Kaos' way behind movie reviews

[AU_Tiger_2000]

Saw "The Hobbit", it was good.  Really good in IMAX 3D.

[GH2001]

Saw "The Hobbit", it was good.  Really good in IMAX 3D.

Came real close to when I was down at Pier Park (PCB) right before Christmas and did not. It was the only movie playing in IMAX 3D at the time.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

Came real close to when I was down at Pier Park (PCB) right before Christmas and did not. It was the only movie playing in IMAX 3D at the time.

I usually find 3D movies distracting.  They remind me of the 3D in my Viewfinder back when I was a kid.  But this was really smooth and added to the film.

Remember those?

[AUJarhead]

Saw "The Hobbit", it was good.  Really good in IMAX 3D.

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Dune are the only books I've read more than once (and I've read those books multiple times).

I was somewhat disappointed in the Hobbit.  Few of the things that they added, that were different from the book, just bothered me a bit.

I wonder if they added some stuff they were saving for the special edition, to make the film longer since they decided to make it a trilogy, was part of what I disliked.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Dune are the only books I've read more than once (and I've read those books multiple times).

I was somewhat disappointed in the Hobbit.  Few of the things that they added, that were different from the book, just bothered me a bit.

I wonder if they added some stuff they were saving for the special edition, to make the film longer since they decided to make it a trilogy, was part of what I disliked.

I think they added it in to tie more directly to the Lord of the Rings for the people that haven't read the books.  Plus with what they had to cut out of LOTR (Glorfindel, Bombadil, etc) to fit it into three movies they decided to nut cut anything from Hobbit and that necessitated going to three movies.

[Townhallsavoy]

I think they added it in to tie more directly to the Lord of the Rings for the people that haven't read the books.  Plus with what they had to cut out of LOTR (Glorfindel, Bombadil, etc) to fit it into three movies they decided to nut cut anything from Hobbit and that necessitated going to three movies.

I heard that Jackson is going to use The Hobbit as more of a prequel to LOTR than just an adventure story. 

1st and 2nd movies will be from Bags End to Smaug.  3rd movie from Five Armies to stories from the appendices that explain how Sauron came back to power.

I know he already used some appendix stuff in the first movie.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

I heard that Jackson is going to use The Hobbit as more of a prequel to LOTR than just an adventure story. 

1st and 2nd movies will be from Bags End to Smaug.  3rd movie from Five Armies to stories from the appendices that explain how Sauron came back to power.

I know he already used some appendix stuff in the first movie.

Yeah, Azog the white goblin was only really talked about in the LOTR appendices and so far he has been the main antagonist.

[Townhallsavoy]

Yeah, Azog the white goblin was only really talked about in the LOTR appendices and so far he has been the main antagonist.

Right and I'm pretty sure he died in that old dwarf battle.  But Jackson needed a main villain to ride with orcs and wargs that the group encounters.  I'm cool with that change. 

[AUJarhead]

Right and I'm pretty sure he died in that old dwarf battle.  But Jackson needed a main villain to ride with orcs and wargs that the group encounters.  I'm cool with that change.

Yeah, I get what he did there, since the first third of this trilogy doesn't really have an antagonist, he created one.  And you are correct about Azog dying in the Dwarf battle in Moria.  I don't have a big issue with that, either.  I expect Azog to be leading the goblin army in the Battle of 5 armies, and Thorin will kill him then.

My issues with what he changed were more Bilbo related.  Bilbo figuring out that if he could get the Trolls distracted, they'd turn to stone in the sun.  Bilbo jumping in front of an Orc who was about to kill Thorin.

Maybe it will make sense in the 2nd movie?  Thorin respects Bilbo now, as opposed to respecting him after Bilbo frees them from the Spiders and the Elves?

[Townhallsavoy]

Yeah, I get what he did there, since the first third of this trilogy doesn't really have an antagonist, he created one.  And you are correct about Azog dying in the Dwarf battle in Moria.  I don't have a big issue with that, either.  I expect Azog to be leading the goblin army in the Battle of 5 armies, and Thorin will kill him then.

My issues with what he changed were more Bilbo related.  Bilbo figuring out that if he could get the Trolls distracted, they'd turn to stone in the sun.  Bilbo jumping in front of an Orc who was about to kill Thorin.

Maybe it will make sense in the 2nd movie?  Thorin respects Bilbo now, as opposed to respecting him after Bilbo frees them from the Spiders and the Elves?

Might be setting up a "maybe I was wrong about Bilbo" part of the second movie. 

Who knows.  I loved all three LOTR movies and I loved the first Hobbit.  I'm sure Jackson will do it right. 

[The Six]

Ted

Replace fat Peter Griffen with slob Mark Wahlberg and Brian the dog with a talking stuffed bear, remove all censors and modicum of humor about a 5th grade level and you have this trumped up bunch of hot air.

[The Six]

Have any of you seen Zero Dark Thirty?

[AUJarhead]

Have any of you seen Zero Dark Thirty?

Yes.  I thought it was pretty fucking good.

[Godfather]

Yes.  I thought it was pretty fucking good.

thirded

[wesfau2]

Post-Holiday/Flu recap:

Ted: Fucking lame.  I love Wahlberg and most of McFarlane's stuff, but this was just bad.  Never once uttered an honest laugh.  Even tried it high...nothing.

Looper: Really liked this one.  Leavitt is getting better and better (though the makeup was distracting at times) and this was an interesting take on the paradoxes of time travel.  Bonus points for the creepy mutilation of the first Loop.

The Hobbit: So good.  Despite the liberties taken with the book, this was a strong entry made so much better with Martin Freeman rather than that weepy fuck Elijah Wood.

Django Unchained: Loved it.  Ran a bit long, but otherwise very strong work from QT (who got crazy fat all of the sudden).  Christoph Waltz is a brilliant actor and should be a much bigger star.  Part camp, part blood fest, part social commentary...the only thing that I could have done without was the full shot of Django's Djunk.

Killing Them Softly: Odd movie that was just not well done.  I like the premise and most of the cast, but the story went nowhere and ended abruptly.

[Tarheel]

Have any of you seen Zero Dark Thirty?

I haven't actually been to the movies in ages but I went to see that one recently; it was phenomenal.

[Tarheel]

Post-Holiday/Flu recap:

Ted: Fucking lame.  I love Wahlberg and most of McFarlane's stuff, but this was just bad.  Never once uttered an honest laugh.  Even tried it high...nothing.

Looper: Really liked this one.  Leavitt is getting better and better (though the makeup was distracting at times) and this was an interesting take on the paradoxes of time travel.  Bonus points for the creepy mutilation of the first Loop.

The Hobbit: So good.  Despite the liberties taken with the book, this was a strong entry made so much better with Martin Freeman rather than that weepy fuck Elijah Wood.

Django Unchained: Loved it.  Ran a bit long, but otherwise very strong work from QT (who got crazy fat all of the sudden).  Christoph Waltz is a brilliant actor and should be a much bigger star.  Part camp, part blood fest, part social commentary...the only thing that I could have done without was the full shot of Django's Djunk.

Killing Them Softly: Odd movie that was just not well done.  I like the premise and most of the cast, but the story went nowhere and ended abruptly.

That's the third positive, personal review I've read in as many days; I've had some concerns about the artistic deviations from the book.  Well, I might have to go and spend a few shekels and see this one after all.

[Saniflush]

I already know the movie without seeing it. 

They are gonna walk everywhere.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

That's the third positive, personal review I've read in as many days; I've had some concerns about the artistic deviations from the book.  Well, I might have to go and spend a few shekels and see this one after all.

If it makes sense the deviations were not done in such a way as to disrupt or take away from the main plot of the book, just mostly done for character development.

[AUJarhead]

I already know the movie without seeing it. 

They are gonna walk everywhere.

At least the trees don't in this one.