Recently watched movies

[Pseudonym]

My problem with films 1 and 3 were just that they were boring. They seemed so determined to make it into three films rather than two there was all this unnecessary padding. It should have been trimmed down to be leaner and fast paced. The second film was good because Smaug was just brilliantly done both effects and character wise, I was gutted when they killed him off so early in the third film. I knew it was coming but I thought they would have drawn it out longer since for a lot of people Smaug is the main draw. I didn't have too much of an issue with Legolas and Tauriel, can't say I cared overly one way or the other about their additions. Could have done without all the business with Radagast and the necromancer, and the songs. I hated the songs in the book as a kid and I can't say it improved my opinion when I saw them in the film. 

[J.P.]

The sandworms are from totally different word. They would be cool if they stayed at home.

I watched the EV recently and I have to say I liked it much better than the short version. The story seems to make more sense.

 

But still Martin is the best part of it. By faaaaaar the best.

 

PS. In case of LOTR and Hobbit I actually enjoyed the additions more then the films themselves. Still have to watch those of Hobbit 3.

[Pseudonym]

I can't remember the sandworms, when were they about?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

They were during the battle right before the orcs joined in.

[Carol the Dabbler]

When the orcs are approaching the battle, they use these enormous elongated creatures to bore tunnels through the mountain for them.  Those creatures bear a *very* strong resemblance to the sandworms of the planet Dune, especially as portrayed in the eponymous movie (where they were arguably the best part).  I saw an interview with Jackson or somebody, where they claimed that their critters weren't at all like the sandworms, because they rotated clockwise instead of counter-clockwise, or something of that sort.  To which I reply, bosh!!!  I know a sandworm when I see one.

 

They also explained that the reason they thought they "needed" the sandworms was that otherwise the audience would wonder how the orcs managed to sneak up on the others, if they had to walk around the mountain in plain sight.  (I doubt that concern would ever have occurred to me.)  So instead they left us wondering how those sandworms managed to travel all the way from Dune to Middle Earth!

 

(Hey, I said don't get me started, didn't I?)

[Pseudonym]

Ah ha! The only thing I remember about the Dune movie was that it has a young James Mcavoy before he got his teeth done. No, hang on, just IMDBed it and apparently that was Children of Dune. Were there sandworms in that? I think there might have been.

[T.o.b.y]

The Hobbit movies are probably most enjoyable for people who have neither read the book nor watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think I would have liked them well enough if that had been the case for me. As things stand, I think they are okay, but I have no desire to see them again while I watch Lord of the Rings every year.

[besleybean]

I have seen them all, but have no desire to see any of them again.

[Fantasy Lover]

I watched both the lotr trilogy and the hobbit trilogy, and the lotr trilogy will always remain my favourite.

 

The hobbit films were too long and had that completely unnecessary love triangle which earned third place in my top 3 of romances who shouldn't exist list, and I hate it more than the sandworms.

 

Stuff that I also hate was the explanation of Tauriel's absence in lotr: a broken heart, really, Peter? Really?! Ugh. I also hoped that in the hobbit trilogy it would have been explained that you can't use eagles like they're some kind of cab. Really, Peter? Really?! All those backflashes and songs and padding and not one second devoted to the eagles? Booo!!!

[besleybean]

Incidentally, I've just got in from seeing I, Daniel.

Excellent film, but very harrowing.

[Amber§]

I've watched the three movies of the Hobbit twice and I think I could see them a lot of times again, I love them! I have also read the book and I admit that I was a bit surprised to find out that the films are really different from the book, due to the fact that in the films there are a lot of elements that aren't in the book....Then I have seen Lord of rings trilogy when I was a child and, to be honest, I have not desire to see it again, maybe because I was too young when I saw them and they scared me a little...I don't know ahaha

 

 

Da Vinci's code 8/10

 

I love Dan Brown's books so I love also Da Vinci's code book; the film was good and well built, but I think that it flatters the story, I mean, there are a lot of interesting elements of the plot that aren't well developed, in my opinion. Anyway, it was a beautiful film

 

[besleybean]

They're good adventure stories.

Not to be taken too seriously!

 

[Detective]

 

Btw I also watched the Hobbit trilogy but don't know how to rate it.

Maybe like 8/10 or so. It was definitely a lot of fun, but of course didn't live up to LOTR. Still I don't understand some of the very very negative criticism because I thought it was good. It was nice to see old friends like Gandalf and Legolas.

I'm assuming you haven't read that book either, and are therefore rating Jackson's Hobbit strictly on its own merits as a movie. I honestly have no idea how I would rate it on those terms, because not only am I very familiar with the book, Bilbo is my favorite Tolkien character.

 

A fair share of the negative criticism is actually because of the large role Legolas plays in the films, whereas he isn't even mentioned in the book. There is, however, a whole chapter that takes place in his father's palace, and of course the elves take part in the Battle, so it's entirely plausible that he was in there in the book and simply not mentioned by name. But the scene downriver from Thranduil's palace did not occur in the book, nor did any elf involvement at Laketown. A couple of cameo scenes would have been fun, and very welcome -- but the movie is called The Hobbit, dammit, not The Elf!

 

And that's another big problem (especially from the book fan's point of view) -- there's far too little of Bilbo in the movies. His contributions in the book are largely attributed to somebody else in the movie (for example, he single-handedly rescues the dwarves from the spiders in the book, and he discovers Smaug's weak spot), and a number of other favorite Bilbo moments are either rushed through or omitted entirely. The rationale for this short-shrifting of Bilbo seems to have been that Jackson was eager to turn The Hobbit into more of a Lord of the Rings prequel than a story in its own right.

 

(And don't get me started on the sand worms.)

Didn't read the books so I can't judge the movies in those terms. I can only judge them as a movie itself not as a movie based on a book.

 

Also I didn't know that Legolas wasn't mentioned and all of the other things book reader know. So I guess the negative criticism came from the book readers mostly, makes sense to me.

However even as a someone seeing all the flaws, because you know the books, you can't deny the entertainment that those movies bring even just as popcorn movies.

[Pseudonym]

 

Didn't read the books so I can't judge the movies in those terms. I can only judge them as a movie itself not as a movie based on a book.

 

Also I didn't know that Legolas wasn't mentioned and all of the other things book reader know. So I guess the negative criticism came from the book readers mostly, makes sense to me.

However even as a someone seeing all the flaws, because you know the books, you can't deny the entertainment that those movies bring even just as popcorn movies.

 

 

Do the whole Radagast/Necromancer scenes seem shoe-horned in if you haven't read the books?

[Detective]

 

 

 

Do the whole Radagast/Necromancer scenes seem shoe-horned in if you haven't read the books?

 

I don't know actually I wouldn't think so. Maybe, now that you mention it, the Necromancer scenes where too much of a LOTR "Easter egg", but otherwise I don't know. The Radagst wasn't really necessary either I think.

 

There is one thing tho that bothers me.

In LOTR there is a throwback scene where we see Bilbo take the ring but we see the old actor and not Martin Freeman.

Now in the Hobbit movie they filmed this scene again where Bilbo, now played by Martin Freeman takes the ring.

I would have found it better if they would have taken the original scene from LOTR. (Hope you know what I mean)

 

But the following scenes with Gollum are awesome.

[Pseudonym]

I'd never thought about it, but yes that is annoying. One of the things with Bilbo's age that always annoyed me is when in the beginning of LOTR Gandalf says Bilbo hasn't aged a day, presumably since taking possession of the ring, which meant he would have been that old then. I like Ian Holm, he's pretty well known on UK TV, but I always thought he was too old to play Bilbo in LOTR. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I also hoped that in the hobbit trilogy it would have been explained that you can't use eagles like they're some kind of cab. Really, Peter? Really?! All those backflashes and songs and padding and not one second devoted to the eagles? Booo!!!

 

Unfortunately, the very convenient eagles are straight out of Tolkien.  Every time the heroes are in an inescapable bind -- here come the eagles!  Again!  So don't blame Jackson.  Sure, he could have omitted those scenes -- but then how would he have saved everyone?  Would've made for a couple of awfully short trilogies!

 

... even as a someone seeing all the flaws, because you know the books, you can't deny the entertainment that those movies bring even just as popcorn movies.

 

It's just awfully hard for me to watch them in that frame of mind.  I've loved The Hobbit since I was in my early 20's, and Martin Freeman is one of my very favorite actors, so I had high hopes for the combination.  I realized that Jackson would of course put his stamp on it, but he far outstripped my expectations in that regard.  Oh well.

[Arcadia]

Didn't read the books so I can't judge the movies in those terms. I can only judge them as a movie itself not as a movie based on a book.

 

Also I didn't know that Legolas wasn't mentioned and all of the other things book reader know. So I guess the negative criticism came from the book readers mostly, makes sense to me.

However even as a someone seeing all the flaws, because you know the books, you can't deny the entertainment that those movies bring even just as popcorn movies.

 

Yes and no, I think. I think even some people who haven't read the books feel the movies are just too bloated. But that doesn't mean there's not still a lot in them to enjoy. I really liked the bulk of them ... but I also thought they could have been better if there hadn't been so much emphasis on turning them into three movies.

 

Do the whole Radagast/Necromancer scenes seem shoe-horned in if you haven't read the books?

 

They seem shoehorned in even if you have read the books! Tolkien quite rightly stuck them in the appendices, where they should have stayed, imo.

 

I'd never thought about it, but yes that is annoying. One of the things with Bilbo's age that always annoyed me is when in the beginning of LOTR Gandalf says Bilbo hasn't aged a day, presumably since taking possession of the ring, which meant he would have been that old then. I like Ian Holm, he's pretty well known on UK TV, but I always thought he was too old to play Bilbo in LOTR.

 

I've never taken "haven't aged a day" literally, just as a figure of speech, meaning "you look younger than your years." Does that help?

[Pseudonym]

 

Do the whole Radagast/Necromancer scenes seem shoe-horned in if you haven't read the books?

 

They seem shoehorned in even if you have read the books! Tolkien quite rightly stuck them in the appendices, where they should have stayed, imo.

 

That's my point, they definitely seem shoe-horned in if you have read them, but is it so obvious if you haven't?

[Detective]

 

 

Do the whole Radagast/Necromancer scenes seem shoe-horned in if you haven't read the books?

They seem shoehorned in even if you have read the books! Tolkien quite rightly stuck them in the appendices, where they should have stayed, imo.

That's my point, they definitely seem shoe-horned in if you have read them, but is it so obvious if you haven't?

No.

[Pseudonym]

And there is the clear, concise answer. Thanks, lol :D

[Van Buren Supernova]

:D

 

I am in minority of not loving RoTR apparently.. :(

Watched the first one, fell asleep on second one (at home) and never got into it anymore. I think fantasy is not my genre.

But I remember loving the scenery and always want to visit the NZ.

 

The Departed (rewatch) - 9/10

Have you watched the original?

The Departed is based on Hongkong's Infernal Affairs (a trilogy). I actually watched those first, my friend lent me (there are subtitles of course) and they are great. The character developments and conflicts are better than The Departed.

Could be because I watched them first, but don't think so.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Doctor Strange 10/10 in IMAX 3D. Visual effects were brilliant. It was funnier than I expected. Totally worth it. Looking forward to the next MCU film that Martin or Benedict will be in.

[Pseudonym]

Ooo, I've only ever seen one film in IMAX, I'd love to see something with huge effects there. Unfortunately no IMAX cinemas around here :(

 

I didn't like The Departed, though everyone else seems to. I was bored :(

 

I'd love to go to New Zealand too. I wonder if it's actually as beautiful as it seems. Where I work we send a lot of things to New Zealand, and I always end up looking up where the parcel is going on Google and sighing at the pictures. The thing is if I Google where I live it looks beautiful, and I suppose parts of it are, but it's different when you actually live somewhere and know the crappy sides too. I'm surprised there's no one from New Zealand on here, surely they must have Sherlock there?

[Arcadia]

Doctor Strange 10/10 in IMAX 3D. Visual effects were brilliant. It was funnier than I expected. Totally worth it. Looking forward to the next MCU film that Martin or Benedict will be in.

 

Agggh, I'm torn whether to spring for the IMAX version or not. Wait ... how did you get to see it already? It only starts today... you didn't do one of those midnight showings, did you?