"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was a good
movie. That probably sums it up well. The originality of the Lord of
the Rings movies having worn off of the general public, the movie was
good, but not great. I was very impressed with the acting, but
disappointed with the portrayal of Radagast (exactly what were they
smoking when they decided to do that?). Richard Armitage as Thorin and our new Bilbo (Martin Freeman) were
wonderful - as were LOTR vets such as Ian McKellan and Cate Blanchet, but there was nothing that would make
this film stand out as the best of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Worse, there were too many side stories to follow than the "Hobbit" usually contains. I know that much of the material came from the LOTR appendices and from the "Silmarillion", but the inclusion of that material to essentially make more money did not mean that this was a better movie. I could have seen them making it into a two-movie set, but not three! Not all is lost, but it's the worst of the Tolkien book-to-movie series.For those of us who love movies - but live in a small town - driving 45 minutes one-way to experience a wide-release on the silver screen could be a an exciting adventure or an expensive disappointment. Indy films? Don't even think about that 2-3 hour one-way trip! So is a film worth driving to see? This is my opinion on which films are worth the effort and for which ones you should just consider mowing the lawn instead.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Definitely an "Unexpected Journey"
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was a good
movie. That probably sums it up well. The originality of the Lord of
the Rings movies having worn off of the general public, the movie was
good, but not great. I was very impressed with the acting, but
disappointed with the portrayal of Radagast (exactly what were they
smoking when they decided to do that?). Richard Armitage as Thorin and our new Bilbo (Martin Freeman) were
wonderful - as were LOTR vets such as Ian McKellan and Cate Blanchet, but there was nothing that would make
this film stand out as the best of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Worse, there were too many side stories to follow than the "Hobbit" usually contains. I know that much of the material came from the LOTR appendices and from the "Silmarillion", but the inclusion of that material to essentially make more money did not mean that this was a better movie. I could have seen them making it into a two-movie set, but not three! Not all is lost, but it's the worst of the Tolkien book-to-movie series.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment