Does it have to do with how cinematic it is? Is it about the action and the adrenaline? Tolkien’s son, Christopher, famously trashed Peter Jackson’s lauded attempt as a complete annihilation of what the book was supposed to stand for. Even if not for that, Desolation of Smaug is surer in its footing than the other two, ending on a cliffhanger that works out well as a setup for the final entry.īefore you go off on a rant about how The Return of the King is one of the best movies ever made and almost certainly the best Lord of the Rings movie out there, we have to think about how we define great Lord of the Rings adaptations. For those who know Martin Freeman and Cumberbatch from Sherlock, watching this flick will feel like going on an acid trip, but it will nevertheless be worth every moment of it. Ultimately, what makes the second Hobbit installment more bearable than An Unexpected Journey is the introduction of Smaug, portrayed in all of his terrifying villainy by Benedict Cumberbatch. At some point, it just starts to feel like you’re watching the same scene play out in alternate realities, and that’s not counting Tauriel and her near-perfect imitation of the elven princeling.) (That is, if like us, you actually mind watching Legolas slaughtering Orcs in the most aesthetically pleasing, if not quite realistic, ways imaginable. Who knows how this movie would have turned out if Peter Jackson had enough of the source material at his behest to deliver a truly satisfying flick, narrative-wise? Instead, the director had to fill up the movie’s unambitious runtime-at least compared to The Lord of the Rings trilogy-with unnecessary story arcs and drawn-out fight sequences. Frankly, besides these admittedly praiseworthy elements, you’d be wasting your time trying to find the same qualities in The Battle of the Five Armies as in the original trilogy. But hey, at least it was still Middle-earth, and there was Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and Thorin Oakenshield had an amazing sendoff. The result was essentially a movie that’s as visually off-putting as narratively unsatisfactory. With The Hobbit, everything had to happen spontaneously or not at all. He ultimately ended up shooting the three movies back to back, having all the footage ready by the time post-production had begun on The Fellowship of the Ring. With The Lord of the Rings, the Kiwi director had years to prepare and pre-produce most aspects of his epic trilogy. What’s more, the distributor expected Jackson to deliver the movie in the same timeframe as the previous two, an all but impossible undertaking for any other team. So it was that The Battle of the Five Armies was announced, stretching a 300-page book another two and a half hours. Having tasted that sweet Middle-earth box office potential again, the production company pushed to extend The Hobbit into a trilogy. Peter Jackson’s Hobbit saga was originally supposed to be two movies, ending with The Desolation of Smaug. They don’t exactly extend that sentiment toward The Hobbit, mind you, but the story of Bilbo Baggins has found a small corner in our hearts nevertheless, if for nothing besides the fact that it takes place in the same Middle-earth. Even after all these years, folks still talk about The Lord of the Rings with a sense of reverent awe. Neither Game of Thrones, once the most popular TV show in the world, nor The Rings of Power, the most expensive production in the history of entertainment, have managed to come even close to Peter Jackson’s timeless masterpiece. They toiled with their blood and sweat to bring Middle-earth to life in a way that remains unrivaled among live-action speculative adaptations, even after two decades. If there’s one thing they have in common, it’s that they were both created by folks who were extremely passionate about J.R.R. The Lord of the Ringsis one of the most influential movie trilogies in cinematic history while The Hobbit is one of the most controversial.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |