Innocent III then abandoned the option of sending Catholic missionaries , launched the Albigensian Crusade which all but ended Catharism . The crusader army came under the command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged . The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay alongside the Cathars. Their first target was the lands of the Trencavel, powerful lords of Albi, Carcassonne and the Razes—but a family with few allies in the Midi. Little was thus done to form a regional coalition and the crusading army was able to take Carcassonne, the Trencavel capital, incarcerating Raymond Roger Trencavel in his own citadel where he died , allegedly of natural causes; champions of the Occitan cause from that day to this believe he was murdered . Simon de Montfort was granted the Trencavel lands by the Pope and did homage for them to the King of France, thus incurring the enmity of Peter II of Aragon who had held aloof from the conflict, even acting as a mediator at the time of the siege of Carcassonne. The remainder of the first of the two Cathar wars now essentially focused on Simon's attempt to hold on to his fabulous gains through winters where he was faced, with only a small force of confederates operating from the main winter camp at Fanjeaux, with the desertion of local lords who had sworn fealty to him out of necessity—and attempts to enlarge his newfound domains in the summer when his forces were greatly augmented by reinforcements from northern France, Germany and elsewhere. Summer campaigns saw him not only retake, sometimes with brutal reprisals, what he had lost in the 'close' season, but also seek to widen his sphere of operation—and we see him in action in the Aveyron at St. Antonin and on the banks of the Rhone at Beaucaire. Simon's greatest triumph was the victory against superior numbers at the Battle of Muret—a battle which saw not only the defeat of Raymond of Toulouse and his Occitan allies—but also the death of Peter of Aragon—and the effective end of the ambitions of the house of Aragon/Barcelona in the Languedoc . The Battle of Muret was a massive step in the creation of the unified French kingdom and the country we know today—although Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry V would threaten later to shake these foundations. The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice. What remained of the city was razed by fire. After the success of his siege of Carcassonne, which followed the Massacre at Béziers in 1209, Simon de Montfort was designated as leader of the Crusader army. Prominent opponents of the Crusaders were Raymond Roger Trencavel, viscount of Carcassonne, and his feudal overlord Peter II, the king of Aragon, who held fiefdoms and had a number of vassals in the region. Peter died fighting against the crusade on 12 September 1213 at the Battle of Muret. Simon Montfort was killed on 25 June 1218 after maintaining a siege of Toulouse for nine months .

I've just watched the first part of the mini-series, which has saved me the trouble of buying the book because, to be frank, it's awful. The subject matter (search for the Holy Grail) is hackneyed. The plot (innocent blonde haunted by historical visions and drawn in to solve a mystery) is uninspired. The screenplay is unconvincing. The violence and nastiness is a sad reflection of society if this is what people call entertainment. There are acceptable ways to portray violence in a novel or on screen without losing dramatic impact. It's not easy; it requires skill. This production ignores skill and takes the easy option, i.e. in-your-face, shock-the-heck-out-of-the-audience brutality. If the production is a true reflection of the novel, then Mosse should be ashamed. If it isn't, then she should sue.

Have any of the previous reviewers actually watched it? It has nothing to do with the Holy Grail and simply refers to the Grail which pre dates Christianity.

The plot was interesting and there was good use of the intertwining story. There are some unnecessary nude scenes (When are nude scenes necessary?) but I am not complaining. I enjoyed the scenes around Carcasonne and I think it will do their tourist board no harm. I agree with a previous reviewer that the modern part was a bit strange and you didn't really get why it was so important to them but overall I thought it was thoroughly enjoyable.

Flicking through the channels and found this. At first thought that the TV info was wrong, or that the Jim Henson movie had been on previously! I loved the costumes and sets. The flicking back and forth between current day and the past was done really well. Really hardcore violence for the type of movie. It was relevant to the plot and definitely spoke true of the times. I love that the lead female character of the medieval times has a husband that cares for her, most husbands portrayed in that era are dirt bags! I've only watched it once, I think because of the complex story I need to watch it again. Not that happy with the ending, but it definitely is open to personal interpretation. I'm hunting for the book now!

I just finished watching this and immediately came here to write about how brilliant Labyrinth is! It left me wishing it never ended. The story demands your full attention immersing you into the heart of it all. The acting leaves no room for any criticism, which is not the least bit surprising considering the great cast. Tom Felton, Jessica Brown-Findley and Emun Elliot's performances deserve recognition. The transitioning of medieval and modern times is very smoothly done. Kate Mosse's Cameo at the end only accentuates the mix of emotions built up to that point. Even though you already know the fate of the characters, you are still affected deeply and left breathless at the end of it all. Definitely a must-watch. I know I will be re-watching this many times over.

I just finished watching the second episode and I couldn't wait for it to end. How John Hurt put his name to this I do not know. The other actors must've been hard up for work or Kate Moss is personal friends with all of them.

The long, drawn out scenes are reminisce of American TV shows that use this ploy to make a show seem longer than it really is. The public is intelligent enough to fill in the gaps- really. But maybe it was made for American audiences. It's incredibly predictable and looks like they've used left over sets (and actors) from the Merlin TV series. The plastic chain mail is unconvincing but was forgiven in Merlin, which didn't take itself too seriously.

Another component which I found irritating was the editing- extremely bad. The transitions between eras (and some scenes)is clumsy and this seems to be prevalent not only in TV shows these days, but major movies which seem to be rushed and slapped together.

I honestly thought there would be a lot more depth to the plot than there was.

VERY disappointing.

1) When Trencavel is parleying with Simon de Montfort he speak of inquisitors. The conversation takes place in 1209, but the inquisition was not created until March 1233 (by Pope Gregory IX). 2) Simon de Montfort was not officer in charge of the crusader army which took Carcassonne in 1209. He was just one of several knights in the army. The officer in charge when the crusaders took Carcassonne was Arnald-Amaury, abbot of Citeaux. Simon de Montfort accepted the viscounty of Carcassonne in a council held by the victors in the taken Carcassonne. 3) Various scenes where swords are seen to penetrate chain mail are bogus, swords of that era could not do that.

From a novel by Kate Mosse with a plot derived directly from Indiana Jones on the Last Crusade and that awful da Vinci code (we even have a self harming RC fanatic!) with a lot more medieval gore and some nudity - yes, it is the Holy Grail plot (hunt for over the ages) with mysterious secret societies working outside the law with police connivance pitted against a young woman with Grail DNA all looking for the key which are three ancient books! Lost! Not surprisingly, it's hokum and poor. The story wafts and intersects between now and 1209 as the Albigensian Crusade sweeps through southern France to crush the heretical sect called the Cathars, portrayed as martyrs and liberal Christians with obvious references to religious intolerance over the years. The writing is shoddy, one paced, with useless editing and direction. the locations are excellent and some of the acting especially Jessica Findlay Brown, who suffers her usual fate!, is more than this piece deserved. There is plenty of violence - cue Middle Ages has nothing to learn from Modern Day conflicts - and some nudity (very gratuitous and disappears completely in the second part!!! We learn not much about the Cathars, and the ending owes a more to 'She' - another straight lift. You can even boo the authoress as she appears as tour guide near the end - clothes on, of course!

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. Great book. Rubbish film. That just about sums it up for me. Having enjoyed the book so much I was really looking forward to this when I stumbled upon it in the Weekend TV Supplement, but where was the pre-publicity or trailers? Maybe the TV execs knew they had a turkey on their hands when they scheduled it on two consecutive nights over a long weekend when they knew that half the nation would be on holiday. It wasn't all bad - the screenplay was pretty close to the book, which is good, but at nearly 700 pages it is a big ask, and it has to be down to the screenwriter and director to put the story across in an accessible way, and on this occasion I think they have fallen short. The locations, lavish sets, costumes, and the star cast, were all great however. But something was lacking. I wish I could put my finger on it.It was all a bit clichéd. I know the body count was pretty high but there were far too many death-bed scenes when profound words are exchanged just before they croak and the eyes go north. I rarely criticise actors because they can only work with the material they are given but it would help if they could articulate a little more clearly. Without the help of subtitles (and having read the book) I would probably not have had a clue what was going on. Poor Jessica Findlay-Brown has an unfortunate speech defect that when she speaks quietly she breaks into a whisper every other syllable. Very distracting. And central casting please note - Tom Felton, fine actor though he is, does not have the physical presence or vocal gravitas to carry off the part of a warrior leader. And why was it necessary to cast Will as an American? This is a European story about European culture with European settings and characters. No need for a token American. This film will bomb in America anyway with their bite-size attention span. Can you imagine this complex storyline on American TV with adverts every five minutes? The audience will quickly lose the plot if not the will to live! Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. There, I've said it again.

Still a little amazed!!Loved it!!! I usually skip out on serious shows,at least the kind which is this serious and slightly gory and historical but this!!Gosh,this was perfect.I haven't watched any of the versions but this was mind-blowing mainly because of the characters.I'll admit,Tom Felton was what drew me to this initially but every character here is just...no words to describe because nothing seemed exaggerated, even the lunatics were believable! The bad guys make you hate them and the good guys make you love them,now is that good acting or not??! The main character was likable,not an ounce of Mary-Sue-ish qualities or hateful moments from my side. :D! And Alais and Guilhem's story left me in tears.And this coming from someone who so does not cry watching something. A definite 'Must watch'!

A TV miniseries adaptation of the Kate Mosse novel LABYRINTH. I made a point of reading the book before watching this, and I found out that I didn't think very much of it at all. The miniseries would be an improvement, right? Well, it is, but it's certainly not a "great" piece of entertainment, saddled as it is with various flaws and contradictions.

The good news is that although it follows the same basic plotting as the novel, pretty much every scene and sequence is changed slightly, enhanced to be more entertaining for TV audiences. Thus it's also a lot more explicit, with some bloodshed and nudity thrown in for adult viewers.

It's better than the book because it doesn't drag so much, preferring to get on with the narrative instead of throwing in the three-pages of travelogue stuff that lets Mosse's writing down. The enhanced levels of violence make this hard-hitting in places, but the calibre of the acting is a disappointment. Some of the established supporting actors are okay - John Hurt, Tom Curran, even Tom Felton in a Orlando-Bloom-in-Kingdom-of-Heaven type role, but the leads are weak, particularly Vanessa Kirby. Who ever thought she'd be experienced enough to carry the central role?

There are still problems with the story, namely the sub-DA VINCI CODE antics of the modern-day tale (which could have been removed completely), although the historical stuff is more interesting. Some of the direction is also a little cheesy, especially when it descends into sub-Shakespeare melodrama at the climax. Still, I suspect those unfamiliar with the story will enjoy it more than I did...

While much of the acting and production was skilled, the writing is self-indulgent, unrealistic, and reflects the severe mental issues of the creator in a very bad way. It seems as though the writer despises men, exists in a bizarre reality of their own creation, and yet has a peculiar lack of any original thought.

It is a shame when so many talented people put so much effort into to script of an inferior storyteller, who's work is colored by their own madness and therefore creates characters who cannot be related to by those with a firmer grasp on reality. Every actor's performance was excellent with the exception of Vanessa Kirby, who made me wonder if she was aware she was supposed to be acting.

I didn't even know this movie or series even existed and didn't see it until it aired on syfy Dec 23, 2015. Nothing else on TV but reruns! And I was quite satisfied with Labyrinth. Had a little trouble identifying some of the actors/actresses, but that was still a pleasant surprise. I thought Tom Felton did very well in his character, and that's saying a lot for me! I did have a little trouble following the plot. Not sure if it was my lack of historical knowledge, or the directing was lacking? Being an 'armchair' genealogist, I have come to really appreciate history so much more, so it could be just me. I do like period movies like these that are historically based. Meaning I recognize the d'vereux's, etc, beings I am a descendant. (Kg Edw I was my 21st GGF, and Mary Boleyn my 12th GGM). I also thought the clothing (not the exaggerated fluff and stuff), sets, and props were well done. I don't believe the fabrics of the day were so refined as most other movies portray. I would recommend this movie/series to others who enjoy such types. I didn't think the violence part was so bad, I've seen far worse on TWD! The woman who played Oriane.....I really don't get her..the actress? She seems to always play the same mean, spiteful creature ever since her first debut on Merlin (that I'm aware of, or was that even her debut?) She does appear to be improving on her acting skills, but I think she should really get a day job. After a quick read on the Cathars, I can see where the Catholic Church rose up against them. Being a person of faith, I wouldn't have agreed with the Cathar beliefs either. Yet, based on the Word, the Catholic Church is in direct conflict as well, and was and still is nothing more than a very well organized cult that uses death, hell, and the grave to control its members. But this would be a whole other subject...smile.

"Labyrinth (2012)" is a 2 part historical television miniseries based on the 2005 novel of the same name by Kate Mosse. The series' setting jumps between modern and medieval France and follows two women's (Vanessa Kirby, Jessica Brown Findlay) search for the Holy Grail. She inherits a house in the South of France from an aunt she has never met; she is haunted by dreams of a woman from the past, whom she does not know; and now she stumbles upon an archaeological find that will bear witness to a genocide committed 800 years ago on European soil, which will lead ALICE TANNER to the secrets of the Holy Grail. Alice had never been to this part of France, but she is driven by an inexplicable compulsion to find out the secrets of the past and of a mysterious woman who lived 800 years ago, ALAiS. What is Alais trying to lead her to? Why can't she shake the feeling that something monumental is at stake? Alice knows that there are people willing to kill for whatever is behind the meaning of the labyrinth she found carved into the wall of a cave. But she must now race to find out what happened to Alais and how she can prevent the past from recurring. I enjoyed watching this, you will too if you liked The Da Vinci Code.