More of the birdshit rabbit guy, please.
"Are you even aware of the socio-political undertones of this film, between Thranduil, the elvin king, the Master of Laketown, and the miniature rebellions of Bard and Tauriel?"

No one is even aware of that.
My favorite thing about the Hobbit was that it later inspired a loud, angry argument with me and a nerd friend over whether or not dwarves cry and/or hug. We yelled about this loudly and in a public place, heedless of the shame which we should have rightly felt.

I was on Team Hug. Dwarves totally hug.
I thought the first Hobbit movie was okay. I am looking forward to the second movie. I am not looking forward to any of Erik Henrickson's reviews of anything sci-fi related ever, as they inevitably suck balls.

See his review of Pacific Rim, which was a kind-of stupid movie for 13 year-olds:…

Vs his review of Prometheus, an uneven movie with great parts and some bad writing:…

One of these movies was twice as good as the other one. But because Erik Henrickson can't distinguish weight of expectations vs objective quality of a movie, his opinion is stuuuuuupid.

Prometheus had big problems as a film, but parts of it were excellent and overall I would argue it was pretty good. I like to compare it to Stargate in that regard. Pulpy, but ultimately pretty good.

Pacific Rim was cartoonish and silly, but okay if you like giant cartoon monsters fighting giant cartoon robots. Incidentally, both movies had Idris Elba, so that's cool. But even if you don't buy my argument that Prometheus was twice as good as Pacific Rim, you have to agree they are at least comparable quality wise. No way is Pacific Rim waaaay better than Prometheus, or the first Hobbit movie for that matter.

What Eric Henrickson means when he says Prometheus was terrible is that is wasn't nearly as good as Blade Runner or Aliens. And what he means when he says the Hobbit sucks is that it wasn't as good as LOTR. Okay, great! I think we can all agree on that. But that doesn't mean those movies somehow becomes objectively way worse than an objective piece of crud like Pacific Rim.

Erik Henrickson's reviews of genre movies = not credible. And I'm sick of his crappy opinions polluting an otherwise quality Mercury film review section. I don't want to read film reviews written by cynical dorks who think their opinions are important when they really are just cynical crap.
^ Prometheus was the worst thing ever. Your opinions are invalid.
Pacific Rim promised me but one thing: giant robots punching giant monsters in the face. A+
Nerd war!
Glorfindel from LOTR is the same Glorfindel that slew a Balrog during the fall of Gondolin in the Silmarillion and anyone who disagrees is. fucking. wrong. Anyone who disagrees can eat Glaurung's dick.
I'm really into the new Hobbit movie. But I won't defend every aspect of it. The most problematic part, for me, is the Azog storyline. I'm cool with the film team grabbing stuff from the appendices and the silmarillion and whatever, and weaving those into the story. But with Azog they are straight up making stuff up. So far it hasn't actually changed the general storyline, though.

I don't look forward to reading Erik's review, though. No offense, Erik! I think the "ragging on Radagast" and the "it's too long" angles are a bit bland.
@ROM: It's too bad they're inserting fictional elements into these documentaries.
Graham: these aren't documentaries. These movies are based on a fictional fantasy novel called The Hobbit, by JRR Tolkien. But they also incorporate some additional storylines, also written by Tolkien. But then they also include some extra stories that are wholly written by Walsh/Jackson/Del Toro/Boyens. And I'm like, "hmm, maybe those four shouldn't be writing brand new stuff, since this is supposed to be an adaptation of a novel." Hope this clears things up for you.
@ROM: So one guy wrote made up some stories, then some other guys made up other stories and now you don't like it that these made-up stories are getting co-mingled?
Sort of. I didn't say I didn't like it. But I do find it to be problematic that the filmmakers, in their film adaptation of the original guy's made up story, are extending their artistic license so far as to resurrect a dead character and then make the character one of the main antagonists.

What if Alfonso Cuarón had resurrected Lily Potter, and then made her a teacher at Hogwarts? Please tell me if you need me to explain that analogy like you're five.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.