Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by cowboywannabe, Dec 23, 2012.
that is all.
I like your succinct movie review. I look forward to more.
It was a very good movie, fit into the series very well.
My review had more words therefore it is more accurate
Not for a manswer review.
Wanna waste a cpl hours of your life? watch the Grey!!
i did that, but it was in the comfort of my own home thank God.
Big Tolkien fan, have read the books multiple times, for myself and out loud to two daughters. I actually facepalmed during the movie.
What is it about the movie that is so bad? I was actually wanting to go see it later today.
first it is slow developing.
second it has cheesy comical parts, trying to Jar Jar it and that sucked for star wars too.
third, it abruptly stops incomplete. it is not the complete book/movie/story.
after 3 hours i walked out wondering why i didnt wait for the dvd.
Gotcha. I'll just catch it on BluRay at some point.
I liked it but it definitely wasn't as good as any of the LOTR movies. It seems the main issue is they're making three movies($$) out of a book that was shorter than any of the LOTR books. Granted it is a book and you always end up cutting stuff out when making a movie out of it but based on the LOTR movies and pretty much all movies based on books, it should have been one movie or two at the most. It seems Jackson is suffering a bit of Lucas syndrome, I'm just glad he didn't wait 20 years or it would have been real bad.
You do realize it's 1 book split into 3 movies, right? It's supposed to end incomplete, as it's one story spread out over three movies. As the first part it sets up the characters and backstory for the other two movies, so yes it's going to be focused more on character development than non-stop action.
While some of the comedy is a bit over the top, it's nowhere near Jar Jar level bad. It doesn't follow the book very closely, but often good books need to be tweaked to make a good movie, and I thought they did a pretty good job. It keeps the overall story and tone of the book, while adding more action and character development, and bringing back some of the characters of the Lord of the Rings movies to tie into that trilogy.
Personally I thought it was pretty good, for an almost 3 hour movie it moved along very well. I was entertained the entire time, and it certainly didn't seem like 3 hours. By comparison I thought the 2 hour and 23 minute Skyfall dragged on quite a bit, after the first hour I kept checking my watch wondering how the were going to drag it out for another hour.
The other thing we have to remember is that The Hobbit was a children's book. LOTR is certainly not a children's book in the same way The Hobbit was, despite whatever the target audience was.
also fc88, i know why it stopped incomplete, it just did so in a poorly chosen segemtn in my view.
next this makes the fourth movie for a trilogy ironically, with a fifth one to follow to close out the first (fourth).
GOT IT!!! You're talking about THE HOBBIT.
Okay. Now that I got over the excitement of figuring that out, I'll see what others have to say about it.
Well somebody besides me liked it:
They clearly wanted to fit the new trilogy into the existing trilogy, not as a strict retelling of the original book. They did this and still kept it more kid friendly than the LOTR trilogy. Not an easy balancing act, they pulled it off IMO.
But its cool if you do not like it, less people in line for the next one
im sure it lived up to the expectations of some folks, i was holding it to the LOTR standard and it fell short.