Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

vanity - Post your reviews of "The Hobbit"

Posted on 12/14/2013 6:35:37 PM PST by Perdogg

I saw it last night in HFR 3D. Tickets were $16.75 per adult. The film quality reminded me of something in the late 60s/early 70s in 625-line PAL format, but better of course. I had never seen a HFR film before. Soundtrack was wonderful.

The story was pretty universal; a mixture of themes found in Star Wars, John Carter, Thor, and Game of Thrones. There were some scenes that did make me jump. The barrel scene could have been cutdown a bit. I thought the movie had a conservative theme with the Government of Lake-town mirroring that of the Obama Administration.

I did not recognize Evangeline Lilly, although she is pretty, but I think elf ears make pretty women look hotter. The scenery was beautiful.

I think the movie was worth the admission. Good theatre experience.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Music/Entertainment; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: desolationofsmaug; hollywood; moviereview; thehobbit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: Nifster

The LOTR books. They are poorly written, quite a yawnfest. The hobbit is great though. I have never understood the praise rained on Tolkien for LOTR.


61 posted on 12/15/2013 12:45:55 PM PST by FreedomStar3028 (Evil must be punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028

We will just have to agree to disagree because I really enjoyed my Tolkien reads


62 posted on 12/15/2013 12:47:30 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

All I want to know—was it FUN?


63 posted on 12/15/2013 2:36:17 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

I’ve read dozens and dozens of all types of fantasy, and science fiction novels. Everyone always told me LOTR was soooo good, blah blah blah. I read it and was surprised to find out how bad it was compared to novels I had read. People treat it like it is the holy grail of fantasy....it isn’t.

The story is OKAY, there is no magic system, magic just “happens” throughout the series with no real explanation. I can go on and on, but the actual writing itself is terrible.


64 posted on 12/15/2013 5:09:15 PM PST by FreedomStar3028 (Evil must be punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

yes. It is definitely a movie for the theatre.


65 posted on 12/15/2013 5:46:54 PM PST by Perdogg (Ted Cruz-Rand Paul 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028; Nifster

I have a copy and there is an entire section devoted to the editions and how the original editions had to be corrected.

I wonder how influence Robert E Howard had on Tolkien.


66 posted on 12/15/2013 5:48:53 PM PST by Perdogg (Ted Cruz-Rand Paul 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Nifster; Perdogg

Excuse me, point of order. The Hobbit was 1937 and the first John Carter book was 1912.


67 posted on 12/15/2013 6:35:33 PM PST by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028

And again we will have to agree to disagree… this is neither fantasy nor science fiction…. like Lewis Tolkien wrote allegory. Perhaps you wanted something that was whiz bang and that was NEVER the intent of Tolkien. Like Lewis he tells the universal story of God’s battle with Lucifer. It manifests in many realms in many ways.

Yes I have read lots of fantasy and science fiction and neither Tolkien nor Lewis fit those categories


68 posted on 12/16/2013 10:34:00 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

mea culpa… Haven’t read John Carter the book… I was thinking of the recently released movie. You are correct and now I have to read to edify myself


69 posted on 12/16/2013 10:35:16 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Tolkien is universally considered Fantasy. There is no doubt about that fact. Although he may have been writing it as an allegory about his time in the war, but he also wrote The Hobbit, and the Silmarillion. All fantasy. To say Tolkien does not fit the fantasy category does not make sense. When it’s generally considered the elf/orc/human/magic/big bad ground breaker.


70 posted on 12/16/2013 5:59:02 PM PST by FreedomStar3028 (Evil must be punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"If you’re a purist you might be disappointed."

My guesstimation is that at least half of the movie had absolutely nothing to do with the book. The movie was fine, but I think it would be more honest if they billed it as "very loosely based on 'The Hobbit'."

71 posted on 12/16/2013 7:31:23 PM PST by Flag_This (Liberalism: Kills countries dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028

They are fictional apologetics….always have been thought of as such. Just like Chronicles and the Space Trilogy for Lewis. You have to take what the author thought he was writing into consideration not just some critics later on.


72 posted on 12/16/2013 8:03:18 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

“some” critics? LOTR is considered fantasy by everyone but fringe critics.


73 posted on 12/16/2013 8:27:15 PM PST by FreedomStar3028 (Evil must be punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

Philadelphia, 1745

My dear Friend,

I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entering into it at present appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility, and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.

But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice: that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:

1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor’d with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreeable.

2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1,000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.

3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc’d may be attended with much Inconvenience.

4. Because thro’ more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin’d to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part. The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever, so that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.

6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.

7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections, none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.

8thly and Lastly. They are so grateful!!

Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly, being sincerely Your affectionate Friend.

B. Franklin


74 posted on 12/17/2013 4:18:55 AM PST by skepsel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Someone needs to give me a rational explanation why Legolas shows up in the Hobbit Movie. And said rational explanation shall be devoid of any reasoning that has to do with garnering the 14-50 female demographic.


75 posted on 12/17/2013 4:25:22 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I didnt think he was from the same elves as lived in that forest.


76 posted on 12/17/2013 6:51:19 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

SPOILER!


77 posted on 12/17/2013 6:52:55 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Should be titled

“BASED ON ‘The Hobbit’”


78 posted on 12/17/2013 6:53:26 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028

You can quote wiki all you want but the truth is that ‘fantasy’ is a modern definition. Both Tolkien and Lewis said that they wrote about the conflict between good and evil and that was their purpose. You can consider me fringe all you want but modernist criticism is of no interest to me…. rather like revisionist history


79 posted on 12/17/2013 10:51:42 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: skepsel

Why?


80 posted on 12/17/2013 3:20:35 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson