One might guess that it is a no-brainer to rate this movie a 10/10, however, for me it wasn't. The reason is that Tolkien is one of my favorit authors of all time. I've read everything that he ever published, and also everything that he didn't but that was published posthumous. This includes letters, and scripts, essay-like writings where he just describes how certain islands look like, or how certain plants look like, family trees, etc.
My favorite book, by the way is the original release of Narn i Chîn Húrin, which is a loose collection of chapters that did not really fit together and that missed some chapters - in Germany at least it was released as single book, in England/America it is part of the Unfinished Tales. Recently (2007) his son Christopher Tolkien edited that story into a finished tale and released it as new book under the title "The Tale of the Children of Húrin" (which until now I haven't read because I am really content with the J.R.R. Tolkien-Version).
But I digress. What I tried to point out is, that while being his famous work, I think "The Lord of the Rings" is one of his lesser works, with his best being those about the early times (which are really unfilmable). Still being a fan of Tolkien I've read Lord of the Rings several times and some of my favorite parts are the first encounter with the woodland elves, as well as the adventures in the Old Forrest and of course Tom Bombadil - non of which appeared in the movie. Instead, you get the feeling, that Frodos travel to the prancing poney is a days jorney (it isn't, and in the book it takes months to prepare and further months to reach), and that meeting Aragorn and going on to Rivendale is another day or twos journey (again it itsn't) - all in all it takes 9 months from Gandalf telling Frodo about the Ring to the journey of the Fellowship starting in Rivendell. And the time between Bilbos birthday and Gandalf returning from his research about the ring is 17 years, rather than the same evening (what some people actually believed after watching this movie).
So while watching it for the first time in cinemas I felt totally rushed through the story, I missed important parts in the book, and instead Peter Jackson added things that never happend, e.g. all the scenes with Arwen (Arwen in the books is a sidenote, that Tolkien takes when finishing the third book and explaining what happend to all the characters of the book, after they disband). And also Galadriel getting all blue-greenish ghostlike. And I hated, the soupy romantic scenes "I choose a mortal life. - You cannot give me this. - It is mine to give to whom I will. Like my heart." ....
So, even though I hated it, befor it came out to cinemas I did buy tickets for two shows at once, one with German dubbings and on the next day in original Language. And at second viewing, while knowing what to expect, I liked it a bit better - still being angry of course, I had time to take into account all the little things. And of these, the movie has plenty, such as using the Rings engravings in Black Speech as background song at the Council - something only true fans of the book would recognize - as well as adding parts of Bilbos journey (the stone Trolls), or the Lore of Middle Earth with Aragon singing about Beren and Luthien. Some things are so well hidden, that even hardcore fans will have a hard time recognizing them, for instance when Boromir dies the music uses elvish singing using English quotes from the book. So we find references to all of Tolkiens other works, showing that Peter Jackson has read them all and understood their importance and relationship to the Lord of the Rings-Story. He also wanted Christopher Lee in his Cast, because Lee is famous for being a Tolkien fan, and at own admission reads books by Tolkien every year; furthermore he was the only one in the crew to have met and spoken with J.R.R. Tolkien in person, which is why his input was valued highly - most of the scripts where rewritten daily to incorporate such input, and even Tom Bombadil was to have an cameo which in the end they couldn't shoot. Besides we have homages and cameos hidden all over the movies, paying tribute to famous Tolkien artists as well as people who have had any connection with Tolkiens works (Ian Holm voiced Frodo Baggins in the 1981 radio series, many scenes where taken straight out of Ralph Bakshis 1978 animated Lord of the Rings moive, etc.)
These are enourmous levels of detail, and once you get over the fact, that the Lord of the Ring movies are not 1-to-1 adaptions of the book (which is impossible to do) you will actually realize that the adaption per se is pretty darn good. Everything you see, meets your expectation, there is always the highest amount of detail, even all the little things matter, nothing seems arbritary. A lot of craftsmanship was put into the movie - they use CGI only where absolutely neccessary and if used, it is extremely good. But hordes of orcs are masked extras, weapons have been forged, a lot of carpenters, gardeners, mansons, blacksmiths, landscapers, etc. employed to create middle earth. The score is one of the greatest in the last years, with a number of themes that all have their single purpose (we have the theme for the wraiths, the theme for Gondor, the theme for the hobbits, a theme for the fellowship, one for Gollum, etc); in the end, listening just to the score, when closing the eyes you can see the entire movie in your head!
The acting of course is also great, everyone was put through a lot, by having to learn languages such as different Elvish languages (Quenya and Sindarin), dwarfish language and orcish language (which all exist! Tolkien was a philologist, and in one interview he said, that his stories are just a side product as any good language mus have it's story of origin - so in the end, what he really did was develop at least 6 languages with all their words, pronounciations, grammatic rules and writing systems!), they had accent coaching, Gandalf for instance talks in the same accent that Tolkien did!, they had to learn to fight and to ride, etc. And it is all turned into perfection, nowhere is it half-hearted. The scenes and locations are great, the camerawork is beautiful, all in all it is a good movie in every aspect.
I've ended up watching the movie 6 times in cinemas, then I got a copy of the movie and watched it for half a year nearly every weekend at least once, until the official home release of the cinema version of the DVD, and half a year later, I of course got the extended cut, and watched that at least as many times as I did the DVD. So to sum up: It is my most favorit, most often watched movie - even today I am not tired of watching it, altough I nowadays only watch it once every 1-2 years. If compared to other movies I wouldn't say it is the best movie ever, because of several reasons: First and foremost it is an adaption, and therefore not an original work, which I think is an important factor - I wouldn't know if I was a fan of the movie if I never read Tolkien or disliked him - then and only then would I be able to judge the movie without prejudice. Also - I am a big fan of all the works so I get a lot of the little hints, which to me are a "wow. how cool is this"-moment. But that is just me (and some other hardcore fans), but to the general audience these little acts of greatness that influence my judgement go unnoticed. In addition to that, a movie that has so much to tell and three overlength movies to do so, escapes the boundaries of a traditional movie, i.e. to bring across a story, emotions, and a message, to make the audience meet new people that they like and that they understand, in just under 2 hours. That, I think, is a hard job to do and a reason why most movies might be "okey" but only a few are great.
So is it the best movie ever made? Certainly not, although it deserves to be listed beside those. It is however the best adaption I've ever encountered, it is the greatest, most fan-friendliest movie that takes into account everything available to that fictional universe and it is one of my alltime favorites and the best tribute that could have been paid to the works of J. R. R. Tolkien.
I don't disagree that some controlled substances have shown promise in treating mental illness (psilocybin, LSD, mescaline etc.), and that their Schedule I status inhibits further research and drug trials, but they are simply a tool in psychotherapy, not a miracle cure. If they're not followed very closely with CBT and other forms of psychotherapy, they could do more harm than good.
What Masha does is insanely unethical and illegal. She's exposing herself to all kinds of lawsuits, civil and criminal.
First of all, even if Masha, Delilah, Yao and Glory were licensed therapists (for which I have my doubts), Masha doesn't have a medical license nor a drug trial permit to prescribe and administer illegal drugs for therapeutic purposes (nor her employees who handle the drugs).
Constructive consent doesn't work like Masha thinks it does. Just because the guests imply constructive consent for future doses by staying, that doesn't change the fact that she dosed them without their informed consent in the first place. Also, she can't just change their drug regimen (in dosage or choice of drug) whenever she wants without their knowledge and consent. Every modification is a separate event and decision-making process, requiring informed consent anew.
Also also, Carmel's kendo scene was all kinds of wrong. Delilah and Masha reading aloud Carmel's journal in front of all the others without her consent was very unethical and a major breach in privacy and confidentiality, which could (and probably did) re-traumatize Carmel in some degree. The point of journaling and exposure therapy is to expose yourself to your traumas in a safe and controlled manner with the help of your therapist, in order to desensitize yourself and not be re-traumatized every time you revisit those memories.
P.S. I'm not writing all this because I hate the show. I very much like it, but I don't want people watching it to walk away from it with misconceptions about what is good therapy and what isn't. Whoever is watching, feeling like they relate to the characters and think they may also need help, please get help from trained and licensed clinicians. Everyone deserves therapy.
Why did I watch this?? I didn't need the cry, I re-lived so many sad and painful moments in my life, I just didn't need that. This is why I don't watch love stories on TV... it's a brilliant show, brilliant actors, but it was just painful for me personally.
I don't know if it's nostalgia or something else, but for me, no one else embodies Poirot like David Suchet. Kenneth Branagh just doesn't fit the role.
wasn’t emotionally stable enough for this
I watched the movies when they originally came out in theatrical version 20 years ago, and while I loved them, I could not fully grasp their significance at the time (I was 11 when Fellowship of the Ring came out). So re-watching it 20 years later, in the extended version, three movies in a row, and knowing what I know about Tolkien, fantasy, the role that LOTR has in culture more generally, and the advances in technology that happened since this movie was originally released, I'm happy to say that this movie is even more awesome than I remembered.
Over almost three hours it hardly loses momentum - you feel energized and excited for this group even if you know everything that is to come.
I feel that The Two Towers and the Return of the King rely more on chromakey scenes, but I could barely notice them in The Fellowship of the Ring. The pacing is awesome, no comments on the acting or score, or cinematography. It feels rushed at times, but it packs SO, SO MUCH over its runtime that it's an incredible feat. Peter Jackson had an immense responsibility in adapting an astonishing book into a movie that would stand the test of time, and surprisingly, he pulled it off. I'm still in shock and awe with this movie.
i was more or less holding it together, but then ofc they had to come in with the montage at the end… really clocked into work with a clear target: lets make these bitches suffer
Just got out of my local cinema who are currently screening the extended editions of the trilogy over the next few weeks. Tremendous to see this back on the big screen. It's absolutely lost none of the its power, the cast is perfect, every one of them are firing on all cylinders, Howard Shore is just amazing, the amount of models mixed in with the VFX gives the whole thing a tactile lived in feeling. Superb.
The World's Worst Neighbour (shameful translation in Spanish), a film adaptation of Fredrik Backman's novel "A Man Called Ove", has captivated audiences with a story of deep love and empathy that leaves an indelible mark. The film combines a stellar performance by Tom Hanks, stylish direction and memorable characters to deliver a moving and inspiring cinematic experience.
At the heart of the film beats a love story that goes straight to the viewer's soul. The film addresses universal themes such as loneliness, grief and the importance of human connections in a way that is as authentic as it is moving. The relationship between Otto (Tom Hanks) and his neighbour Marisol (Mariana Treviño) is the emotional core of the film. A story of unlikely friendship that blossoms with tenderness and authenticity, taking the viewer on a truly special emotional journey.
Tom Hanks, as usual, is brilliant on screen. His performance is impeccable and moving, and he manages to bring a complex character to life with astonishing depth. His ability to convey Otto's emotions, from his apparent bitterness to his moments of vulnerability, is a testament to his acting mastery. Her partner Mariana brings a genuine charm to the film. Her character is a constant source of joy and vitality that perfectly balances Otto's seriousness. The chemistry between Hanks and Treviño is palpable, and their on-screen interactions are an absolute delight.
A Man Called Otto (I refuse to call it The World's Worst Neighbour) is tremendously moving, to the point of tears. It tackles difficult issues and presents a story that, despite its harshness, is at the same time full of hope and redemption. A reminder of cinema's ability to touch the deepest fibres of the human heart and leave us with a sense of gratitude for the connections we create in life.
I dislike Inclusive movies and series
It's perhaps one of the greatest movies ever made. Go watch it now. Again.
A throwback to 90s trashy erotic films. With some social commentary added in.
It felt like: "If we throw enough money to it and use the universe of Tolkien, it must be amazing".
This is proof it doesn't.
Maybe I watch the rest of the episodes, but i doubt it.
Ford v Ferrari (2019) 7.8/10 (Impressive)
I've been meaning to watch this film for a while now. For whatever reason, it’s taken me nearly two years to get around to it, but I'm glad I finally did. As soon as I saw that James Mangold was directing and that gorgeous opening scene, I knew this film had potential. Thankfully, I was correct in my assumptions; the film is beautifully directed, has a captivating story, and has outstanding performances from its stellar cast. The film's brilliance lies in Bale's portrayal of Ken Miles behind the wheel, as well as the chemistry he has with Damon's Shelby. It has a few flaws, the most glaring of which is a story that may be sluggish at times and is, regrettably, rather predictable. Nothing here is groundbreaking, but the story is compelling and the delivery is superb, and that is often all that's needed. In short, it's a heart-warming film that is definitely worth watching.
If it wasn't for Christian Bale being in it, this movie probably wouldn't have caught my interest. So thank you, Christian, for not letting me miss out on a great story and a great movie.
What a great cinematic masterpiece of special affects and filming to bring you the incredible story about how to corrupt deal that never happened for Ford to buy Ferrari fueled Ford to win 4 straight at Le Mans. The casting and plot development is spot on. The lead up and character development and introductions is phenomenal, especially the introduction of Carrol Shelby to begin the film. The filming of the racing along with the storyline makes this the car version of Top Gunn Maverick.
One of the better movies I have watched. If anyone watches to watch it get ahold of me I will send them the file.
This is a movie for everyone, as you don't have to to be a fan of motorsports to enjoy it. You will, however, never stop watching it again if you are a fan. MASTERPIECE!
The film is titled Ford v Ferrari, and that is what the movie is about, on a superficial level. Really, what this comes down to - as with any great sports drama - is our lead character, in this case, Bale as Ken Miles.
Not being a car guy, I don't care about racing, but if you make a great movie, I'm in for the ride.
Set in the 1960s, the story effortlessly weaves in and out of the life of Miles, Shelby (Matt Damon), and of course, Ford, and Ferrari. We get the perfect amount of time with both Miles, and Shelby to invest in the plot, and just enough about Ford, and Ferrari to make sense of the feud/motivation for the car/race.
If you like drama, you're going to like this. If you like when cars go fast, you'll also like this.
I'd rate the movie even higher, but the ending went on a little longer than I felt it needed to. There were two points where the movie could have ended earlier, and I think either would have played better. Just cut to an epilog.
An unexpected beauty of a story, Tom Hanks is legendary as always. The other characters are great as well. I'm not a big emo guy, but this brought a tear to my eyes more than once.
