La Prophétie de l'anneau

I was surprised at the bad reviews when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting story line, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to save or kidnap the queen kept me glued to the screen. It was a thrilling roller coaster for about three-quarters of the film. The last quarter gave mixed messages, jumbled conclusions and added loose ends. Where was the director, did he fall asleep? the whole story hinges on an underwater discovery of a sunken British ship. What ship? Who was on it? Who drowned? The last time we saw the rings they were in the hands of the two characters in 1778 in a forest in India. How did the rings get on a ship? Not by the dead character in the forest! The last quarter of the film simply sinks the movie.

While researching on the Great Barrier Reef, Josh Hartnett is injured and rendered comatose. His wife, Tamsin Egerton, is distraught beyond words. But Hartnett is unaware of this. He is in a dream state in which he is an officer in the East India Company in the 18th Century. While his bosses are in a war to gain hegemony over the subcontinent, fighting goes on, and Hartnett and a woman fighter, Bipasha Basu, travel together and fall in love.

Roland Joffe directs, the visuals are superb, the actors are fully committed and up to their roles. And the script is a piece of romantic junk out of a bad romance novel, with a desperate attempt to give it some depth by reference to quantum entanglement that brings people together over the centuries. It doesn't work. It's shocking that Joffe, who has directed some great movies about the power of simple, decent emotions in the context of great and horrifying events, could have fallen for this. I suppose that's the problem with great artists. When they're right, they're magnificent. When they're wrong, they're horrifyingly bad. Here, Joffe was horrifyingly wrong and bad.

Immersive, ironic I think soo. Had to watch twice to really appreciate the acting and directing as well. Made sense character positioning and script had been thought over it's only obvious. Great scenic views and I'm thrilled that there was even a super villain moment with a *spoiler alert people!!* woman positioned in power. The use of props was clearly evident for all to see so I guess overall, this gave movies a whole new meaning. And to ask anyone who knows Bollywood Bipasha does not underdeliver, mixed with abit of Hollywoods sweet heart Josh Hartnett great and awesome duo. Thanks to them, another great film.

There's a Neapolitan saying that describes how bad this movie is perfectly: La aqua e pocca e a papera nun galeggia. There is so little water, not even a duck could swim.

Why do humans go to movies? Perhaps to be film critics but the there is a critic for every phase of life it seems.

When I watch a movie I immerse myself in it while watching enjoying the effort

This creation has incredible music and scenery and while immersed I did enjoy it.

After I did think the linking of the two time lines was a bit weak, most likely the creation of the editing. Overall watch a movie not to be be Roger Ebert, that guy has not enjoyed a movie since he was diapers, but to enjoy the story let your mind fill in the blanks

There are an exceptional amount of critics and not enough individuals who enjoy a story

Turn off the world and enjoy this movie the short comings fade into the story

I did enjoy it and it will soon leave my memory because it is fantasy

The key word here is FANTASY its make believe something I do think many fail to notice ;)