|
|
 | Runtime: 161 min Audio: AC3 Language: English Resolution: 1280x720 Frame Rate: 23.9 fps Video Bitrate: 3226 Kb/sec Audio Bitrate: 384 kbps |
Review: I will not review the contents of the film in detail, but provide some thoughts on how the film should be contacted. I consider myself Tolkienist that (I actually saw this movie on opening night because I got a promotion contract with a local cinema, I spent four hours until midnight to write the names of writing a will) is to expect that many fans of the original book will see this film as bloating, irregular giant version of a story written their loved ones. It is important to realize before gåri, that this is not just a movie of this book. This is Jackson's The Hobbit, Tolkien did not, and it is most appreciated works independently. They represent different media, coming from different centuries and have different aims in part. Children's books written by Tolkien have any idea of ​​the trilogy to follow; Jackson has produced men trilogy and quite understandably try to make it resemble the prequels, in tone and scope.One could argue that Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, when completed, will establish the LOTR trilogy movies are much better than simple children Tolkien set up a LOTR literature. (The change in tone from children's books to the great epic is very pronounced, but grating to those who tried to read The Hobbit after LOTR.) Incidentally, it seems Jackson's prequel trilogy to be any damage to the LOTR trilogy of Star Wars prequels way provide important plot point on the original film. When finished, the Jacksons six Midgard film profitably be viewed in sequence internal chronology.To sure, Jackson's Hobbit trilogy based on the 1930 children's book in the sense that the characters have the same name and visit the many same place in exactly the same order (although the characters and new sites are added). Their basic motivation is also the same. But beyond that, we can not expect much loyalty. There is hardly anything that is not heavily decorated and well described, most of permit much darker tone and more fantasy action (ie games). Spiders of Mirkwood here real horror approach, compared with a little more child-friendly their literary counterparts (where we have Bilbo offend them with poetry Attercop stupid). These wizards conflict with Dol Guldur astrologers, as in this case completely confidential and only briefly touched Gandalf back was towards the end, actually appears. This is understandable; Gandalf otherwise be absent for much of the film. Also Jackson's viewers already know that this is the beginning of war with Sauron, and all major Dark Lord can not also be ignored. Tolkien in his letter that says how Sauron threw just a fleeting shadow over the pages of The Hobbit; Jackson's film shadows are darker and free deeper.Entire new subplot is created and added to the story. The Elf Tauriel and his unlikely crush on one of the dwarfs are clearly intended to increase the love story in which the book does not have, and have at least one strong female characters (no worries Tolkien when he wrote stories for children in 1930). Continued survival of ALL protagonist despite his endless encounters with death not only strain credibility - that really and truly exile and eliminate credibility. We are left with the fantasy action in the truest sense, to be enjoyed for choreography, ridiculous. If a cat has nine lives, the dwarf Jacksonian clearly enjoying lives.So three-digit number, is seen as an independent work, this is a good movie? Technically, it is nothing less than brilliant, full of details that can only be appreciated on the big screen. Smaug is hands down the best dragon movie designed in the world has yet not seen. If I do not cook a young 42, this wealth act out my fantasies no end. It is good to see Legolas again, even if he is not in this book. I l ...
 | Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus . |
No comments:
Post a Comment