I'm working through the extended edition of Part Two over the holidays. I hope to see Part Three before the new year---schedule permitting.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm one of the silly ones who went to see the Hobbit Marathon in IMAX 3D on Dec 15th, even took the day off from work to do it (12:30pm-9:30pm).
I would say that much of your experience will depend on how you approach it. If you go as a critic, you will find plenty to criticize. If you strap on your suspenders of disbelief prior to walking in, you may just enjoy a really fun ride. I thought it was a worthy conclusion to this trilogy (and yes, everyone pretty much accepts that it shouldn't have been a trilogy but there you have it).
I thought they did a good job wrapping up the extraneous story lines, and if you were one of those poor souls who never read the classic, then you might be forgiven for thinking that it is what was meant to be. Liberties are taken, but no more than in the other two movies.
All the things that you expect are present, wonderful acting, amazing CGI, brilliant music. I'm still not a huge fan of the higher frame rate, but that's just because the special effects, while incredible, still aren't a match for it. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
If you liked the first two, then go, don't listen to what anyone else has said about it, negative or positive, just experience it for yourself, and enjoy. Posts: 456 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I saw it yesterday. (1) Pretty much agree with the reviews. (2) That battle went on way too long; less would have been more here. (3) I was glad certain elements, particularly from the end of the book, were preserved in the movie end. (4) Why do they have two-and-a-half-hour moview without an intermission? I think I missed something crucial when I had to get up for a bathroom break (I won't post the spoiler here). (5) A lot of the problems of the movie, all three of the movies, came from their being prequels to The Lord of the Rings movies, whereas the book The Lord of the Rings was a sequel to the book The Hobbit; reversing the order. (6) I didn't stay for the end credits; had places to go. (7) I much fear that in a few years there'll be "The Silmarillion: The Movie."
On the other hand...I think this may be the last movie I go to for some time. The new "Star Wars" stuff doesn't grab me...the last Pixar movies seemed so lesser than the others...there's that bathroom problem...and nothing much grabs me that I know to be coming out. The movie-going experience has never been a regular part of my life, even when I was younger. DVDs and BluRays, and maybe streaming video, will have to do for now.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will be seeing it on Friday. As writers we need to distinguish between novels and screenplays. Yes, Tolkein is revolving in his grave at 15,000 RPM, but I am guessing that Peter Jackson has crafted a satisfying resolution to his interpretation of The Hobbit.
And no, I'm not a fan of the PJ franchise of Tolkein; he and his writers have an uncanny knack for completely missing the point of Tolkein's narrative, but there it is. I just wonder when they'll let everyone know that Galadriel is a Noldorim , is over 10,000 years old, knew Feanor, saw Morgoth poison the Two Trees, was present when Morgoth was overthrown and , well, I could go on. Tolkein addict, moi? No! Never!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
