nsequeira-50288
I was excited for this new movie. It looked stellar. I like Lord of the Rings, of course, it's a great story, but I actually like The Hobbit more. I like the Hobbit because it sets up Lord of the Rings, it's a lot simpler, less dark, and it's generally ignored in favor of its bigger sequel. And I remember seeing a cartoon adaptation as a kid, which was my first introduction to the whole franchise. I really like The Hobbit.Like I said, I like The Hobbit because it's simple and can be explained lickety-split. The Hobbit is just one easy to follow narrative. Bilbo goes with Gandalf to kill a dragon. That's about it. Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece, don't get me wrong, but there are more characters than in a soap opera, tons of subplots, and lots of tangents about the culture of Middle Earth and so on. I like short, sweet, succinct stories. And that was one reason why I didn't really like the Lord of the Rings movies: They were long, drawn out, full of confusion, and I always felt like The Hobbit should have been made to give us some exposition as to who Bilbo is and what he's doing in his relation to Frodo. That's important.So I hear The Hobbit is coming out, right? I go down to the movie theater first thing, get some popcorn, and I'm prepared to hear the much less complicated, fun story of Bilbo and him going into Gollum's cave and getting invisible with the ring and everything. I'm all juiced up. The movie starts out great, really adorable, just like it should. Bilbo is in his little Hobbit hole, and Frodo is there, and then Bilbo is out on the front porch smoking some pipe-weed, and Bilbo is like, OK, I have this really cool flashback. So we go to the flashback.I'm all pepped up to see Bilbo go with Gandalf and kill the dragon and everything. But first, we just see Bilbo lazing around his house, and then Gandalf and the dwarves burst in, and you'd think they ask him to go with them and kill the dragon, but nope, they sing and dance and goof off and throw dishes around for a while. I mean, it's funny, and all, and it adds some light hearted humor, but they're on an urgent mission, they don't have time to dawdle. Then, they start out on their mission and everything, but they meet some creepy things, and then some more creepy things, and then some more creepy things, just for good measure, and I'm like, "When are they going to get on with it and start killing the dragon and everything?" But then they meet some more special-effect creepy things, just for good measure.Seriously, it made this fantasy way too creepy.So finally, we get to the part where Bilbo meets Gollum in his cave, and I'm very excited, because Gollum is my favorite character in the whole thing- no kidding, I love the little creep- and they bounce some riddles off one another, and Bilbo gets the ring, and Gollum is angry, and then Bilbo leaves. And that part was good. And now it seems like it's taken quite a bit of time to get to the part with the dragon, like maybe a whole hour-And now, I'm wondering just where the dragon comes in, where the dragon gets speared in the heart and everything, but Bilbo and Gandalf just keep going, onward toward the dragon, and then it says, "To be continued..." and then it's the end. Credits. And I am like, "What the Hell did I just pay my money for?" Being a misinformed lout like myself, I rarely check to see if a movie is supposed to have sequels or not... and I didn't check here. The title itself is misleading. It says, "The Hobbit- An Unexpected Journey". I didn't know it was the beginning of a fricking TRILOGY. I just thought it was about the JOURNEY that Bilbo goes on. I should watch out for subtitles more often.And here's where it really nips me in the keister. The Hobbit is a very short book for an epic fantasy novel. Only about 95,000 words. In the nineties. It's simple. The Lord of the Rings is composed of three super long books- all over a hundred thousand words. They need a trilogy to explain them. The Hobbit does not need a full trilogy to explain it. The director is just making a trilogy so he can rake in some more cash. And it bugs me because most people who see the movies already know how the story ends anyway. I saw the second one, thinking maybe that would end it, but nope, there was another one, and I didn't see it, so I don't get to see the end. But I really don't care. The whole thing is dumb. Really dumb. To set a whole trilogy off of this one standalone novel is like making an opera about The Cat in the Hat. It's just too long. Some of the stuff in this trilogy isn't even in the book, the director just pulls it out of nowhere. The movie would be nice, if it was just one movie. I suppose I could buy all three movies and watch them back to back, waste 6 hours when I could only spend 2. But I just won't stand for it. Everything about it is OK- except for the fact that it's way, way too long for a story about a goofy little guy with hair on his feet. call me shallow, but I'm giving this only a 6.
