jaqvaar

I've been trying to find this amazing film to watch it again. I'm surprised it didn't receive more recognition over the years. It was well made and had a very strong and interesting plot (no spoilers, ok). The acting was powerful and the characters varied and interesting.

It is one of these films you'd expect to be taught at film school, or at least some gender studies course, as the role of the woman in an apocalyptic scenario is the main topic in this case. It raises many interesting questions and makes you think about society in general. And tells you a lot about how people answered such questions in 1990 (even that in itself is something to contemplate).

It deserved a lot more I think, and I'd really like to find it and watch it again someday.

I've watched movies that got 3 stars here on IMDb and they were better than this. This movie is one of the worst I've ever seen, certainly the worst Diaz, Segel or Lowe movie. What a waste of talent! It's not the unjustified profanity that bothered me, not even the nudity, which puts it somewhere on par with low-quality soft porn. It wasn't the blatant and obvious advertising of the company that paid $40mil for the making of this piece of junk. The worst part is that, even after you ignore all of the above, what you're left with is a corny, predictable plot which fails to be funny. The jokes are few and far between, the sex scenes are neither sexy nor funny, and everything else just sucks. It seems like an honest attempt to win the "Worst Movie Of All Time" award. If you liked the theme, try "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" (2008) which is really funny and highly underrated.

I took my son to see this as a Christmas treat for him. And discovered three things about the Hobbit I did not know before:

1) As expected, it was better than any of the LoTR films. This is partly because the technology has been developed in the last few years, partly because Jackson and his crew have done this before, and partly because, let's face it, the Hobbit was a better story to start with. At least when it comes to a fun, children-oriented fairytale.

2) 3D is not for people who already have 4 eyes, such as myself. It's OK if you wear contact lenses I guess, but it's impossible to fit the 3D glasses over or under your normal glasses and get a proper focus. The movie is long and I eventually got a headache and did not enjoy it as much as I would have. It was my second attempt at 3D, and I think it will be my last in the foreseeable future. So, if you wear glasses, go for the 2D version, which I am sure will be just as fun.

3) But the most amazing thing I discovered around 2 hours into the movie, when the heroes did not seem to be getting anywhere near their final objective, is that this is only 1/3 of the Hobbit story. It's going to be another trilogy! I'm sorry, but I cannot go once a year for 3 years in the hope of eventually watching the movie by 2015. Oh come on now! I could understand it when it comes to LoTR, which after all was a 1000-page book they had to bind in 3 tomes (which is why it has been mistaken for a trilogy). But the Hobbit is a much shorter, straightforward story. I'm sure they could have told it in 3-4 hours without chopping out any major parts. In fact, I'm pretty sure they added extra subplots to fill up the time.

But in any case, all in all I'll have to give this movie a 10, despite my own objections to the length and format. For what it is, it was brilliantly done, taking the viewer once more on a magnificent journey to Middle Earth. And, unlike the LotR movies (especially the last one), this one is family-friendly and can be easily watched by non-fans and children of all ages.