 |
 129 Seeds |  51 Leechers |
| Runtime: 161 min Language: English Subtitles: German Frame Rate: 23.9 fps Video Bitrate: 2924 Kb/sec Audio Bitrate: 440 kbps |
|
| Size: 815 mb Files: 3 |
| Review: I review the contents of the film in some detail, but to provide some thoughts on how this film should be LL. I consider myself a Tolkien fan (in fact, I saw this movie on opening because I got a promotion deal with local theater, I spent four hours until midnight writing peoples names in Elvish writing!) Is expected to be many fans of the original books I see this movie, as bloated, mixed monster version of recorded history have liked. It is important to keep in mind before going in, that this is not just a movie about the book. It was Jackson's The Hobbit, not Tolkiens, and they are best regarded as independent works. They represent a variety of media, they come from different centuries and has a partially different recipients. Children book was written before Tolkien's idea of ​​a great trilogy to follow; Jackson has already made known his Lord of the Rings trilogy, and some, of course, trying to make the prequels look one another in tone and scope.One might argue that Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, when completed, will set the LOTR trilogy film much better than Tolkiens simple kids book presents literary LOTR. (Changes in the color of the kids books on the great epic is very pronounced, even barbecue for those trying to read The Hobbit after the Lord of the Rings.) By the way, Jackson's prequel trilogy obviously not spoil the LOTR trilogy of Star Wars prequels way serious plot point of the original movies. When he had finished, Jackson six Middle-earth movies can be profitably looked at a number of internal chronology.To be sure, Jackson's Hobbit trilogy based on the 1930 children's book in the sense that the characters have the same names and visit a lot of the same places in either the same order (although new characters and locations are also added). Their main motives are the same. But beyond that, we should not expect much loyalty. There is hardly anything was very tired and very elaborate, especially for such a license FAR darker tone and more fantasy action (ie combat). Spiders of Mirkwood there to bring real horror, in relation to their own, more children-friendly literary counterpart (in which we have Bilbo offend them with silly rhymes Attercop). You see the Wizards clash with the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, which the book takes place entirely offscreen, and is only briefly alluded to when Gandalf came to an end, is there really. This is understandable; Gandalf would otherwise be completely absent for much of the film. Likewise, Jackson audience will already know that this is the beginning of the war with Sauron, the Dark Lord all important could not ignore. Tolkien in his letters noticed how Sauron cast only a passing shadow on the pages of The Hobbit; in Jackson's film shade darker and deeper.Entire new subplots freely created and added to the story. Elf Tauriel and its likely fall in love with one of the dwarfs is clearly intended to add a love story in which the book is not, and has at least one strong female character (not a concern Tolkiens when he wrote a story for children in 1930). Continued survival of all players regardless of their endless brushes with death not only strain credibility - he is completely and totally expelled and removes credibility. We left the series performance in the literal sense, to enjoy the choreography, not reliability. If cats have nine lives, Jacksonian Dwarf obviously enjoys a three-digit number lives.So considered independent work, is it a good movie? Technical nothing lacking bright, full details of which can be appreciated only on the big screen. Smaug is, hands down, the best designed movie dragon in the world yet seen. If I was a teenager, instead of mature age 42, this wealth of fantasy action certainly left me no end. Nice to see you again, Legolas, even if he is not in the book. I'm ... |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.