Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" was a completely exhausting adventure that in many ways feels like seven films, not three, while "The Hobbit" trilogy feels exactly like it is on paper: one straightforward adventure broken into three parts. Reviewed by Movie_Muse_Reviews 8 / 10 It's still not "Lord of the Rings," but this is a fitting conclusion for a perfectly good fantasy trilogyĭid Peter Jackson really just conclude his second Middle Earth trilogy? His take on J.R.R. It never captures the charm of the first hour or so of film 1 but it avoids the bottom of the barrel that is the climax of film 2. Alfred But I think it has a lot of great moments-the chariot sequence is really great. It is filled with redundancies and bizarre additions, i.e. So yes like the rest of the Hobbit films this is too long-awkwardly trying to split the difference between the novel and the LOTR films. I rather like as a experience because it is one of few times I have ever been able to follow a battle tactically in cinema with ease. It stands on its own far more than the other 5 films in the series. In some ways this is most complete Middle Earth film Jackson ever made. A character we have come to know going mad needs time to breath. Character deaths should have dramatic meaning beyond whatever linguistic obsession Tolkien had. This is especially true if you are an action filmmaker. And given the 3 key character deaths it makes sense that you would want to isolate this section and flesh it out. The material after Smaug's death is grim, especially compared to the rest of it. I think this film goes a long way to explain why Jackson and company decided to split the novel into (at least) 2 films. Reviewed by CubsandCulture 8 / 10 I'm not sure why this one takes the most flak.
0 kommentar(er)
