Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

alexandresobreira-12-509311 I was compelled to add this after reading several reviews: I think the scriptwriter knows about Ged's name inversion. He or the producers just thought that Sparrowhawk was not catchy enough or was too long. So they decided to reverse the order. Considering the writer had the gall to say that his adaptation reflected LeGuin's TRUE intentions (prompting her to write her reply - by the way, isn't the book's copyright hers? And so, shouldn't she have been able to veto anything based on it? I don't know how international copyright laws work on this. Now, on to my review. Well, I think that an adaptation of a book to film medium should follow the book. Actually, I'd like it to slavishly follow the book insofar as the medium allows. But I don't judge the adaptation for not doing that. I like the Lord of the Rings movies and they deviate from the books in several essential points, not the least of which is ignoring the fact that Tolkien creates his characters to be Aristotelian examples of superior men, even though LOTR is not a tragedy, but a comedy (technically speaking). In terms of adaptation of the books, this miniseries is awful, totally disgusting. The Godking of Awabath is changed into a warlord that wants to conquer the Archipelago, Kossil is his mistress, quite the young and attractive woman, who wants to gain the power to summon the nameless ones (who are a sort of black gremlins with bat wings ??), Tenar is chosen by the last high priestess of the tombs to take her place as keeper of the key to hold the nameless ones prisoners. By the way, it's one of them that is after Ged. The Iskyorh gebbeth becomes the archfiend of the whole trilogy and has a showdown with Ged at the Tombs of Atuan, where Ged incomprehensibly decides to release the nameless batgremlins and their evil upon the world. Nemerle does not die, but remain the leader of the resistance against the Kargs, who have conquered Roke with the help of Jasper ??? Also, poor Nemerle looks suspiciously like a Dumbledore... Should I go on? However, that's not the reason I'm rating it so low. What I really hated was the fact that not only were the actors terrible, even poor Isabella Rossellini and Danny Glover, because their roles were so bad, but the series is only a long series of clichés strung together. The whole Karg invasion plot is there so the film doesn't have to deal with the true issues of the first book, which is Ged's search for his own identity. The central issues of the other two books, namely, how once can gain freedom through trust and by looking beyond the bars of one's cage and acceptance of mortality as essential to life, are thoroughly ignored. The Archmage and the other wizards of Roke are reduced to a position of almost comic relief to the series (even worse, poor Vetch IS in fact treated as a comic relief character). So, we are down to a soppy, ridiculous adventure crafted for the so-called young adult public. By the way, I'm 50, but if I were a young adult I would feel very insulted by how imbecilic current day scriptwriters (especially Hollywood) think young adults are.

outbroker Le Guin distanced herself from this garbage from the start. But barring an escape to the marvelous realm she created, no distance is far enough. I watched as much as I could, and that solely to answer one question: was the original too expensive to be done properly? Had to be, because there is no other excuse. I'm guessing the screenwriter was handed a synopsis, told to throw in a couple of babes, and hope that one-time viewers would support the project.Danny Glover must have signed on as a fan, been given a significant alas refundable front fee. Read the script. Vomited. But at least was secure in the knowledge few would watch it, and none would remember it.Do not buy this. Don't watch it, even if it's free. If you must watch it, demand payment yourself. Upfront. Refundable.Spend the hour reading, re-reading, or re!reading the book. Or listen to the audio book, which is great.

kittynumbers In my opinion, the movie is not horrible, nor is it completely off from the books. It is a good movie that ou can really get into, even if you only started watching it in the middle.I, and many others, would have been much, much happier if they had stayed true to the books, but in some cases, i like the movie's changes.since saying which are good and which were bad is a spoiler, i will not say, but there are moments that you'll find yourself going back to the books and wondering which you like better, thought of course, the book will always be Best. :)

cornel_ch I simply feel I cannot talk about this movie too much. I prefer to go and take the book and read it again. But I will fill in the minimum lines. It is awful. How come can you imagine changing that much is OK? And to change the names??? What/Who in the name of God made you think that is OK? And the idea I don't understand is why the real story was not followed to the end? Making a movie is always difficult cause you have less time than you need. But this movie was made long, with enough time to put in all the needed points, with some time to make the viewer understand these marker points. So, LOTR was bigger and they made it in 3 full movies. And it was very nice. So, taking a book half one LOTR volume and put it in 3 hours and do that mess...incredible. Where is this world going to? Everything SO commercial.