Last movie watched...

[JamesC]

EXACTLY. Geoffery really likes the intro but I think it should just begin simply - just Freeman and his pipe.

Agreed. The intro isn't so bad at home when you can make the tea, but in the cinema I thought it was entirely unnecessary and overlong - even in the context of the 'expanded' story the Erebor stuff stood perfectly well on its own.  I'm also at a loss as to why Freeman's Bilbo doesn't invite Gandalf to tea out of sheer inbuilt politeness - isn't that the whole point of the scene in the book?

There may, I suppose, eventually be some payoff to the Wood/Holm bit if we get Bilbo returning in the middle of the auction, complete with the Sackville-Bagginses making off with the spoons.

I quite enjoyed The Hobbit but the washing dishes scene made me cringe.

The second one looks good - nice dragon design!

[radiator]

Geoffery really likes the intro but I think it should just begin simply - just Freeman and his pipe. Doesn't necessarily even need Holm or Elijah. Also, I didn't realise until last night but did you realise Holm's face had been altered digitally? It's weird.

All that horrible fan-service cameo stuff did was make me think how old everyone looked - and yes, they've definitely done some horrible digital de-aging on not just Holm but several other cast members too. I believe even Freeman had the bags under his eyes digitally removed. Really weird, pointless and totally distracting, and all contributing to a really overcooked, unsettling look for the whole film.

As for the Dwarves' quest - I'm no expert on the book but it felt a bit... misleading/dishonest in the way they tweaked the story to make the Dwarves more noble. ISTR in the book their primary motivation is financial.

[JOE SOAP]

As for the Dwarves' quest - I'm no expert on the book but it felt a bit... misleading/dishonest in the way they tweaked the story to make the Dwarves more noble. ISTR in the book their primary motivation is financial.

Probably worried that the PC brigade would make the case that Tolkien's dwarves were rascist, stereotype analogues of Jews.

[Tiplodocus]

The opening though overlong did help me in one key respect.  It made me realise I was watching a prequel to the LOTR movies and not an adaption of THE HOBBIT. As such, it meant I wasn't as disappointed as I might have been...

And as such, I am getting excited for SMAUG - warts and all.  (or should that be "wargs and all").

[shaolin_monkey]

As for the Dwarves' quest - I'm no expert on the book but it felt a bit... misleading/dishonest in the way they tweaked the story to make the Dwarves more noble. ISTR in the book their primary motivation is financial.

Probably worried that the PC brigade would make the case that Tolkien's dwarves were rascist, stereotype analogues of Jews.

...or racist, stereotype analogues of dwarves.

[radiator]

The opening though overlong did help me in one key respect.  It made me realise I was watching a prequel to the LOTR movies and not an adaption of THE HOBBIT. As such, it meant I wasn't as disappointed as I might have been...

Fair enough - but I think that distinction is the fundamental mistake of the entire enterprise. They're more interested in reprising and back-referencing LotR than they are telling a new story. I would have made The Hobbit almost from the pov that the LotR films didn't exist - make it with a brand new audience in mind rather than pandering to hardcore LotR fans. Let it be its own thing, in the way the original novel is distinct from LotR.

I have an uneasy feeling that they're going to try and go one 'better' on the spectacle of The Two Towers and Return of the King in these next two Hobbit films - so the Battle of Five Armies will (pardon the pun) dwarf even Pellenor Fields.

[TordelBack]

As for the Dwarves' quest - I'm no expert on the book but it felt a bit... misleading/dishonest in the way they tweaked the story to make the Dwarves more noble. ISTR in the book their primary motivation is financial.

Just finished reading it to the kids (again) a month or two back, and while dwarvish greed is a big factor in selling the adventure to everyone, Thorin's quest is definitely to reclaim his lost kingdom.  So it's a lust for a heritable absolute monarchy rather than just greed, which may actually be worse....

More seriously, it's also made clear in the LotR Appendices and the Silmarillion that Thror had inherited the first of the Seven Rings, and it was probably its influence which drove him to excesses of hoarding treasure and mistrust of his neighbours, the very corruption that led Smaug to his door and left him without allies when the time came. 

It's a mistaken quest for this very ring that eventually leads Balin to Moria, where Azog had killed Thror, and thus his own death in the years before Fellowship.  Sauron had already reacquired this ring from Thrain in the dungeons of Dol Guldur, as I suspect we'll see in the coming films.

I too fervently hoped for a 'proper' single-film adaptation of The Hobbit as the terrific enduring kids' story it is, full of talking animals, brightly coloured hoods and unarmed dwarves, but that's not what this is: I absolutely love the whimsical bits that do survive into Jackson's film, like the plate-juggling, the singing, the riddling and the Great Goblin's deep-fried ham, but they do feel out of place in the film as is.  As the 'true story' version of the events, seen through the prism of Jackson's Lord of the Rings and serving as a well-thought-out prequel to same, I think there's a hell of a lot to recommend this version.

It's not really an adaptation of The Hobbit as a novel, but rather as one source among many, and while that may not be what many of us wanted, I'm not letting that colour my enjoyment of what we are getting.

Just cut out the platforming levels and we're good.

[Mardroid]

I liked the Hobbit and didn't mind the singing bit at the start. My only issue was the replacement of actors with CGI where the orcs are concerned. Not that they looked bad. (Although a sledge pulled by bunnies was perhaps a bit too silly. And that platform bit in Goblin City was a bit much, but it didn't offend me like it seems to many.)

And I welcome the fact there is additional material. I'm intrigued to see some of the Lord of the Rings appendix stuff included in the narrative.

I want it to be TRUE to the original book(s, if you include the LOTR appendices) but not the same as it. Which is pretty much what I got.

I received the expanded version of the film last week. I've yet to see it though.

[pictsy]

I have seen the Hobbit once and I didn't mind it.  It wasn't like when Fellowship came out, but that was something special and of the time.  I didn't mind it, I knew they were going to add, combine, change and remove things from the story because they did it with LofT.  It was pretty cool seeing Doctor Who make an appearance.

Moving on:

Surrogates

Nearly everyone is living their lives through surrogate androids and Bruce Willis has to solve a murder whilst dealing with problems at home.  A nice sci-fi concept that is probably a criticism of things like Second Life.  Who knows, it doesn't seem to be getting intellectual with it's sci-fi.  A simple film that doesn't achieve great heights but doesn't sink to great depths.  It was a good choice to have it on whilst I was doing my evening sketches.

[Dragonfly]

I've also watched the expanded version of the Hobbit this week and I enjoyed it more than the original version. I wasn't impressed with the Hobbit when I first saw it at the cinema, with the exception of a couple of scenes I don't think it captured the feel or tone of the book at all. In my opinion it was bloated and overlong, yet somehow the new longer version has me interested.
It has occurred to me that it isn't an adaption of the Hobbit book after all but an adaption of the appendices to the Lord Of The Rings with some scenes from the hobbit book to flesh it out. Looking at it from that angle I found it a more satisfying watch.
When all three films are released I would still like an edited down version with all the extra stuff cut it so it resembles the book more closely but that is never going to happen outside of you-tube!

[Ghost MacRoth]

Sharknado.

I know a lot of folk say it's awfulness is it's brilliance, but I have to disagree.  It's awfulness is just.....awful.  It's not actually finished yet, but it just pissed me off so bad with the whining bitch doing a REALLY bad rip-off of Robert Shaw's drunken 'I hate sharks' speech from Jaws that I've pretty much had enough.  Although the inexperience pilot taking a helicopter into a fucking tornado strong enough to maintain lift on not just a single shark, but fucking hunners of 'em is pretty much far worse than the awful speech. 

[radiator]

The only 'so bad it's good' film I've enjoyed is The Room. I have no interest in watching films that are intentionally bad. With something like Sharknado the only thing you would have the patience for is a trailer.

[pictsy]

Gamer

This is probably a guilty pleasure but I find this film to be fun.  I like the visual contrast between 'Slayers' and 'Society' and it's probably the visuals that sell this film to me.  The concept is an interesting one, the story is pretty concise if unoriginal (reminded me a lot of the Death Race remake in places).  The sense of humour in the film can be grim at times as well.  It was a great film to have on whilst I did my sketches.

[Theblazeuk]

Gamer is an interesting companion piece to Surrogates if you think about it. The main difference is what the puppet is made out of... Of course neither movie really explores such things even as deeply as something as skin-deep as Dollhouse managed to do with similar material.

My last movie was Cabin in the Woods for the third time. Doesn't really hold up to that many repeat watchings if I'm honest but needed something entertaining but undemanding in the background whilst working and it was this or watch Dredd for the 3rd time this month. Which might have been more enjoyable actually but hey, Cabin was still fun and still impressed with its creature designs and clear passion for the material from everyone involved. Like Pacific Rim I would love to see more stuff done in the world it created - previous successful years, other failed rituals around the world, etc.

[pictsy]

Gamer is an interesting companion piece to Surrogates if you think about it. The main difference is what the puppet is made out of...

I agree, when I first saw these two films in was in close succession of one another.  I certainly felt they were complimentary of one another.  Exploring similar concepts in different ways.