@head: The Council of Elrond decided that even Bombadil might eventually be overpowered by the forces of Sauron...or that he might forget how important the ring was and flick it into a thistle patch...or that he might pawn it in Bree for cash to go on a bender.
So apparently, this film is kind of terrible.
A common criticism of this film has been that, while LOTR was trimmed down, this film has been bloated with extra material. I'd like to remind people that, although the original film trilogy is great and deservedly beloved, it also threw in quite a bit of extra material and changed some events entirely while sacrificing important bits of story. The barrow wights and Tom Bombadil from Fellowship? Gone. Sam becoming a temporary Ring-bearer in Return? Gone. The Scouring of the Shire? Gone. Instead we had an over emphasis on the Aragorn-Arwen relationship, the Aragorn-Eowyn relationship, Frodo being brought to Osgiliath (never happened), Aragorn's near-death experience (never happened), and bloated battle scenes where Legolas does something cool. These could be considered detrimental to these films, but a lot of what was added was based on Tolkien material (appendices, notes, The Silmarillion) and ended up adding to the story and the emotional impact. Still, Jackson had his fun with silly moments of slapstick and battle shots that made you think "Cool!" the first time and want to slap yourself afterwards.
The difference with this film is that we're getting the whole story, no sacrifices, with all the elements from Tolkien's notes, appendices, and The Silmarillion. The Hobbit book is largely nonsensical by itself. Where does Gandalf go when he inexplicably leaved the group time and again. What is he up to? What's the deal with that Necromancer? What is everyone's real motive? Why the hell does a quest to slay a dragon and recover stolen treasure lead to the Battle of Five Armies? This movie adaptation is giving us these answers that have been clued in over years of Tolkien's writings, but were not in the original book. It is not "filler." It is not fucking "hamburger helper." Jackson and his team are giving us the whole picture of events that led up to Lord of the Rings in the span of The Hobbit's timeline.
And yes, they're having fun with it and putting in a little silliness here and there, just as they did with the original trilogy. That awful dwarf song about washing dishes, though...straight from the book. I read that scene for the first time while tripping on mushrooms. I laughed my ass off. I'd consider it an abomination for it to not be included.
Bombadil could have just held the ring and it would have been over and chill, right?
Antonio: Merde was directed by Carax, the director of Holy Motors. Merde also appears as a character in Holy Motors, maybe a reference to his earlier work or an homage to it. Either way, his part in HM is different that it was in the Merde short film that appeared in Tokyo! (side note: the exclamation point is part of the title)
(SOME SPOILERS-ish AHEAD)
I absolutely love Carax's style. And this is the sort of movie where you could take a lot of different things away from it, but the way it opens--a sleeping audience in an arthouse theatre, appearing in front of us as if it's a mirror of ourselves, the audience--I think a lot of what Carax is saying has to do with modern cinema and modern audiences. About where we came from, and where we are going.
Some nerd is mad, it sounds.
Todd - Is this a deliberate attempt at a joke? It is hard for me to tell sometimes these days. Bombadil appears nowhere in the timeline of The Hobbit, and while much was added into Jacksons vision for the adaptation for the sake of coming out of it with a trilogy.. at least everything that occurs is within the timeline of events as they occur in Middle Earth.
As for the review, meh, it seemed like a deliberate attempt to incite NerdRage. But frankly, just in the way he invokes the word "Nerd", he loses any attempts at humor or provocation he was making. Even the most hardcore of the old guard, basement dwelling, unwashed Nerds have come to terms with the fact that the term itself has been thoroughly dulled of any effect it may have ever had as an insult and is now little more then a brand name for scores of people jumping into formerly "Nerd" waters like so many New England whiteboys buying Tommy Hilfiger gear in the 90's.
Is Bombadil in any of these? Since he wasn't in LOTR I think he should be. I'm thinking William H. Macy, and Lindsay Lohan in a bad wig as Goldberry.
You know, I think I'm just gonna wait for the Blu. Sounds like the bitter parts will go down better with several beers and some pipe weed.
Same director. Same character (sort of). Completely different kind of film.
Carax is one of the great filmmakers of our era, so consider this must see (the uninitiated might want to swing by their local video store and pick up "Mauvais Sang" or "Lovers on the Bridge" first).
There is a class at PSU about Hitchcock. All the bitch teacher wants to do is try and tear down the great artist. Using the movie Sabotage (1936) for one class, all she could say was how sexist he was for aiming the camera a bit, too, long on the actresses knees. She said, "oh, there is the little boy. He is cute and all, but it's still a sexist film."
What she totally didn't get, was that the little boy was abused as hell in all his scenes, and we the audience in class all laughed our asses off about it.
In another film Suspicion (1941), the teacher complained that the villain was a women who savagely stabbed somebody to death. Everybody in class couldn't blame the leading lady at all, because the guy she killed, really had it coming to him.
Hitchcock victimized women and children because they so vulnerable to big bad scary monsters. In the movie Rear Window (1954) Jimmy Stewart had his leg in a cast. Hitchcock did that so that Stewart would be more vulnerable, unable to run away from the killer.
Alfred Hitchcock interviewed by Tom Snyder
I saw this on a film called TOKYO it was one film of a collective 4. They called it MERDE.
Todd, you are correct about that. I've researched Ed Gein myself and drew the same conclusion.
It's so bad it's on groupon http://www.groupon.com/deals/film-district-1?p=1&utm_source=channel_occasions_GXD-deals&utm_medium=email&sid=58b0a43a-c622-4112-8378-da21d68f2b0a&division=portland&user=a0d6474ff52b3cec00a235038632ad1e898b8752c6f1f6e39cc18455dde57138&date=20121206&s=body&c=image&d=occasions_deal
I'll have to at least rent it to see how they present ol' Eddie Gein. (BTW, Gein seems to have only committed two murders, so it's a stretch to call him a serial killer. He was definitely a ghoul, though.)
50 years ago today (December 6, 1962), Hitchcock’s “The Hangover” aired for the first time. Adman Hadley Purvis (Tony Randall) facing a divorce, wakes up after a bender, with a girl named Marian (Jayne Mansfield) . Watch the whole episode. http://www.50yearsago.net/alfred-hitchcock…
I'm going tomorrow, Gandolfini as a hitman, sign me up.
This was the best movie review I have ever read. I like these these two.
'To Have and Have Not', is my absolute favorite movie of all time.
"Another screwy dame."
The world's issues cannot be solved the comments section either. Just FYI.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |