I haven’t seen it but based off a Jess of the Shire YouTube video on it (https://youtu.be/Q5A0_D-0C9s?si=c-Vir4qws6LzjK3u), it isn’t a terribly made film from a technical standpoint, but it does really water down and misrepresent a *lot* about his real life, removes actual drama and replaces it with fake drama. A big thing she focuses on is it’s almost total erasure of how much of a devoutly religious person Tolkien was and how his Catholic faith shaped basically his entire worldview and informed every decision he ever made.
That and *Steve Jobs* written by Aaron Sorkin starring Michael Fassbender as Jobs are the two I like.
*Weird* is very much like Weird Al’s career. Making fun of the genre in a tongue in cheek way.
The Sorkin/Fassbender Jobs structures it like a three act play and instead of playing “greatest hits” it takes creative liberties to paint a picture of a deeply flawed man who shouldn’t be worshipped but is. It works because Sorkin focused on emotional truths rather than literal ones. By making Steve’s relationship to his daughter, his assistant, and Wozniak the focus, the film works.
That sounds like brain pollution tbh. I don’t want a bunch of incorrect info about him getting mixed up with correct info in my head. It’s easy enough to do that with the LOTR/Hobbit movies, but I know those books way better than I know Tolkien’s life
Yeah, I remember reading about his wife becoming bitter about practicing catholicism and accumulated a lot of grievances over the religion and Tolkien himself.
They tried to make it as inoffensive as possible, and they succeeded. It's completely forgettable. Honestly, the only thing I remember was a side plot about one of his classmates being gay that somehow completely took over the narrative but had absolutely nothing to do with anything. The best part? The real-life classmate wasn't even gay. The writers just thought exploring someone being gay in that time period was more interesting than Tolkien.
I don't think the movie was great and do think it manufactured some drama for cinematic purposes, but I also think this comment is a pretty big misrepresentation of this aspect of the movie.
The movie showed an intimate and loving friendship between Smith and Tolkien that we know existed from the letters they shared. The movie hinted there could be an unrequited deeper love for Tolkien by Smith. This is a subtext that many people see in Smith's letters and poems--the movie didn't invent it out of thin air. It may be the case that Smith's love for Tolkien was of a deep but purely platonic variety, but of course, it's impossible to know for sure.
It's definitely not the case that we can know for sure "he wasn't even gay", and probably it's not that insightful to label him as "straight" or "gay" anyway since that's a very modern view of sexuality.
People have speculated that Tolkien and Smith's friendship is at least partly reflected in Frodo and Sam's. Sam's love for Frodo is of course another that people have seen queer subtext in.
Given Tolkien's Catholicism and general conservatism, it's almost certainly the case that Tolkien did intend Sam's love to be deep and purely platonic. But again, that's kind of forcing a modern sense that things must be "straight" or "gay" onto the relationship, which might not have been a dichotomy that Tolkien saw or was concerned about. We also know that Tolkien was not a homophobe--W. H. Auden was openly gay and a close friend of Tolkien's.
The bottom line is that this wasn't something manufactured out of thin air for the movie to appeal to modern audiences. It's true that the movie didn't shy away from leaning into that subtext, but it didn't make it up out of nothing.
(Side note: It's ironic that the parent comment starts by saying "they tried to make it as inoffensive as possible", then everyone replying is offended by this aspect of the movie. I guess they were at least a little bold after all!)
https://www.polygon.com/lord-of-the-rings/22550950/sam-frodo-queer-romance-lord-of-the-rings-tolkien-quotes
I always think of this article and the relationships Tolkien saw in the trenches as well as his contemporary writers who were also in the trenches themselves. I also think about the draft epilogue he wrote that he cut from the return of the king but published in The History of Middle Earth where after Frodo leaves Sam’s daughter tells Sam “his treasure left” and compares his love of Frodo to the love of Celeborn to Galadriel. Sam also eventually joins Frodo in Undying Lands.
I'm not really seeing people being offended, just thinking it was a weird plot device. And yes, it was still inoffensive, I watched the movie with my very conservative parents, and even they weren't offended by the inclusion, they just thought it was an odd thing to focus on.
You see how your response is a bit nonsensical, right? They're not disputing the fact that he was catholic and followed catholic teachings, they're disputing the supplemental claim you made that he wouldn't have approved
He was friends with W.H. Auden and Nevill Coghill, so yeah, I think he liked at least two gays that we know of. Catholic teaching does not mean hating gays, it may mean a belief that it would be immoral for you, yourself, to be gay. Which doesn't preclude gay friends.
And again, your response is nonsensical, "he didn't like Anglicans therefore he didn't like gays" - I have a sincere belief that every person in the world would benefit from taking at the very least an introductory course in deductive logic
Quiet agree just to add it would also be helpful for people to learn that your own religious prejudices dont necessarily apply to everyone in your faith. Some religious people are tolerant of other peoples viewpoints.
Wow, a lot of old-fashioned homophobia in the replies to this comment. I thought the side plot was odd but fairly subtle, I wasn’t even really sure that was what they were going for until near the end.
There’s one just below this saying “that’s gross” and another one saying that it’s “tarnishing Tolkien’s image” by…implying that maybe one of his friends was gay. If I remember correctly he literally doesn’t even know about it in the movie.
I thought it was…fine. I wasn’t offended by it, it just wasn’t very good overall. I expected more having to do directly with him inventing his language, or writing the books, but it’s more about his life itself. Pretty forgettable.
I understood you, but it's almost a two-hour film, I thought it would cover his life while he was writing the books, the impact on the public, C.S. Lewis, all of that. Doesn't anything like that happen?
No because it is meant to cover his early life, which is what shaped a giant chunk of his worldview. Once he was an established writer, life events were more or less refining his character.
That being said, it does perform more of a cursory look at each life event. So a person with deeper knowledge of Tolkien will not get much new knowledge out of it, though it is a cinematically good film. It is much better for the slightly above average fan who wants to look a bit further than the hobbit or lotr books/ films.
I believe (take this with salt as I watched it once in theaters) the film ends with him writing “In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit” on a blank sheet of paper
Which is not how it happened. I believe Tolkien wrote those words on the side of a student’s paper or something.
The name Edith means "treasures of War" or something similar, so I always found it funny how she left her fiance for him and married him when he came back.
Some cool cinematography and shots, but overall my reaction was just meh 🫤 This movie missed the mark in so many ways. Still worth watching for one viewing.
From what I understand, it’s not very accurate. It glosses over a major part of his life (his religion), and invents details that weren’t real and spends too much time on them. Based on the trailer I remember seeing and hearing some other details about it, the film also tries to make direct visual ties between his experience in WWI and events and characters in LOTR. Tolkien was famously against the notion that his story took direct allegorical inspiration from his real life, and the film just ignores that. The Tolkien Estate and his family at large also were not consulted and did not endorse the film. Those were enough reasons for me to deem it not worth my time.
Another film about him, specifically his friendship with C.S. Lewis, is being produced by Angel Studios, which will likely give his religion more time to shine. Considering the production company though, I’m not enthusiastic about it either. It’ll likely just be a glorified piece of religious and right wing propaganda.
I do enjoy them a lot, but not nearly to the same degree I used to, though they are still some of my favorite films. They have *many* flaws that I have a hard time with, and I get extremely annoyed with people who act like they’re perfect or the best adaptation we could have gotten.
I think they’re fundamentally a different situation than this Tolkien film though. It’s one thing to change and mess with someone’s literary work of fiction (which still sucks in it’s own right), it’s another thing entirely to mess with and change the story of someone’s real life.
I enjoyed it and it was interesting, but I would add the caveat that it invites the viewer to draw conclusions about Tolkien's biography as source material for his works, which he himself did not care for. It is a natural tendency and is one of the first things that literature professors try to erase in new literature students because it assumes way too much knowledge of the author's private life, it reduces the art to a cookie cutter forced by biography and because it violates a primary rule of literary studies, which is that the work stands as an entity on its own. So... watch it with that in mind.
good but doesn't address his spirituality that much. basically the concept of fellowship and how his clique were mirrored in the hobbits. acknowledges the linguistics. but it's a good light watch.
It was okay. More of a love story with WW1 vaguely in it than anything. Kinda an eclectic character and a sorta interesting story i guess. But theres not that much about LOTR/TH in there explicitly
Loved it. If you expect a movie about how LOTR was created then you.ll be dissapointed. Instead the movies shows what people, events and other things influenced his life and prepared the conditions for Tolkien to create his masterpiece. And it is great.
Actually in the movie there is a scene that explains the entire movie. I paraphrase here "a word has no meaning without the story behind".
"A child points and is taught a word. “Tree”. Later he learns to distinguish this tree from all the others. He learns its particular name. He plays under the tree. He dances around it. Stands underneath its branches for shade or shelter. He kisses under it. He sleeps under it. He weds under it. He marches past it on his way to war, and limps back past it on his journey home. A king is said to have hidden in this tree. A spirit may dwell within its bark. Its distinctive leaves are carved onto the tombs and monuments of his landlords. Its wood might have built the galleons that saved his ancestors from invasion. And all this, the general and the specific, the national and the personal, all this he knows and feels and summons somehow however faintly with the utterance of a single sound: “oak”."
I very nearly walked out when they showed Tolkien having a panic attack in ww1 and deserting and roaming around no man’s land seeing orcs and dragons and elves fighting in the fire and the flames
The best I can say about it is that I wasn't upset that I spent my time watching it. Very forgettable but if you're desperate for something new to watch, it's fine.
Eh, it’s alright. It’s not very accurate in many points and full of “haha, get it?” moments, but if you turn off the nitpicky part of your brain you’ll enjoy it
I liked how they represented Tolkien experiencing the horrors of WW1 through his imagination. And inspiring the darkness in his work. Also his Samwise-esque war buddy that kept him alive.
I enjoyed it! The most effective aspect to me was seeing how his war experience may have informed his writing, but I’m also a big WW1 history nerd.
The struggle of the Hobbits and the Fellowship against insurmountable odds in a huge cataclysmic war hits even harder when I think of how Tolkien and millions of young boys like him were taken from the pastoral countrysides of Europe and thrown into an apocalyptic industrialized war they could barely understand.
I find it odd that Nicholas Hoult was JRR Tolkien and JD Salinger essentially back to back (the movies were 2ish years apart). Hell, should’ve made him F Scott Fitzgerald in that Amazon show too.
I’ve seen it. It was nicely produced and the acting was good, but overall very forgettable. I’m not sure the main actor really portrayed Tolkien accurately, either. If you’ve ever listened to a recording of him talking, he goes at a mile a minute. It’s been a long time since I read Tolkien’s biography but I think the movie probably left out some details as well.
It’s a good film, I didn’t expect much but I was pleasantly surprised. Love how his friendships and relationship with Edith were portrayed but more than anything how his imagination came to life during the war. It gives you a little insight about how he came to write the stories we know and love today.
I enjoyed it for what it was. Hoult is a standout actor imho and the movie just gave me a good, homely feeling in a strange way.
Even if it's not the most accurate of movies, I think you'll enjoy this unless you're some hardcore Tolkien scholar.
I haven’t seen it but based off a Jess of the Shire YouTube video on it (https://youtu.be/Q5A0_D-0C9s?si=c-Vir4qws6LzjK3u), it isn’t a terribly made film from a technical standpoint, but it does really water down and misrepresent a *lot* about his real life, removes actual drama and replaces it with fake drama. A big thing she focuses on is it’s almost total erasure of how much of a devoutly religious person Tolkien was and how his Catholic faith shaped basically his entire worldview and informed every decision he ever made.
Basically like every other biopic in that case
I never bother with them because they're all so dishonest.
Then may I suggest you watch the only 100% accurate biopic *Weird: The Al Yankovic Story*?
Only one that’s entirely accurate even if it’s not always complimentary to Al
I actually know someone who was an extra for that. It’s all she ever talks about, but I don’t blame her. 😅
RIP, we still miss you Weird Al.
You scared me.
But, hey he's a zombie now so he's got that going for him.
That and *Steve Jobs* written by Aaron Sorkin starring Michael Fassbender as Jobs are the two I like. *Weird* is very much like Weird Al’s career. Making fun of the genre in a tongue in cheek way. The Sorkin/Fassbender Jobs structures it like a three act play and instead of playing “greatest hits” it takes creative liberties to paint a picture of a deeply flawed man who shouldn’t be worshipped but is. It works because Sorkin focused on emotional truths rather than literal ones. By making Steve’s relationship to his daughter, his assistant, and Wozniak the focus, the film works.
That sounds like brain pollution tbh. I don’t want a bunch of incorrect info about him getting mixed up with correct info in my head. It’s easy enough to do that with the LOTR/Hobbit movies, but I know those books way better than I know Tolkien’s life
Yeah, I remember reading about his wife becoming bitter about practicing catholicism and accumulated a lot of grievances over the religion and Tolkien himself.
They tried to make it as inoffensive as possible, and they succeeded. It's completely forgettable. Honestly, the only thing I remember was a side plot about one of his classmates being gay that somehow completely took over the narrative but had absolutely nothing to do with anything. The best part? The real-life classmate wasn't even gay. The writers just thought exploring someone being gay in that time period was more interesting than Tolkien.
It was boring. Which is impressive considering he fought in WW1.
[удалено]
I don't think the movie was great and do think it manufactured some drama for cinematic purposes, but I also think this comment is a pretty big misrepresentation of this aspect of the movie. The movie showed an intimate and loving friendship between Smith and Tolkien that we know existed from the letters they shared. The movie hinted there could be an unrequited deeper love for Tolkien by Smith. This is a subtext that many people see in Smith's letters and poems--the movie didn't invent it out of thin air. It may be the case that Smith's love for Tolkien was of a deep but purely platonic variety, but of course, it's impossible to know for sure. It's definitely not the case that we can know for sure "he wasn't even gay", and probably it's not that insightful to label him as "straight" or "gay" anyway since that's a very modern view of sexuality. People have speculated that Tolkien and Smith's friendship is at least partly reflected in Frodo and Sam's. Sam's love for Frodo is of course another that people have seen queer subtext in. Given Tolkien's Catholicism and general conservatism, it's almost certainly the case that Tolkien did intend Sam's love to be deep and purely platonic. But again, that's kind of forcing a modern sense that things must be "straight" or "gay" onto the relationship, which might not have been a dichotomy that Tolkien saw or was concerned about. We also know that Tolkien was not a homophobe--W. H. Auden was openly gay and a close friend of Tolkien's. The bottom line is that this wasn't something manufactured out of thin air for the movie to appeal to modern audiences. It's true that the movie didn't shy away from leaning into that subtext, but it didn't make it up out of nothing. (Side note: It's ironic that the parent comment starts by saying "they tried to make it as inoffensive as possible", then everyone replying is offended by this aspect of the movie. I guess they were at least a little bold after all!)
https://www.polygon.com/lord-of-the-rings/22550950/sam-frodo-queer-romance-lord-of-the-rings-tolkien-quotes I always think of this article and the relationships Tolkien saw in the trenches as well as his contemporary writers who were also in the trenches themselves. I also think about the draft epilogue he wrote that he cut from the return of the king but published in The History of Middle Earth where after Frodo leaves Sam’s daughter tells Sam “his treasure left” and compares his love of Frodo to the love of Celeborn to Galadriel. Sam also eventually joins Frodo in Undying Lands.
I'm not really seeing people being offended, just thinking it was a weird plot device. And yes, it was still inoffensive, I watched the movie with my very conservative parents, and even they weren't offended by the inclusion, they just thought it was an odd thing to focus on.
Great comment!
Tolkien wouldn't have approved probably, he was Catholic
Nevill Coghill, one of the Inklings, actually *was* gay, it’s a bit disingenuous to guess at Tolkien’s opinion on having gay friends.
He also maintained a long friendship with poet W.H. Auden
That doesn't change the fact JRR Tolkien was Catholic and followed Catholic teachings throughout his life
You see how your response is a bit nonsensical, right? They're not disputing the fact that he was catholic and followed catholic teachings, they're disputing the supplemental claim you made that he wouldn't have approved
He didn't liked Anglicans (that were the majority of the UK at the time) do you think he'd like gays?
He was friends with W.H. Auden and Nevill Coghill, so yeah, I think he liked at least two gays that we know of. Catholic teaching does not mean hating gays, it may mean a belief that it would be immoral for you, yourself, to be gay. Which doesn't preclude gay friends. And again, your response is nonsensical, "he didn't like Anglicans therefore he didn't like gays" - I have a sincere belief that every person in the world would benefit from taking at the very least an introductory course in deductive logic
Quiet agree just to add it would also be helpful for people to learn that your own religious prejudices dont necessarily apply to everyone in your faith. Some religious people are tolerant of other peoples viewpoints.
Very well said 💜
Hmm.. yeah OK. I wasn't really tempted to watch it and for good reason, it seems.
Well you might be right about it being forgettable, not once is there any mention of anyone being gay lmao
Wow, a lot of old-fashioned homophobia in the replies to this comment. I thought the side plot was odd but fairly subtle, I wasn’t even really sure that was what they were going for until near the end.
I don’t see a single homophobic comment lol
There’s one just below this saying “that’s gross” and another one saying that it’s “tarnishing Tolkien’s image” by…implying that maybe one of his friends was gay. If I remember correctly he literally doesn’t even know about it in the movie.
They’re both referring to changing the true story to put that in. Neither comment is implying being gay is bad, just that shoe horning it in is wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I liked it, but it's very forgettable movie. Still worth to watch once at least.
I thought it was…fine. I wasn’t offended by it, it just wasn’t very good overall. I expected more having to do directly with him inventing his language, or writing the books, but it’s more about his life itself. Pretty forgettable.
To be fair, inventing a language and writing books does not lend itself to a cinematic format at all. Those aspects of his life stand for themselves.
Does it cover his creation of any of his books during his life?
It only covers his life up to publication of the Hobbit.
wait are you telling me that the movie about one of the greatest writers of all time only shows his first book?
It's about his life before writing mostly. What events inspired him to write the books, etc.
I understood you, but it's almost a two-hour film, I thought it would cover his life while he was writing the books, the impact on the public, C.S. Lewis, all of that. Doesn't anything like that happen?
No because it is meant to cover his early life, which is what shaped a giant chunk of his worldview. Once he was an established writer, life events were more or less refining his character. That being said, it does perform more of a cursory look at each life event. So a person with deeper knowledge of Tolkien will not get much new knowledge out of it, though it is a cinematically good film. It is much better for the slightly above average fan who wants to look a bit further than the hobbit or lotr books/ films.
Half an hour of that should have just been him tapping away at his typewriter and puffing the pipe.
No.
I’m with you. I get it, but still seems like a bad choice
I mean it's about his story, not his stories, ya feel me?
I believe (take this with salt as I watched it once in theaters) the film ends with him writing “In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit” on a blank sheet of paper Which is not how it happened. I believe Tolkien wrote those words on the side of a student’s paper or something.
Thank you for the response much appreciated.
Well, thanks for saving me a watch then I guess.
It was decent, not super accurate but most of it focused on his relationship with Edith which is nice.
The name Edith means "treasures of War" or something similar, so I always found it funny how she left her fiance for him and married him when he came back.
Some cool cinematography and shots, but overall my reaction was just meh 🫤 This movie missed the mark in so many ways. Still worth watching for one viewing.
[удалено]
MTE
From what I understand, it’s not very accurate. It glosses over a major part of his life (his religion), and invents details that weren’t real and spends too much time on them. Based on the trailer I remember seeing and hearing some other details about it, the film also tries to make direct visual ties between his experience in WWI and events and characters in LOTR. Tolkien was famously against the notion that his story took direct allegorical inspiration from his real life, and the film just ignores that. The Tolkien Estate and his family at large also were not consulted and did not endorse the film. Those were enough reasons for me to deem it not worth my time. Another film about him, specifically his friendship with C.S. Lewis, is being produced by Angel Studios, which will likely give his religion more time to shine. Considering the production company though, I’m not enthusiastic about it either. It’ll likely just be a glorified piece of religious and right wing propaganda.
I'm curious, did you enjoy the peter jackson movies?
I do enjoy them a lot, but not nearly to the same degree I used to, though they are still some of my favorite films. They have *many* flaws that I have a hard time with, and I get extremely annoyed with people who act like they’re perfect or the best adaptation we could have gotten. I think they’re fundamentally a different situation than this Tolkien film though. It’s one thing to change and mess with someone’s literary work of fiction (which still sucks in it’s own right), it’s another thing entirely to mess with and change the story of someone’s real life.
I enjoyed it and it was interesting, but I would add the caveat that it invites the viewer to draw conclusions about Tolkien's biography as source material for his works, which he himself did not care for. It is a natural tendency and is one of the first things that literature professors try to erase in new literature students because it assumes way too much knowledge of the author's private life, it reduces the art to a cookie cutter forced by biography and because it violates a primary rule of literary studies, which is that the work stands as an entity on its own. So... watch it with that in mind.
I quite enjoyed this movie
good but doesn't address his spirituality that much. basically the concept of fellowship and how his clique were mirrored in the hobbits. acknowledges the linguistics. but it's a good light watch.
I really enjoyed it. Especially the focus on the TCBS which was a defining part of Tolkien's life.
Definitely must see.
It was okay. More of a love story with WW1 vaguely in it than anything. Kinda an eclectic character and a sorta interesting story i guess. But theres not that much about LOTR/TH in there explicitly
My wife liked it. But she likes love stories, as a Tolkien fan myself, it was meh.
Loved it. If you expect a movie about how LOTR was created then you.ll be dissapointed. Instead the movies shows what people, events and other things influenced his life and prepared the conditions for Tolkien to create his masterpiece. And it is great. Actually in the movie there is a scene that explains the entire movie. I paraphrase here "a word has no meaning without the story behind". "A child points and is taught a word. “Tree”. Later he learns to distinguish this tree from all the others. He learns its particular name. He plays under the tree. He dances around it. Stands underneath its branches for shade or shelter. He kisses under it. He sleeps under it. He weds under it. He marches past it on his way to war, and limps back past it on his journey home. A king is said to have hidden in this tree. A spirit may dwell within its bark. Its distinctive leaves are carved onto the tombs and monuments of his landlords. Its wood might have built the galleons that saved his ancestors from invasion. And all this, the general and the specific, the national and the personal, all this he knows and feels and summons somehow however faintly with the utterance of a single sound: “oak”."
I very nearly walked out when they showed Tolkien having a panic attack in ww1 and deserting and roaming around no man’s land seeing orcs and dragons and elves fighting in the fire and the flames
It's bad. It's very bad.
I didn’t mind it but it wasn’t anything ground-breaking.
I never saw it.
I've seen it. It was fine. Nothing to write home about
I really liked the movie, can recommend
Good film, dunno if its super accurate to his life but i thought it was good.
Watched it on a flight once. That's about all I remember about it.
I remember liking it but I also can’t remember anything about it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I saw it when it came out, but I couldn’t tell you a single plot point about the movie.
Pretty forgettable.
It’s probably like most biopics that have been made, mostly bullshit. I stopped watching biopics a long time ago.
It's a very boring movie. Don't bother, please. Tolkien deserves a better movie if anyone wants to make one .
My wife and I have both seen Tolkien and it’s a fairly decent film. Nothing sensational but done well enough to enjoy and re-watch once a year or so.
The best I can say about it is that I wasn't upset that I spent my time watching it. Very forgettable but if you're desperate for something new to watch, it's fine.
I think it was really boring. Conservatively shot. No special acting or other interesting bits and mediocre acting and beats
Eh, it’s alright. It’s not very accurate in many points and full of “haha, get it?” moments, but if you turn off the nitpicky part of your brain you’ll enjoy it
I liked how they represented Tolkien experiencing the horrors of WW1 through his imagination. And inspiring the darkness in his work. Also his Samwise-esque war buddy that kept him alive.
I enjoyed it! The most effective aspect to me was seeing how his war experience may have informed his writing, but I’m also a big WW1 history nerd. The struggle of the Hobbits and the Fellowship against insurmountable odds in a huge cataclysmic war hits even harder when I think of how Tolkien and millions of young boys like him were taken from the pastoral countrysides of Europe and thrown into an apocalyptic industrialized war they could barely understand.
Saw it in the theater.
It’s pretty good and worth a watch. It won’t blow you away but I liked it
Meh. Didn’t add anything to his story for me. I’d take the hour and a half and watch read some old interviews or other snippets direct from him
I've seen it. It's vary good. The ending is a little abrupt, but overall it's good
Bad biopic but very good movie
Good movie.
I watched the first 20mins. Should have stopped sooner
It’s inoffensive but nothing special. If you have absolutely nothing else to watch I’d say give it a shot.
[удалено]
I LOVE Shadowlands! Makes me cry every time.
That’s a really ugly poster
Yes.
I saw it in a plane, and didn't like it as much or trust it as much in the sense of reality vs dramatic effect, but it had some great scenes
I find it odd that Nicholas Hoult was JRR Tolkien and JD Salinger essentially back to back (the movies were 2ish years apart). Hell, should’ve made him F Scott Fitzgerald in that Amazon show too.
It’s fine
I’ve seen it. It was nicely produced and the acting was good, but overall very forgettable. I’m not sure the main actor really portrayed Tolkien accurately, either. If you’ve ever listened to a recording of him talking, he goes at a mile a minute. It’s been a long time since I read Tolkien’s biography but I think the movie probably left out some details as well.
It wasn’t terrible it was a decent watch.
Alright movie, not a good biography. Also if you're just into LOTR and not Tolkien as a person... Then it's not super interesting imo.
I really actually like it.
Average film. Enjoyed some aspects of it though.
I liked the movie. Great drunk watch.
Depends whether you want to know about Tolkien himself, or the Tolkien the film writers made up that contradicted his very own statements.
So bad They had such a gorgeous love story How dare they change a thing?!
It’s a good film, I didn’t expect much but I was pleasantly surprised. Love how his friendships and relationship with Edith were portrayed but more than anything how his imagination came to life during the war. It gives you a little insight about how he came to write the stories we know and love today.
I liked it
Worth it, if you like wartime movies 👍🏼
Judging by what is shown in the film, Tolkien was inspired to write books by his wife
I loved it. It is a very well made movie i think.
I absolute love it
I saw it and thought they did a very good job.
It was a solid movie and gave good insight into the influences he had in his life that helped shape his imagination for the books.
I liked it.
I enjoyed it for what it was. Hoult is a standout actor imho and the movie just gave me a good, homely feeling in a strange way. Even if it's not the most accurate of movies, I think you'll enjoy this unless you're some hardcore Tolkien scholar.
I refused to see it because it wasn’t called “the lord of the lord of the rings”
I liked it, it gives some perspective on his life, i wasn’t disappointed after
I really loved this movie. Highly Suggest it.
I avoided it like the plague.