Even More Movies You've Watched This Week II

Off Topic
681

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:
I watched the movie “snitch” the other day…i was suprising happy with the film…the rock is an interesting character in alot of his films[/quote]

Damn, I was torn between Snitch and Broken City. Went with Broken City and was disappointed :([/quote]

I watched part of that movie last week, it was really hard to get into, and I’m a big mark walberg fan (and russell crowe) It just didnt have the umf that you’d usually get from those guys films. But i would definitly recommend that you go and rent snitch, it was suprisingly good[/quote]

Ya, I donno it just could of been so much better. The entire plot line with his girlfried was boring and pointless. It was just filler I guess. The whole time I’m just waiting for the pace to quicken and it just didn’t happen.

I like Marki Mark and Crowe too, but their last couple of films haven’t been good imo. I didn’t like Contraband, it was boring. Ted was funny, I’ll give him that. Oh and the other guys was funny too. My favorite Walburg (sp?) movie is Shooter though. Just a straight shoot em up, which I’ll take everytime. The last movie I saw with Crowe in it was the one where his wife is convicted of murder when she’s innocent. The next 48 hours or something like that, again I thought it was boring. The last movie I liked with him in it was probable a Beautiful Mind. That was what 15 years ago?

I’ll grab Snitch this weekend. I’m also a huge fan of the Rock. Faster is my favorite film of his.

I’m seeing Superman too! Then I can finally read the superman thread… [/quote]

definately agree with you about shooter, that movie is soooo badass…and i believe the name of the russell crowe movie you’re talking about is the next 3 days, i like that one too…also have you seen pain and gain yet? since we’re talking about mark walburg and the rock, that movie was funny as shit[/quote]

I have to disagree about Pain and Gain. That movie was painfully unfunny. It was mesmerizing to watch, because everything that happened was so awful and shitty that you can’t believe that it’s based on a true story. But it is not funny, not at all. I came away from that movie hating every single character in it, including The Rock’s (and that’s really hard to do because he is my favorite actor).

So yeah, if a movie where every character is an unlikeable piece of shit is funny, then Pain and Gain was a riot.

As far as other good Russell Crowe movies since A Beautiful Mind:

American Gangster
Master and Commander
Cinderella Man
State of Play
Body of Lies (though he’s in more of a supporting role to DiCaprio here)

The Next 3 Days was also good, but these are better.[/quote]

tsk…tsk… how do you name good Russel Crowe movies and not say gladiator. Just sad

682

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4.

683

[quote]bubba88123 wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:
I watched the movie “snitch” the other day…i was suprising happy with the film…the rock is an interesting character in alot of his films[/quote]

Damn, I was torn between Snitch and Broken City. Went with Broken City and was disappointed :([/quote]

I watched part of that movie last week, it was really hard to get into, and I’m a big mark walberg fan (and russell crowe) It just didnt have the umf that you’d usually get from those guys films. But i would definitly recommend that you go and rent snitch, it was suprisingly good[/quote]

Ya, I donno it just could of been so much better. The entire plot line with his girlfried was boring and pointless. It was just filler I guess. The whole time I’m just waiting for the pace to quicken and it just didn’t happen.

I like Marki Mark and Crowe too, but their last couple of films haven’t been good imo. I didn’t like Contraband, it was boring. Ted was funny, I’ll give him that. Oh and the other guys was funny too. My favorite Walburg (sp?) movie is Shooter though. Just a straight shoot em up, which I’ll take everytime. The last movie I saw with Crowe in it was the one where his wife is convicted of murder when she’s innocent. The next 48 hours or something like that, again I thought it was boring. The last movie I liked with him in it was probable a Beautiful Mind. That was what 15 years ago?

I’ll grab Snitch this weekend. I’m also a huge fan of the Rock. Faster is my favorite film of his.

I’m seeing Superman too! Then I can finally read the superman thread… [/quote]

definately agree with you about shooter, that movie is soooo badass…and i believe the name of the russell crowe movie you’re talking about is the next 3 days, i like that one too…also have you seen pain and gain yet? since we’re talking about mark walburg and the rock, that movie was funny as shit[/quote]

I have to disagree about Pain and Gain. That movie was painfully unfunny. It was mesmerizing to watch, because everything that happened was so awful and shitty that you can’t believe that it’s based on a true story. But it is not funny, not at all. I came away from that movie hating every single character in it, including The Rock’s (and that’s really hard to do because he is my favorite actor).

So yeah, if a movie where every character is an unlikeable piece of shit is funny, then Pain and Gain was a riot.

As far as other good Russell Crowe movies since A Beautiful Mind:

American Gangster
Master and Commander
Cinderella Man
State of Play
Body of Lies (though he’s in more of a supporting role to DiCaprio here)

The Next 3 Days was also good, but these are better.[/quote]

tsk…tsk… how do you name good Russel Crowe movies and not say gladiator. Just sad[/quote]

Pain and Gain is top 5 worst movies ever.

684

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read.

685

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published.

686

^Maybe we’re both wrong:

“The Lord of the Rings is a book by J.R.R. Tolkien, the sequel to his earlier work, The Hobbit. It was published in three volumes in 1954 and 1955.”

687

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published. [/quote]
The hobbit was the first one he released and then he wrote LOTR. I have read both in excess of 10 times over the last 25 years. I can read the Hobbit in one night sitting, and stretching it out over three movies is a bit much. HOWEVER I am going into this series not be a fan-boy and yell about little things and added character. Tolkien is dead so expanding on the story line really doesn’t bother me. I have enjoyed the series, has Jackson taken liberties of course, do I believe he is that far off the mark, No I do not. I will be going to see this with a few pieces of sushi and scotch in my belly, I will sit back and enjoy the fuck out of it and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks. :slight_smile:

688

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published. [/quote]
The hobbit was the first one he released and then he wrote LOTR. I have read both in excess of 10 times over the last 25 years. I can read the Hobbit in one night sitting, and stretching it out over three movies is a bit much. HOWEVER I am going into this series not be a fan-boy and yell about little things and added character. Tolkien is dead so expanding on the story line really doesn’t bother me. I have enjoyed the series, has Jackson taken liberties of course, do I believe he is that far off the mark, No I do not. I will be going to see this with a few pieces of sushi and scotch in my belly, I will sit back and enjoy the fuck out of it and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks. :slight_smile: [/quote]

Ya, I’ve read the Hobbit, Fellowship, and Two Towers. I never did get to the Return of the King. Part of the issue for me (and a lot of people) is I saw the films first.

I agree for the most part about adding characters/changing the story. Sometimes the little details annoy me, but for the most part Jackson has been fine. His job is to make money after all. It’s obviously worked.

689

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published. [/quote]
The hobbit was the first one he released and then he wrote LOTR. I have read both in excess of 10 times over the last 25 years. I can read the Hobbit in one night sitting, and stretching it out over three movies is a bit much. HOWEVER I am going into this series not be a fan-boy and yell about little things and added character. Tolkien is dead so expanding on the story line really doesn’t bother me. I have enjoyed the series, has Jackson taken liberties of course, do I believe he is that far off the mark, No I do not. I will be going to see this with a few pieces of sushi and scotch in my belly, I will sit back and enjoy the fuck out of it and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks. :slight_smile: [/quote]

Ya, I’ve read the Hobbit, Fellowship, and Two Towers. I never did get to the Return of the King. Part of the issue for me (and a lot of people) is I saw the films first.

I agree for the most part about adding characters/changing the story. Sometimes the little details annoy me, but for the most part Jackson has been fine. His job is to make money after all. It’s obviously worked. [/quote]
See I had to read the Hobbit my freshman year of HS in 1987 (wow I’m getting old) and I enjoyed it so much but left me hanging. Especially in terms of the 5 armies battle at the end. That was why I picked up the LOTR on my own and started reading cause I wanted more.

690

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published. [/quote]
The hobbit was the first one he released and then he wrote LOTR. I have read both in excess of 10 times over the last 25 years. I can read the Hobbit in one night sitting, and stretching it out over three movies is a bit much. HOWEVER I am going into this series not be a fan-boy and yell about little things and added character. Tolkien is dead so expanding on the story line really doesn’t bother me. I have enjoyed the series, has Jackson taken liberties of course, do I believe he is that far off the mark, No I do not. I will be going to see this with a few pieces of sushi and scotch in my belly, I will sit back and enjoy the fuck out of it and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks. :slight_smile: [/quote]

Ya, I’ve read the Hobbit, Fellowship, and Two Towers. I never did get to the Return of the King. Part of the issue for me (and a lot of people) is I saw the films first.

I agree for the most part about adding characters/changing the story. Sometimes the little details annoy me, but for the most part Jackson has been fine. His job is to make money after all. It’s obviously worked. [/quote]
See I had to read the Hobbit my freshman year of HS in 1987 (wow I’m getting old) and I enjoyed it so much but left me hanging. Especially in terms of the 5 armies battle at the end. That was why I picked up the LOTR on my own and started reading cause I wanted more. [/quote]

Have you read the Silmarillion? I’ve heard that’s out there.

691

I just saw Apocalypto. I thought it was pretty good. It meets a very high standard in realism and authenticity. Excellent portrayal of the Mayan religious cult and a brutal human sacrifice scene. Easily the most realistic portrayal of late Toltec and Mayan civilisation in a film. Anyone seen it?

692

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published. [/quote]
The hobbit was the first one he released and then he wrote LOTR. I have read both in excess of 10 times over the last 25 years. I can read the Hobbit in one night sitting, and stretching it out over three movies is a bit much. HOWEVER I am going into this series not be a fan-boy and yell about little things and added character. Tolkien is dead so expanding on the story line really doesn’t bother me. I have enjoyed the series, has Jackson taken liberties of course, do I believe he is that far off the mark, No I do not. I will be going to see this with a few pieces of sushi and scotch in my belly, I will sit back and enjoy the fuck out of it and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks. :slight_smile: [/quote]

Ya, I’ve read the Hobbit, Fellowship, and Two Towers. I never did get to the Return of the King. Part of the issue for me (and a lot of people) is I saw the films first.

I agree for the most part about adding characters/changing the story. Sometimes the little details annoy me, but for the most part Jackson has been fine. His job is to make money after all. It’s obviously worked. [/quote]
See I had to read the Hobbit my freshman year of HS in 1987 (wow I’m getting old) and I enjoyed it so much but left me hanging. Especially in terms of the 5 armies battle at the end. That was why I picked up the LOTR on my own and started reading cause I wanted more. [/quote]

Have you read the Silmarillion? I’ve heard that’s out there. [/quote]
I read parts of it, but didnt really do much for me. I read a lot of books and enjoy that medium of entertainment with my busy life. Its a way to escape reality and so I enjoy that aspect of reading. So I really never read Non-Fiction, I have enough of real life that I dont want to read about it. The Silmarillion reads like the bible.

693

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I just saw Apocalypto. I thought it was pretty good. It meets a very high standard in realism and authenticity. Excellent portrayal of the Mayan religious cult and a brutal human sacrifice scene. Easily the most realistic portrayal of late Toltec and Mayan civilisation in a film. Anyone seen it?[/quote]

about 5 times with different people each time and like you we all thought it was pretty darn good. Very well done. Say what you will of Mel Gibson but the guy delivers some excellent work. I also like the fact he used native Americans for almost every role in the film. Very authentic feel to the movie.

694

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I just saw Apocalypto. I thought it was pretty good. It meets a very high standard in realism and authenticity. Excellent portrayal of the Mayan religious cult and a brutal human sacrifice scene. Easily the most realistic portrayal of late Toltec and Mayan civilisation in a film. Anyone seen it?[/quote]

about 5 times with different people each time and like you we all thought it was pretty darn good. Very well done. Say what you will of Mel Gibson but the guy delivers some excellent work. I also like the fact he used native Americans for almost every role in the film. Very authentic feel to the movie.[/quote]

I listened to Mel on the audio commentary and it seems he doesn’t know a great deal about the cultures and the period. But they used native Indians from Guatemala for the most the extras and crew as you say. The authentic weaponry was good too; clubs studded with razor sharp shards of obsidian, poisonous blow darts, obsidian tipped spears etc. The script was good too. Written by Mel and his business partner Bruce Davey. I imagine they employed a lot of researchers to do a lot of the work.

695

[quote]bubba88123 wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

I have to disagree about Pain and Gain. That movie was painfully unfunny. It was mesmerizing to watch, because everything that happened was so awful and shitty that you can’t believe that it’s based on a true story. But it is not funny, not at all. I came away from that movie hating every single character in it, including The Rock’s (and that’s really hard to do because he is my favorite actor).

So yeah, if a movie where every character is an unlikeable piece of shit is funny, then Pain and Gain was a riot.

As far as other good Russell Crowe movies since A Beautiful Mind:

American Gangster
Master and Commander
Cinderella Man
State of Play
Body of Lies (though he’s in more of a supporting role to DiCaprio here)

The Next 3 Days was also good, but these are better.[/quote]

tsk…tsk… how do you name good Russel Crowe movies and not say gladiator. Just sad[/quote]

Because I was naming good Russell Crowe movies from a specific time period.

696

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I just saw Apocalypto. I thought it was pretty good. It meets a very high standard in realism and authenticity. Excellent portrayal of the Mayan religious cult and a brutal human sacrifice scene. Easily the most realistic portrayal of late Toltec and Mayan civilisation in a film. Anyone seen it?[/quote]

about 5 times with different people each time and like you we all thought it was pretty darn good. Very well done. Say what you will of Mel Gibson but the guy delivers some excellent work. I also like the fact he used native Americans for almost every role in the film. Very authentic feel to the movie.[/quote]

I saw it when it in the theater (whenever that was). Excellent movie. I was worried the subtitles would be annoying, but fortunately the dialogue is simple enough that it wasn’t an issue at all. If anything, it made the experience more immersive.

697

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published. [/quote]
The hobbit was the first one he released and then he wrote LOTR. I have read both in excess of 10 times over the last 25 years. I can read the Hobbit in one night sitting, and stretching it out over three movies is a bit much. HOWEVER I am going into this series not be a fan-boy and yell about little things and added character. Tolkien is dead so expanding on the story line really doesn’t bother me. I have enjoyed the series, has Jackson taken liberties of course, do I believe he is that far off the mark, No I do not. I will be going to see this with a few pieces of sushi and scotch in my belly, I will sit back and enjoy the fuck out of it and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks. :slight_smile: [/quote]

The issue I have with the expansion of the characters is that he developed the wrong ones. It would have been great if he handled them well, but by this latest movie even Tauriel is grating and Alfrid Lickspittle, well, even though he’s a Tolkien character, he’ll soon be a regular fixture in ‘most annoying movie sidekick’ polls: less irritating than Jar Jar and the Transformers twins, more or less equal to Judge Dredd’s Ferdy.

One of the main reasons Peter Jackson decided to go with three films was to give the dwarves the individuality that he felt was lacking in the books, he started doing that in AUJ, but he seems to have given up completely by BoTHFA. Characters that should have been in support were deliberately given more focus. In the first movie it wasn’t an issue, by the third, it becomes a major problem.

I don’t get any pleasure from saying that. I like PJ, love his low-budget stuff, the LOTR trilogy and had high hopes for the Hobbit adaptation . Unfortunately, choices were made that are inexcusable for a director of his caliber. My criticisms are made not as a Tolkien purist but seeing a good director phoning it in. I mean, I’m not exaggerating when I say that every single death is done in lingering slow motion.

698

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
In anticipation for the 3rd film I was going to try and watch the other 2. And by try I mean I was going to attempt to sit through the 1st one which actually put me to sleep last time. Seems like I should just forget these 3 existed.[/quote]

It could have actually been good, if Peter Jackson didn’t suffer from a bizarre case of wanting to make the movie absurdly long for the content you have.

So many things are stretched far beyond what’s needed. The film could easily have been 30 minutes shorter, and then it would have been a fitting ending to an o.k. trilogy. Instead we get a bloated mess.

I have no idea why the last 30-40 (I don’t really remember) pages of a book needs to be an two and a half hours long. I really don’t.[/quote]

It might have been better if they’d shot it as one film before any of the LOTR movies.

The third act descent in into prequelitis was ludicrous.

699

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I just saw Apocalypto. I thought it was pretty good. It meets a very high standard in realism and authenticity. Excellent portrayal of the Mayan religious cult and a brutal human sacrifice scene. Easily the most realistic portrayal of late Toltec and Mayan civilisation in a film. Anyone seen it?[/quote]

about 5 times with different people each time and like you we all thought it was pretty darn good. Very well done. Say what you will of Mel Gibson but the guy delivers some excellent work. I also like the fact he used native Americans for almost every role in the film. Very authentic feel to the movie.[/quote]

I listened to Mel on the audio commentary and it seems he doesn’t know a great deal about the cultures and the period. But they used native Indians from Guatemala for the most the extras and crew as you say. The authentic weaponry was good too; clubs studded with razor sharp shards of obsidian, poisonous blow darts, obsidian tipped spears etc. The script was good too. Written by Mel and his business partner Bruce Davey. I imagine they employed a lot of researchers to do a lot of the work.[/quote]

From what I remember reading about the movie before it came out is that they indeed did a lot of research and that Mel was adamant about it being as close to reality as possible. The weaponry was indeed great. I loved the scenery. The hunting scene at the beginning of the movie was tremendous too.

I might just watch it again this weekend…

700

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s actually 1 book into 6 movies. Even worse :([/quote]
?[/quote]

Tolkien’s original work was 1 book. It was later broken up into 4. [/quote]
The Hobbit was always a separate book, the LOR was one book that was later broken up. At least that was what I always read. [/quote]

You could be right. I’ve always heard it was 1 book not 2, but I’m not a LOTR purist or anything… I really don’t know for sure. I could probably ask someone, I work where LOTR is published. [/quote]
The hobbit was the first one he released and then he wrote LOTR. I have read both in excess of 10 times over the last 25 years. I can read the Hobbit in one night sitting, and stretching it out over three movies is a bit much. HOWEVER I am going into this series not be a fan-boy and yell about little things and added character. Tolkien is dead so expanding on the story line really doesn’t bother me. I have enjoyed the series, has Jackson taken liberties of course, do I believe he is that far off the mark, No I do not. I will be going to see this with a few pieces of sushi and scotch in my belly, I will sit back and enjoy the fuck out of it and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks. :slight_smile: [/quote]

The issue I have with the expansion of the characters is that he developed the wrong ones. It would have been great if he handled them well, but by this latest movie even Tauriel is grating and Alfrid Lickspittle, well, even though he’s a Tolkien character, he’ll soon be a regular fixture in ‘most annoying movie sidekick’ polls: less irritating than Jar Jar and the Transformers twins, more or less equal to Judge Dredd’s Ferdy.

One of the main reasons Peter Jackson decided to go with three films was to give the dwarves the individuality that he felt was lacking in the books, he started doing that in AUJ, but he seems to have given up completely by BoTHFA. Characters that should have been in support were deliberately given more focus. In the first movie it wasn’t an issue, by the third, it becomes a major problem.

I don’t get any pleasure from saying that. I like PJ, love his low-budget stuff, the LOTR trilogy and had high hopes for the Hobbit adaptation . Unfortunately, choices were made that are inexcusable for a director of his caliber. My criticisms are made not as a Tolkien purist but seeing a good director phoning it in. I mean, I’m not exaggerating when I say that every single death is done in lingering slow motion.

[/quote]
Im not listening Roy