So yesterday I drove my Mom and two youthful nephews to the theater in Garner NC (that's GAR-NER, not GARD-NER) to see the second of the three movies. My verdict? Better than the first, and nudging its way up into the greatness of the LOTR movies--maybe even better than "The Fellowship of the Ring". Here's why:
Bard |
Tauriel |
2. Gandalf. Gandalf is featured more here (again, to the detriment of the dwarfs) and he remains one of the most interesting characters of the series.
3. The Necromancer/Sauron. We're beginning to see more of him in this movie, which is another strong tie to the LOTR series.
4. Smaug. The dragon is a pretty damn good character, and his back and forth with Bilbo is good stuff.
I still find it hard to think that the book "The Hobbit" can occupy three feature length movies, but this one did a great job of convincing me that it might pull it off. There is a lot of action left for the third movie, and if it continues this trend, it will be a great one.
6 comments:
I enjoyed the strategic argument of the Silvan Elves; torn between the desire to fold in behind their gates and let the world eat itself if it wished, and to engage to defeat evil. Hmmmmm ......
Just like the GOP.
Mudge--go see the movie---you'll see a lot of yourself in the dragon. Sleepy, farty, curmudgeonly....
And I am surprised that you don't identify more with the dwarfs CW.
Mudge for the win. Best. Comment. Ever.
As most of you here I loved the Lord of the Rings series. I saw it as an allegory about the struggle between a divided and spent Christian based Western Civilization and the despotic and evil Islamic hoard. But The Hobbit was terrible, at least the first 45 minutes (all I could stand). Singing dwarfs reminds me too much of a Disney feature.
Post a Comment