Home
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Movie Blurb by Shale
December 14, 2012
I had the DVD collection of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and watched the first two this week to reacquaint myself with this series of epic fantasy movies from 2001-03, which are based on the J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy tale from the 1940s. This book in paperback was very popular with many of my friends in the 1960s tho I never read it.
The Hobbit was written by Tolkien in 1937 and The Lord of the Rings was a sequel to it. So, now The Hobbit movie is a prequel to the Rings trilogy. And, just as The Hobbit was a children's fantasy and Rings was darker story, this movie is much lighter than the previous movie trilogy.
This movie is about Bilbo Baggins some 60 years before his character played by Ian Holm goes off to write his memoirs, leaving his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood) to carry on the adventures with the ring. Both characters and actors appear in the opening of this movie but in flashback a younger Bilbo is played by Martin Freeman.
Gandalf (Ian McKellen) shows up at Bilbo's place in the Shire to convince him to go on a journey. On this quest they will have death defying skirmishes with Orcs and Trolls, will visit Rivendell where Gandalf will get encouragement from Elvin Lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchet) and counsel from Elrond (Hugo Weaving). Also, we see how Bilbo meets Gollum (Andy Serkis) and acquires the ring.
This movie is in 3-D but I opted to watch it in 2-D. But you could see the scenes that were playing for that gimmick. Also there is talk about it being shot at more frames per second which gives more detail. It is visually stunning and the large scenes are just too much to take it all in.
However, I almost didn't go see it. I really don't like long movies and the run time with this one (as with all the Ring movies) is almost 3 hours long. It didn't need to be that long and could have had some of the padding scenes shortened to make it a good two-hour flick since there will be two more sequels to finish the book.
Also, just as Tolkien wrote this as a kids book, this is more of a kids' movie. Even tho the whole series of stories are fantasy, there is something more 'realistic' about the Rings movies and too many frivolously unbelievable scenes in this one. (Ref that Indiana Jones movie with the mining cars freewheeling down the track, even jumping a gap and continuing on and you will know of what I write). But, overall it was an enjoyable 2 hours and 49 minutes.
See More Here:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7484347#post7484347
Movie Blurb by Shale
December 14, 2012
I had the DVD collection of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and watched the first two this week to reacquaint myself with this series of epic fantasy movies from 2001-03, which are based on the J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy tale from the 1940s. This book in paperback was very popular with many of my friends in the 1960s tho I never read it.
The Hobbit was written by Tolkien in 1937 and The Lord of the Rings was a sequel to it. So, now The Hobbit movie is a prequel to the Rings trilogy. And, just as The Hobbit was a children's fantasy and Rings was darker story, this movie is much lighter than the previous movie trilogy.
This movie is about Bilbo Baggins some 60 years before his character played by Ian Holm goes off to write his memoirs, leaving his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood) to carry on the adventures with the ring. Both characters and actors appear in the opening of this movie but in flashback a younger Bilbo is played by Martin Freeman.
Gandalf (Ian McKellen) shows up at Bilbo's place in the Shire to convince him to go on a journey. On this quest they will have death defying skirmishes with Orcs and Trolls, will visit Rivendell where Gandalf will get encouragement from Elvin Lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchet) and counsel from Elrond (Hugo Weaving). Also, we see how Bilbo meets Gollum (Andy Serkis) and acquires the ring.
This movie is in 3-D but I opted to watch it in 2-D. But you could see the scenes that were playing for that gimmick. Also there is talk about it being shot at more frames per second which gives more detail. It is visually stunning and the large scenes are just too much to take it all in.
However, I almost didn't go see it. I really don't like long movies and the run time with this one (as with all the Ring movies) is almost 3 hours long. It didn't need to be that long and could have had some of the padding scenes shortened to make it a good two-hour flick since there will be two more sequels to finish the book.
Also, just as Tolkien wrote this as a kids book, this is more of a kids' movie. Even tho the whole series of stories are fantasy, there is something more 'realistic' about the Rings movies and too many frivolously unbelievable scenes in this one. (Ref that Indiana Jones movie with the mining cars freewheeling down the track, even jumping a gap and continuing on and you will know of what I write). But, overall it was an enjoyable 2 hours and 49 minutes.
See More Here:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7484347#post7484347
» NEW ADDRESS: http://conversationchamber.ipbhost.com/
» New project
» st pattys day
» White smoke signals cardinals have selected a new pope
» Red?
» Do You Look Like a Celebrity?
» Canned Foods
» English Muffins or Toast?