ajs709

I began watching this as I remembered watching the film and reading the Saviano book a few years ago. Both are excellent, but I feel the series is quite different and is perhaps only loosely based on the original source material. But that didn't bother me; this is a superb series. I found myself so immersed in the characters, the setting and the whole world that I had to keep reminding myself while I was at work that I wasn't a Neapolitan gangster. Every episode of the series is different, the characters are all so compelling and some of the twists and turns are gut-wrenching. Every episode ends perfectly and each one makes you feel differently - one made me weep with sentiment, another took me to such a dark place that I considered not watching any more because I realised "even the good guys are really really bad guys". But I'm glad I continued watching because the end of the series is phenomenal and makes me hungry for more. I have been truly blown away (excuse the pun) by this series and can pick no faults with it at all...and if you don't agree with me, I know some guys who know where you live and might be able to "change your mind"! Also acting - amazing. All the actors are spot on. Special mention for Vincenzo Sacchettino (Danielino) who has got to be one of the best teenage actors I've seen for a long while.

As a huge fan of the literature and the original Rings trilogy, I was eagerly anticipating this film. Ultimately though, I left the cinema feeling...well, nothing really. Is this really the same team that produced such emotionally evocative, at times beautiful, films? One can scarcely believe it. Unfortunately they seem to have developed the ethos that the only way to gratify us, the audience, is by relentlessly pounding us with scenes that are not only ludicrously implausible but which often skirt on the utterly ridiculous. The odd moment of absurdity can be excused (or may even be welcome) but this film is saturated with them to the point of just making the whole thing lack credence. And that just makes me, personally, not care. I cannot be invested in characters or a particular plot with all these nonsensical, slapstick things going on around them. What I liked about the original trilogy was that when someone did something impressive it had impact; now such events happen so frequently I was left thinking - so what? Yet another folly in one long stupidity. I'm sure the film-makers are trying to push the envelope, create ever more interesting and "never seen that before" moments but I think in this instance the story (thin to start with) suffers. All the strengths of the original trilogy in regards to clarity of story-line, pacing and script-writing were the weaknesses of this film. It was cut together in a rather haphazard, confusing manner leading to situations like "oh right, we've got the bad guys up this hill and the good guys on the other side of the valley...but we need them to come together for the final face-off...so..how about...yes, I know...MASSIVE GOAT-THINGS!". No rhyme, no reason. Massive Goat- things. Sigh. Sometimes just because you can doesn't mean you should. For large segments of the film I was wondering "what the devil is going on" and I've read the book a thousand times and seen the first two films. And then when a scene with supposed emotional impact crops up it feels forced and incongruous, which can never be said about the original trilogy (which I still think has some of the most poignant, touching and beautifully delivered scenes ever). And this is not a slur on the actors, who perform well. But they are saying things or acting parts that just don't fit and are at odds with the goofball antics that gaudily dominates the screen-time. And the script has its apparent frailties - Tauriel uttering those trashy lines "why does it hurt so bad" or something. I mean come on. That line is 100% Twilight. Lazy. If you can't think of anything for her to say, don't have her say anything. She is an elf, a race so profound and deep and mysterious. And they have her spouting that prescribed, hollow garbage. In fact this whole contrived Tauriel- Kili romance is feeble, perhaps indicative of the "too much screen- time, not enough material" thread that seem to runs through this trilogy. This was the opposite problem faced by the original trilogy (too much material, not enough screen time) which was solved with such aplomb. All I can think is that the team are better at adapting existing story-lines than creating story-lines de novo. Or at least in finding a place for them in the film. I wanted to like it so much...but the bits I was waiting to see (death of Smaug, Gandalf entering the fray dramatically just as the good guys were about to cross swords, Beorn laying the smack down, Dol Guldur) either never materialised or were poorly executed. Ultimately Unfulfilling.

After trying my hardest to argue "for" the adaptation of the hobbit into three movies, I suddenly find myself adopting the counter argument. This movie is the reason. I believe that the storyline is largely incoherent with whole segments being largely superfluous (Gandalf climbing the mountain to have a chinwag with Radagast, for example) or attempts to force unconvincing subplots. I still don't understand why Bard is in prison at the end other than an excuse to up the tension for film three; the whole idea of "the prophecy" of Lake-Town seems slightly confused (is it good, is it bad?); and the dwarfs, at times, seem quite indifferent to their task - indeed it is quite easy to forget what their task actually is even though whole segments of the first film in this trilogy establish it quite firmly. Are they trying to kill the dragon, trying to reclaim Erebor or trying to get back the shiny jewel? I don't know, Jackson doesn't seem to know and I'll swear they don't know, but they seem content enough to run around the place, giving the long-neglected industry of Erebor a shot in the arm for no particular reason while they're at it, and play hide and seek with the dragon. I understand the book is not heavy on detail, but it seems to me as though the film-makers have overthought things. In attempts to explain "why is this character doing this?" they feel it necessary to shoehorn prosaic motives and set-ups into the story which, in my opinion, just stretch plausibility and make the film bloated and flabby in places. Maybe it is necessary when dealing with a book which is so light on detail, but then we come back to "why three films?" point. If the three films are full of subplots and tangents (and cringeworthy saccharine love stories that are more High School Musical than Tolkien) that ultimately add nothing to the bigger story then why bother? The strength of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was the clarity and focus in the story; there is none of that in the Hobbit and ultimately I found myself asking "why?" quite a lot, particularly during the incessant and prolonged action sequences. For all this, it is a cinematic experience. It is still very much a thrill for me to see iconic scenes, places and characters from books that I have been reading since I was a child and I do think they are rendered expertly. It is worth a watch and I wouldn't have missed it for the world...indeed I'll probably go and watch it again because I really want to like it. However, I will always come back to "why three films?" and two films in, I'm not convinced of the answer. The fact I'm still asking the question suggests this film does nothing to clear this up and it has become the unfortunate tagline of this franchise, however much I don't want it to be. Sadly my sympathy for the film-makers is waning, particularly when they come up with the indefensible romance between Tauriel and Kili; I heard rumour of it, but nothing could prepare me for just how bad it was! The love triangle doesn't work. It makes Tauriel appear coquettish, Kili appear stupid, Legolas appear like a jealous school boy and the script-writers appear lazy. Singlehandedly dumbing down elves since 2013.

Being a fan of the LOTR films and a self-confessed Tolkienite, I must admit I embarked upon my viewing of this film with a deal of trepidation lest it should ultimately disappoint. I ended up being neither disappointed nor enraptured; it was enjoyable but failed to hit the same heights as the previous Jackson take on Tolkien.

Having said this, some of the pitfalls of the film are, to a degree, understandable. The book "The Hobbit" is naturally lighter and more whimsical in tone than the often heavy, bleak and biblical language used in the LOTR; in the latter the world is in imminent danger, all the former relates is a jolly old-fashioned adventure. This undoubtedly has an effect on the tone of the film. Danger seems more remote. The film-maker therefore has an issue of reconciling this lack of impending doom with a movie that is compelling. I think this is achieved but not with aplomb. There are too many "clinging to the edge of the precipice" moments, doubtlessly shoe-horned in for cinematic effect, for my liking. This does begin to test ones patience and perhaps suggests (gasps) film-making laziness? Perhaps also a reticence to diverge from the source material? It would have been more compelling to have one of the dwarfs not survive one of the numerous skirmishes or scrapes, just to make those of us who know the book more on edge and also to give a little credence to these scenes. But I'm sure that would not go down well with the purists.

Likewise I feel the soundtrack sometimes seems a little ripped-off from the LOTR. One particularly noticeable moment for me was the final stand-off between Thorin and Azog, when a piece normally associated with the Ringwraiths plays. It seems a little out of place. I have a theory as to why that was played at that moment and hopefully this will come through in the subsequent movies, but taking the film as a stand alone, it makes little sense. Other than that niggling point, the score was typically fantastic - that was one area that I was never in doubt about. I do sometimes struggle with film adaptations of Tolkien's songs and thought the one about plates and forks a little cringe-worthy, but found the song which featured in the official trailer moving and also a useful tool to reveal the motivation of these dwarfs.

I did enjoy the expanding of Thorin's back-story. He is not physically the Thorin I imagine when I read the book, but I did warm to him as a character and felt his often dour and stubborn manner is a fair depiction as written. Sadly the other dwarfs are not granted similar depth, but that was never going to be possible. Having said that, I thought Ken Stott's Balin was excellently written and acted. Hopefully we'll see more of them all in the next films.

As for Azog, I actually thought he made a very intimidating and enjoyable antagonist; critics say he was one-dimensional, but come on he is an orc..not every bad guy has to be Iago.

I wasn't sure about Freeman in such a prominent and important role, but again have warmed to him. I think my main issue was the vastly different types of role I have seen him in previously. My concern was misplaced and his performance was subtle and nuanced. And McKellen reprises the role of Gandalf with complete authority and poise - but then would we expect anything less from one of our finest ever actors?

As for pacing, I did find it was slow to begin and too lengthy; any of the action scenes could have been trimmed with no detriment to the film. But let us be honest, action is what a lot of people want from cinema. And I did find the chase scenes through "goblin town" fantastic fun and visually inventive. I was also pleased to see the "riddles in the dark" chapter rendered so expertly. Other questions, I think - mainly concerning whether there is the material to make three films - cannot yet be answered until the trilogy is complete and a fair judgement can be made. I also feel it rather glib to claim the making of three films is solely a money-making exercise; if films didn't make money the industry wouldn't exist. But I digress. Overall a satisfactory beginning, but no more.

This film is complete and utter garbage. I found the underlying theme - that the character called Marina leads an isolated life and adopts the behavioural traits she observes on nature documentaries - tentative and completely implausible, particularly as we see on numerous occasions that she is not at all isolated. I was a huge fan of the equally quirky Dogtooth and comparisons are natural enough, but at least that film had an accessible and clear point, swimming as it was with lashings of the ludicrous and outre. But quite what the film-makers were trying to say here was completely lost to me; some interesting points are raised - the whole notion of death, the industrial history of Greece, sexual exploration and taboos - but none are properly developed. It just seems they were token efforts to give this exercise in absurdity some kind of meaning. They fail badly. Maybe i miss the point and the point is: there is no point - in which case why bother? Its not particularly entertaining, with the odd moments of black humour being far too sparse to make it worthwhile. The little dances between Marina and the other female lead were just too ridiculous to assert anything and didn't make me laugh, cry or think or feel anything. Even when the inevitable death of the father comes, little emotion is evoked, essentially because neither he or his daughter is particularly likable perhaps due to the over-the-top eccentricity they exhibit. I was quite glad when it was all over...neither as profound or challenging as i suspect was intended.

I think this film brings to the fore some very interesting and fundamentally important issues. I didn't find it an easy film to watch, due to the challenging nature of these issues, but ultimately i found it rewarding and thought provoking. Disability is always a difficult area to portray on screen, but this film did so without resorting to patronisation or irreverence; I thought Sylvie Testud was magnificent and i really related to her feelings of isolation and anger that manifested themselves prior to her "healing". The attitudes of the other disabled pilgrims to her after this healing were also wonderfully depicted; why her and not me? The wheel-chair bound Mr. Hruby and the mother of another disabled girl react with an uncomfortable but natural jealousy to the miracle. And we then get to the matter of faith; for all the cynicism that surrounds Lourdes and the "touristy" nature of it (which is undisputed), the open displays of faith and the essence of hope cannot be underestimated. I found the scenes focusing on faith very moving; for all the criticism of particularly the Catholic church of late, one cannot dispute or try and detract from the faith of those who "believe". This was the heart of the film, for me. Although one could say that it is almost a parody of Lourdes and all it stands for, the faith of those who make the pilgrimages there cannot be disputed. The film raised these questions without ever offering answers; for such difficult and essential subjects that is all it can ever do. It certainly made me ask questions of myself, which is exactly what a film should do.