Yeah, so, on Sunday, mighty, mighty good man David, my brother Eric and I saw “The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug.” On our way to the theater, David and I realized we haven’t seen a movie in the theater since the last “Hobbit” movie. Pretty sad considering I used to see every movie.
So anyway, if you like the “Lord of the Rings” movies I’m sure you will like this one. I read “The Hobbit” 20 years ago. I remember almost nothing about it, other than Bilbo, Gollum, the ring and the dragon, so I find the new movies to be perfectly entertaining popcorn movies. I don’t love them like the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. I don’t imagine I will watch “The Hobbit” movies if I see them on TNT the way I do when I see “Lord of the Rings” is on, even though we own it and I could watch it without commercials.
Also, if you are a “Lord of the Rings” purist, you will probably take issue with a lot of it, including an elf-dwarf love story that made David roll his eyes so hard I actually heard it. Personally, I appreciate that Peter Jackson added a female character to a very male-centric movie; HOWEVER, he added a female character and immediately gave her love interest, because a female character in a movie without a love interest would be totally ridiculous, you guys. I mean, what would she do? What would her motives be? I mean, she would just fight against evil because she’s an awesome warrior and cares about the world? Ha ha. That’s crazy talk.
Like I said, I did enjoy the movie, though. I really did. I did leave the movie with a few questions, though.
Why are some of the dwarves kinda hunky and the other ones look like dwarves? See?
One of the dwarves is the king, so I guess he needs to be hunky? Another dwarf has an elf love interest, so he needs to be hunky, because a woman would never love someone that wasn’t hunky. And then there’s another dwarf that looks vaguely hunky, and I think that’s because he is supposed to be related to the other hunky ones. It would be unrealistic if — in this movie that features a shape shifter, a wizard and a dragon — for this dwarf to not be kinda hunky when his brothers are. It’s genetics, people.
My other question is this: Why are “The Hobbit” movies so damn long?
“The Hobbit” isn’t a very long book. I understand wanting to milk the “Lord of the Rings” series for every dollar you can, so I get why they are stretching it out over three movies. BUT, why do each of the movies have to like three hours long? If you are already stretching the source material pretty thin, don’t you keep the movie to two hours so you can make it last? In this movie, I had to run to the restroom TWICE. Both time I waited until the Gandalf scenes, because – spoiler alert – Gandalf finds a reason to ditch everyone AGAIN, and go on his own adventure, and not help the people that he practically begged to go on the quest in the first place.
Once again, let me say, I did like the movie. I really did. I’m really looking forward to the third one. No really. I am.