![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This month, not one but TWO new movies came out that I had to see in the theater, and both of them bring with them quite a lot of baggage that make me UNABLE TO WRITE AN OBJECTIVE-TYPE REVIEW. That's all right. Instead I'm going to write about ALL THE BAGGAGE, and THEN give you something of a review of sorts, for each of them. (It's GOOD BAGGAGE. Fun to carry! But it totally ruins any sense of distance in my opinions). So far, I've seen one, but I've got a promised but-not-yet-scheduled sister-date to see the other (maybe next weekend, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
magnolia___?).
Today's post, following an anniversary date with the hubby last night, is about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Backstory
So, exactly 21 years ago this past Tuesday was my first exposure to Tolkien. I pulled a paperback of The Hobbit out of my Christmas stocking and my mother excitedly assured me that she KNEW I would like it and it was something everyone must read because it's GOOD, and I smiled and nodded and thought "If you say so," because it was a book about a fussy middle-aged man, with hairy feet, and I was a 13-year-old girl who much preferred to read about spunky teenaged girls, preferably with psychic powers and no hairy feet. But I was a bookworm, so I started to read and got sucked right in. And then later that day I was playing Scattergories with my cousin and we got Fictional Character Starting with B, and just like that I pulled out "Bilbo Baggins!" and BAM! Two points. (Of course, my cousin picked Bugs Bunny, so ALSO scored double points, so I didn't really get ahead. BUT I WAS PROUD OF MYSELF ANYWAY).
So I loved the book, but admittedly, it wasn't a life-changing experience, not like some fans feel it. I loved LOTS of books. There are very few books that rank as Life-Changing Experiences, but there's swaths of books I love and speak highly of. This was one of those. It was a few more years-- I'd just graduated high school-- before I got to Lord of the Rings, and those books joined the Books I Love That are Admittedly Not Lifechanging horde-- a little higher up in the ranks, actually, because these ones actually had females in them, and even traces of romance (FARAMIR!), and, of course, Sam. "Nobody takes Sam seriously," I lamented halfway through Fellowship, "and he seems like the only one who really knows what's going on!"
Then, another few years later, my Tolkien experience wove ever deeper into my life, tying firmly into my relationship with the Guy Who Would Be My Husband. You may have heard the story that we got together when a mutual friend invited me to play Dungeons and Dragons, and Jason was the Dungeonmaster. (He also already had a crush on me from about a month before, when I ran into him and the mutual friend on campus, and apparently he'd been PESTERING said friend to invite me to play ever since). Naturally, with such an introduction, we discussed fantasy stories fairly often early on, but we'd already been dating a few weeks, and he'd already told ME to read the Dragonlance Chronicles, before the truth came out: HE'D NEVER READ TOLKIEN. "HOW can you not have read Lord of the Rings," I said. "That's where D&D COMES from! How can you DUNGEONMASTER without knowing your ROOTS?!"
"My LAST girlfriend said the same thing, and it didn't work for her, either," he said crossly. "The more people tell me I HAVE to, the more I DON'T WANT TO."
I didn't really let up, though; whenever the topic came up, I'd jab. He denied. This went on for over a year.
Then, sometime in the summer of 2001, I guess, we went to the movies. We went to a lot of movies in those days, because that was when we were young and dating and had no kids or mortgage. So I have no idea what movie it was that we'd actually gone to see, but that's moot, because the most important part happened before it even started: the trailer to Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. Jason's jaw literally dropped, and I swear I heard him mutter "...massive orc armies...."
When whatever-it-was-we'd-actually-gone-to-see ended, we wandered the rest of the mall, spending the most time, naturally, in the bookstore, where today Jason picked up this edition of Lord of the Rings, a huge one volume gift-quality hardcover with paintings by Alan Lee-- it was something like $70. "You know I have those in paperback," I said. "Well it's a GOOD book, isn't it? We'd want a good copy of it," he said, forgetting that whole I-refuse-to-read-it issue. And then, when it turned out the one copy of this edition that the bookstore had was DAMAGED, he ORDERED ANOTHER ONE. And SOMEHOW in our next D&D campaign we found ourselves HAVING TO DESTROY A RING OF POWER. No idea where he gets his ideas.
Naturally, when the movie came out that December, we went to see it. Four times. The next December we saw Two Towers only twice, but I bought him the Extended Edition Fellowship DVDs for Christmas, whereas he bought me a diamond ring. The NEXT December we only saw Return of the King once, but mostly because we were getting married two days after Christmas and therefore running around quite a bit.
Before kids there was much Marathon-Watchings of Extended Editions, and JUST before kids I'd pitched the name "Sam," and J said "But then everyone will think he's a hobbit!" and I said "Well, it's not like we're naming him FRODO. Besides, Sam Gamgee is a GOOD ROLE MODEL," and when the kid popped out (the day after we'd happened to have watched Return of the King again) I decided he couldn't be anything BUT Sam, even if the only of Sam Gamgee's traits he exhibits regularly is a tendency to go barefoot. AFTER kids we realized we could only manage one disk at a time, so our marathons were week-long events.
We also rarely go to the movies anymore. Jason still works 365 days a year, and we're always scraping up money to pay the bills, making a one-shot movie outing just a LITTLE too much of an investment (and don't even ask about babysitting). We would have been clueless about movies coming out if I wasn't an internet junkie with a tendency to follow geeky blogs and news sources. Which meant I had an idea about the Hobbit movie's long, convoluted non-making even BEFORE they went and cast my favorite actor in the title role.
WELL. 13-year-old me would be horrified. My number-one worst actor-crush of all time, the man who infatuated me so completely and inexplicably I had to Imaginarily Marry him, is playing that fussy middle-aged man with hairy feet. (If it makes you feel better, Young-Amy, you have to admit that this guy is VERY much an improvement on this guy. I haven't COMPLETELY lost my mind).
As much as Jackson's LotR movies are my favorite book-adaptation-of-an-already-favorite-book movies of all time, with all the trouble getting a Hobbit movie made and the puzzling announcement that it would be a two-, then a three-parter, I probably would have been much more inclined to wait for the DVD, as we do most movies nowadays. It sounded like it had the potential to be too much of a let-down to make a cinema splurge for. BUT THEY'D GONE AND CAST MARTIN FREEMAN. Martin, synonymous with "perfect" already, somehow seemed EVEN MORE PERFECT for this role. I knew then that I could NOT be too disappointed in the movie, because if all else failed, I would still be watching my movie-star-crush in a hobbit costume, so my eyes would be very, very happy. Right after the reviews started coming in, The Onion posted the headline "'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack," and I thought, "actually, I'd totally watch that. I WANT to watch that! I may have issues."
Which brings us to my reservations. See, I have this problem with things Martin is in. If he's not onscreen, I get very antsy and impatient waiting for him to come back onscreen. Even in overall awesome shows like Sherlock: I still haven't forgiven "Scandal in Belgravia" for being John-Watson-less for entirely too large a chunk of the last third of the episode (and dangit, he would've WON the Emmy if they'd submitted "Reichenbach" for review instead!). And there are SO MANY DANG DWARVES in The Hobbit (I also still haven't forgiven whomever wrote the AR test on the book for expecting people to actually tell the difference. Not that I forgive AR for anything, ever)! And all sources said that the expansion of the movies from the book would come from SCENES THAT HAPPENED WHEN BILBO WASN'T THERE! And also, HE'S INVISIBLE FOR LARGE PORTIONS OF THE BOOK! If I had to spend all these extra scenes pining for him, would I enjoy the movie more if my favorite actor WASN'T in it?!
...and then of course, there's Jason. We have such a history regarding the LotR movies, especially at this time of year, that it seems like a natural choice for our anniversary date. Except my Real Husband knows very well about my Imaginary Husband and scorns him with a jealous fire. Also Sharpies. Is this just in bad TASTE for an anniversary date, or what?
My Actual Impressions of the Movie:
Luckily, all my fears were unfounded. I smiled the whole way through that movie. I so enjoyed being back in Jackson's Middle Earth that I ACTUALLY DIDN'T MIND when Martin was off-screen (and as for the invisibility issue: as many times as I've watched LotR, I'd forgotten about RingVision! Thank Pete for RingVision! Invisible isn't invisible to the AUDIENCE!). But when he WAS onscreen... oh blubber. It's a good thing we saw it in 2D-- I don't think I could have handled not being able to actually touch him if he was in 3D on top of it. *ahem* BUT I CAN BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT HIM, TOO, I SWEAR! Maybe sort of. I am certain he still perfectly EARNS his place as my favorite actor without any hormonal soppiness on my part. I direct you to the immortal "Riddles in the Dark" scene. I was always most looking forward to that scene because I knew the banter would be delightful. But in the movie? We go beyond delightful banter into layers of emotion I never even comprehended in the book. PERFECT.
And he'll never ever admit it, but Jason LIKES Martin as an actor. I caught him laughing at (I mean WITH) Martin's delivery of lines quite a few times. "I just like the dwarves. They're rude. It's funny," he says. BUT I SWEAR IT WASN'T THE DWARVES BEING FUNNY WHEN HE WAS LAUGHING.
Oh, and about dwarves? I liked the dwarves way more than I thought I would. I'm prejudiced against the dwarves if only because of the AR test thing, and I a) didn't want them overwhelming the movie and distracting us from MY HOBBIT, and b) wasn't sure some of the costumes were quite dwarvey enough. But in the movie itself, they were both PERFECTLY dwarvey (though some of them could still have done with longer beards), and not too overwhelming. Though, I'm sorry fangirls, Thorin's a melodramatic jerk. But he's supposed to be, so that's all right.
I also loved the dwarves' singing. It felt just perfect, not out of place at all, heartily in character. I love the music in general, though, and the end-credits song? I'm pretty sure it's my favorite of the end-credits songs of all these movies so far.**
I really only had two gripes about the movie, and I'm not sure one of them counts (but we'll get to that one later). Professional critics have been mixed to meh about the movie, and on nearly all counts I don't get what they're griping about! I think they're just determined to be negative to be CONTRARY. But on one point I agree with the critics, who said it felt too long. It's hard to exactly describe why, though: something about it didn't flow right, made me feel "are we getting to the point soon?" every so often-- and yet I'm not sure I'd CUT anything. Because I loved everything. If I was lounging on the couch, snacking and writing in my journal while I watched it-- much like we watch our Extended Edition DVDs-- it would have been just perfect. I think whoever suspects this length issue being Peter Jackson's reluctance to cut anything because he's JUST TOO IN LOVE WITH IT ALL is on the right track. He would have had a tighter movie-theater movie if he'd murdered a few of his darlings. But I SHARE his reluctance to cut, because I too am in love with Middle Earth. I relished every moment spent in it, delighting in every detail. And why the heck do so many critics (pro and blogger) think the stone giants were overdoing it? I LOVED the stone giants! ACTIVELY loved, not just tolerated. If I Just Tolerated anything, it was the chaotic action fight scenes, which were mostly just blurs of creatures hitting each other to me; but LotR is full of those scenes, too, so it's hardly a fault that's only showing up in this movie now.
So it's a leisurely journey through Middle Earth, and I'll keep it as is for future living-room based viewing. And my other gripe, the one I'm not sure counts? I want more. I don't want to wait for the rest! I can't wait to get back there! I want to explore Mirkwood and meet the wood elves and Beorn! I want THE REST OF THE BOOK NOW!
I also want a little toy Bilbo for my very own. In lieu of the real thing. It's after Christmas. I can buy things for myself, now, right?
*I feel one ought to drop at least one Led Zeppelin reference into any discussion of Tolkien. It's only fair.
**You know, until Led Zeppelin does one of the remaining two end-credits songs. I didn't come up with this idea, I saw it in an Internet comment. BUT WOULDN'T IT BE AWESOME? We all need to petition for this.
magnolia___?).Today's post, following an anniversary date with the hubby last night, is about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Backstory
So, exactly 21 years ago this past Tuesday was my first exposure to Tolkien. I pulled a paperback of The Hobbit out of my Christmas stocking and my mother excitedly assured me that she KNEW I would like it and it was something everyone must read because it's GOOD, and I smiled and nodded and thought "If you say so," because it was a book about a fussy middle-aged man, with hairy feet, and I was a 13-year-old girl who much preferred to read about spunky teenaged girls, preferably with psychic powers and no hairy feet. But I was a bookworm, so I started to read and got sucked right in. And then later that day I was playing Scattergories with my cousin and we got Fictional Character Starting with B, and just like that I pulled out "Bilbo Baggins!" and BAM! Two points. (Of course, my cousin picked Bugs Bunny, so ALSO scored double points, so I didn't really get ahead. BUT I WAS PROUD OF MYSELF ANYWAY).
So I loved the book, but admittedly, it wasn't a life-changing experience, not like some fans feel it. I loved LOTS of books. There are very few books that rank as Life-Changing Experiences, but there's swaths of books I love and speak highly of. This was one of those. It was a few more years-- I'd just graduated high school-- before I got to Lord of the Rings, and those books joined the Books I Love That are Admittedly Not Lifechanging horde-- a little higher up in the ranks, actually, because these ones actually had females in them, and even traces of romance (FARAMIR!), and, of course, Sam. "Nobody takes Sam seriously," I lamented halfway through Fellowship, "and he seems like the only one who really knows what's going on!"
Then, another few years later, my Tolkien experience wove ever deeper into my life, tying firmly into my relationship with the Guy Who Would Be My Husband. You may have heard the story that we got together when a mutual friend invited me to play Dungeons and Dragons, and Jason was the Dungeonmaster. (He also already had a crush on me from about a month before, when I ran into him and the mutual friend on campus, and apparently he'd been PESTERING said friend to invite me to play ever since). Naturally, with such an introduction, we discussed fantasy stories fairly often early on, but we'd already been dating a few weeks, and he'd already told ME to read the Dragonlance Chronicles, before the truth came out: HE'D NEVER READ TOLKIEN. "HOW can you not have read Lord of the Rings," I said. "That's where D&D COMES from! How can you DUNGEONMASTER without knowing your ROOTS?!"
"My LAST girlfriend said the same thing, and it didn't work for her, either," he said crossly. "The more people tell me I HAVE to, the more I DON'T WANT TO."
I didn't really let up, though; whenever the topic came up, I'd jab. He denied. This went on for over a year.
Then, sometime in the summer of 2001, I guess, we went to the movies. We went to a lot of movies in those days, because that was when we were young and dating and had no kids or mortgage. So I have no idea what movie it was that we'd actually gone to see, but that's moot, because the most important part happened before it even started: the trailer to Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. Jason's jaw literally dropped, and I swear I heard him mutter "...massive orc armies...."
When whatever-it-was-we'd-actually-gone-to-see ended, we wandered the rest of the mall, spending the most time, naturally, in the bookstore, where today Jason picked up this edition of Lord of the Rings, a huge one volume gift-quality hardcover with paintings by Alan Lee-- it was something like $70. "You know I have those in paperback," I said. "Well it's a GOOD book, isn't it? We'd want a good copy of it," he said, forgetting that whole I-refuse-to-read-it issue. And then, when it turned out the one copy of this edition that the bookstore had was DAMAGED, he ORDERED ANOTHER ONE. And SOMEHOW in our next D&D campaign we found ourselves HAVING TO DESTROY A RING OF POWER. No idea where he gets his ideas.
Naturally, when the movie came out that December, we went to see it. Four times. The next December we saw Two Towers only twice, but I bought him the Extended Edition Fellowship DVDs for Christmas, whereas he bought me a diamond ring. The NEXT December we only saw Return of the King once, but mostly because we were getting married two days after Christmas and therefore running around quite a bit.
Before kids there was much Marathon-Watchings of Extended Editions, and JUST before kids I'd pitched the name "Sam," and J said "But then everyone will think he's a hobbit!" and I said "Well, it's not like we're naming him FRODO. Besides, Sam Gamgee is a GOOD ROLE MODEL," and when the kid popped out (the day after we'd happened to have watched Return of the King again) I decided he couldn't be anything BUT Sam, even if the only of Sam Gamgee's traits he exhibits regularly is a tendency to go barefoot. AFTER kids we realized we could only manage one disk at a time, so our marathons were week-long events.
We also rarely go to the movies anymore. Jason still works 365 days a year, and we're always scraping up money to pay the bills, making a one-shot movie outing just a LITTLE too much of an investment (and don't even ask about babysitting). We would have been clueless about movies coming out if I wasn't an internet junkie with a tendency to follow geeky blogs and news sources. Which meant I had an idea about the Hobbit movie's long, convoluted non-making even BEFORE they went and cast my favorite actor in the title role.
WELL. 13-year-old me would be horrified. My number-one worst actor-crush of all time, the man who infatuated me so completely and inexplicably I had to Imaginarily Marry him, is playing that fussy middle-aged man with hairy feet. (If it makes you feel better, Young-Amy, you have to admit that this guy is VERY much an improvement on this guy. I haven't COMPLETELY lost my mind).
As much as Jackson's LotR movies are my favorite book-adaptation-of-an-already-favorite-book movies of all time, with all the trouble getting a Hobbit movie made and the puzzling announcement that it would be a two-, then a three-parter, I probably would have been much more inclined to wait for the DVD, as we do most movies nowadays. It sounded like it had the potential to be too much of a let-down to make a cinema splurge for. BUT THEY'D GONE AND CAST MARTIN FREEMAN. Martin, synonymous with "perfect" already, somehow seemed EVEN MORE PERFECT for this role. I knew then that I could NOT be too disappointed in the movie, because if all else failed, I would still be watching my movie-star-crush in a hobbit costume, so my eyes would be very, very happy. Right after the reviews started coming in, The Onion posted the headline "'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack," and I thought, "actually, I'd totally watch that. I WANT to watch that! I may have issues."
Which brings us to my reservations. See, I have this problem with things Martin is in. If he's not onscreen, I get very antsy and impatient waiting for him to come back onscreen. Even in overall awesome shows like Sherlock: I still haven't forgiven "Scandal in Belgravia" for being John-Watson-less for entirely too large a chunk of the last third of the episode (and dangit, he would've WON the Emmy if they'd submitted "Reichenbach" for review instead!). And there are SO MANY DANG DWARVES in The Hobbit (I also still haven't forgiven whomever wrote the AR test on the book for expecting people to actually tell the difference. Not that I forgive AR for anything, ever)! And all sources said that the expansion of the movies from the book would come from SCENES THAT HAPPENED WHEN BILBO WASN'T THERE! And also, HE'S INVISIBLE FOR LARGE PORTIONS OF THE BOOK! If I had to spend all these extra scenes pining for him, would I enjoy the movie more if my favorite actor WASN'T in it?!
...and then of course, there's Jason. We have such a history regarding the LotR movies, especially at this time of year, that it seems like a natural choice for our anniversary date. Except my Real Husband knows very well about my Imaginary Husband and scorns him with a jealous fire. Also Sharpies. Is this just in bad TASTE for an anniversary date, or what?
My Actual Impressions of the Movie:
Luckily, all my fears were unfounded. I smiled the whole way through that movie. I so enjoyed being back in Jackson's Middle Earth that I ACTUALLY DIDN'T MIND when Martin was off-screen (and as for the invisibility issue: as many times as I've watched LotR, I'd forgotten about RingVision! Thank Pete for RingVision! Invisible isn't invisible to the AUDIENCE!). But when he WAS onscreen... oh blubber. It's a good thing we saw it in 2D-- I don't think I could have handled not being able to actually touch him if he was in 3D on top of it. *ahem* BUT I CAN BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT HIM, TOO, I SWEAR! Maybe sort of. I am certain he still perfectly EARNS his place as my favorite actor without any hormonal soppiness on my part. I direct you to the immortal "Riddles in the Dark" scene. I was always most looking forward to that scene because I knew the banter would be delightful. But in the movie? We go beyond delightful banter into layers of emotion I never even comprehended in the book. PERFECT.
And he'll never ever admit it, but Jason LIKES Martin as an actor. I caught him laughing at (I mean WITH) Martin's delivery of lines quite a few times. "I just like the dwarves. They're rude. It's funny," he says. BUT I SWEAR IT WASN'T THE DWARVES BEING FUNNY WHEN HE WAS LAUGHING.
Oh, and about dwarves? I liked the dwarves way more than I thought I would. I'm prejudiced against the dwarves if only because of the AR test thing, and I a) didn't want them overwhelming the movie and distracting us from MY HOBBIT, and b) wasn't sure some of the costumes were quite dwarvey enough. But in the movie itself, they were both PERFECTLY dwarvey (though some of them could still have done with longer beards), and not too overwhelming. Though, I'm sorry fangirls, Thorin's a melodramatic jerk. But he's supposed to be, so that's all right.
I also loved the dwarves' singing. It felt just perfect, not out of place at all, heartily in character. I love the music in general, though, and the end-credits song? I'm pretty sure it's my favorite of the end-credits songs of all these movies so far.**
I really only had two gripes about the movie, and I'm not sure one of them counts (but we'll get to that one later). Professional critics have been mixed to meh about the movie, and on nearly all counts I don't get what they're griping about! I think they're just determined to be negative to be CONTRARY. But on one point I agree with the critics, who said it felt too long. It's hard to exactly describe why, though: something about it didn't flow right, made me feel "are we getting to the point soon?" every so often-- and yet I'm not sure I'd CUT anything. Because I loved everything. If I was lounging on the couch, snacking and writing in my journal while I watched it-- much like we watch our Extended Edition DVDs-- it would have been just perfect. I think whoever suspects this length issue being Peter Jackson's reluctance to cut anything because he's JUST TOO IN LOVE WITH IT ALL is on the right track. He would have had a tighter movie-theater movie if he'd murdered a few of his darlings. But I SHARE his reluctance to cut, because I too am in love with Middle Earth. I relished every moment spent in it, delighting in every detail. And why the heck do so many critics (pro and blogger) think the stone giants were overdoing it? I LOVED the stone giants! ACTIVELY loved, not just tolerated. If I Just Tolerated anything, it was the chaotic action fight scenes, which were mostly just blurs of creatures hitting each other to me; but LotR is full of those scenes, too, so it's hardly a fault that's only showing up in this movie now.
So it's a leisurely journey through Middle Earth, and I'll keep it as is for future living-room based viewing. And my other gripe, the one I'm not sure counts? I want more. I don't want to wait for the rest! I can't wait to get back there! I want to explore Mirkwood and meet the wood elves and Beorn! I want THE REST OF THE BOOK NOW!
I also want a little toy Bilbo for my very own. In lieu of the real thing. It's after Christmas. I can buy things for myself, now, right?
*I feel one ought to drop at least one Led Zeppelin reference into any discussion of Tolkien. It's only fair.
**You know, until Led Zeppelin does one of the remaining two end-credits songs. I didn't come up with this idea, I saw it in an Internet comment. BUT WOULDN'T IT BE AWESOME? We all need to petition for this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-29 01:41 pm (UTC)From:My love for Richard Armitage has existed for quite a while, but was more firmly cemented after this. Because yes, he took a character who, in the book, was completely a self-righteous, self-important, melodramatic, stiff-necked jerk, and while keeping all those qualities intact made him sympathetic to the audience. And I don't think that sympathy is SOLELY due to his hotness (mostly because, like Benedict Cumberbatch, I think it's his personality and acting ability that makes him attractive to so many people, more than just sheer good looks).
LOVED the riddle scene. Just perfect. Those two brilliant actors, in the roles they were born to do, in the ultimate scene with them ... gah. I forgave the movie all its faults on the strength of that scene alone.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-29 04:19 pm (UTC)From:I admit that if I'd had a previous love of Richard Armitage, I might get the fuss more! Since I didn't, I just took him as he was, and I'm not particularly big on the dark and brooding characters to begin with.
I WOULD like to see some Bilbo's-story-only supercut of the movies someday! I mean, not just because it's Martin. Well, maybe just because it's Martin. Mostly because it's Martin. But just to see the story straightforward, no expansion, to see how it flows that way. And, yes, because we could focus on his brilliance more.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-06 02:53 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2013-01-06 03:55 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2013-01-06 04:08 am (UTC)From: (Anonymous)Anyway, tomorrow is too soon. Next Sunday? Where did you want to see it/eat??
no subject
Date: 2013-01-06 11:41 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2013-01-21 09:09 pm (UTC)From:From what
And then later that day I was playing Scattergories with my cousin and we got Fictional Character Starting with B, and just like that I pulled out "Bilbo Baggins!" and BAM! Two points. (Of course, my cousin picked Bugs Bunny, so ALSO scored double points, so I didn't really get ahead. BUT I WAS PROUD OF MYSELF ANYWAY).
Funny, considering that I wrote about both Bilbo and Bugs in the past few days. (Yeah, I know this post is considerably older than that, but I put it aside until I watched the film.)
no subject
Date: 2013-01-21 10:52 pm (UTC)From:From what bethje told me after we saw the movie last night, she would have preferred to have seen something like that over what we actually got.
Me too! Although I loved the movie in spite of that. I actually read somewhere that people who saw it in 3D thought it dragged in the beginning and picked up later, and people who saw it in 2D loved the beginning and thought it dragged later. Guess action works better for 3D. But like I said, I always tend to tune out action scenes anyway, so I don't let them steal my enjoyment of the rest of the movie. And I feel sorry for the people who saw it in 3D if they weren't delighted by the Bag End scenes! The movie was truly best in its character-heavy scenes rather than the action-- though the scenery was stunning, too. I really wish people who'd review it wouldn't dwell so much on the negatives and skip over the positives. I don't feel the positives are getting enough attention. Though I suppose the world figures that "hype" IS enough attention.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-23 07:23 pm (UTC)From: