General misanthrope, but tries to be cute about it.
Rowling is Rolling!
Read the post »
Enjoyed Against My Better Judgment
Cops Are Terrible, The Movie Is Decent
King of Horror, Prince of Crime
Yet another solid review from Master Russin. Sharing far and wide.
No Spoilers Beyond The First Couple of Episodes
This Mirror Has Two Faces
Not a full rise, but at least a semi
Parasites, Friendships, Monsters, and a side of Rice
A Welcome Change to a Tired Series
Thorin's Company Encounters The Desolation Of Rob
I can't agree with you on Martin Freeman as being the ideal actor to portray Bilbo Baggins. You say that you prefer Freeman's performance so that audiences don't have to listen to him whine for nine hours, yet that is what the point of his character was in the novel. He was a reluctant character with very lettle testicular fortitude in the beginning. However, Bilbo "man's up" (for lack of a better phrase) as the novel progresses, and readers are privy to this maturity. However, Freeman's character has entirely too march snark and sass from the get-go, and it defeats the whole purpose of having Bilbo there. Peter Jackson might as well have created his own hobbit for the story in this matter.
Speaking of creating random characters, the role of Tauriel is a political tool in an attempt to make the work less mysoginistic. I am all for a strong female character in any work, but this is simply political correctness at play in an effort to at best appease, at worst draw in many female viewers.
The dwarves. Ah, well, the dwarves--with the exception, perhaps, of Thorin--are a comical disgrace on an otherwise serious race within Tolkien's universe. Nowhere does the novel have the dwarves acting or portraying themselves as moronic toolbags (pardon the phrase). They are dour, hard-working, and sturdy warriors and craftsman (maybe not so much with Fili and Kili, as they are the youngest of the companions) who are on a serious quest. The dwarves in the film are simply disgraceful charicatures of the novelized versions.
As to this being on the middle section of this trilogy, it is a shame that Peter Jackson feels that money is far more important than great story telling. The film adaptation is a joke in all regards, making a mockery of a good story. The information Jackson decided to portray in the films (both the multitudinous changes and additions) are cause for a sour and sobering experience for those who enjoyed the literary predecessor.
With all of this being said, I do concur that if a viewer views this trilogy as a "prequel" to LotR versus its own story, then perhaps the faults can be overlooked.