½*/**** Image A Sound A+ Extras B
starring Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Andy Serkis
screenplay by Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson & Guillermo Del Toro, based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien
directed by Peter Jackson
by Walter Chaw Shot at a vaunted 48 frames-per-second to
better approximate the television soap opera its mammoth length suggests, Peter
Jackson's vainglorious trainwreck The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
(hereafter "Hobbit 1") looks for all intents and purposes like
its own porn knock-off. A technological "advancement" that is to the
naked eye identical to any episode of reality television or live sporting event
you've been watching in your living room for years, the 48fps "breakthrough"
was for Jackson a way of making the increasingly unpopular new-gen 3-D a little
bit less crappy. It's like putting a dress on a pig. Understand, complaints
about "HFR" are not akin to the bellyaching about colour film or
CinemaScope, since those innovations didn't actively cheapen the moviegoing experience. The irony of all that being, of course, that while the
image indeed doesn't stutter or blur as much in 3-D, what we're forced to
look at is overlit, obviously artificial, and reminded me more than once of
the jarringly amateurish "Star Wars Holiday Special".
|
A problem only if you're (un)lucky enough to have a theatre
near you with the technology and resignation to exhibit the film in the full
glory of Jackson's folly, Hobbit 1 is of course merely the first three
hours in what is probably going to be nine total hours invested in adapting a
300-page children's book to the big screen. It includes all the appendices,
snippets from The Silmarillion, a manufactured villain, and numerous
reminders that the work upon which it's based is light on arcs (emotional and
plot, alike). Even at an extended length, the picture fails to flesh out its
characters much, succeeding mainly in making the dwarves seem like a ridiculous
sideshow attraction given to mad rushes and feats of appetite, while central
player Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is Freeman's long-perfected fastidious British
fop. The most curious thing about the whole benighted farrago may be the way
that 48fps makes Ian McKellen's tender, magisterial Gandalf look like the
community theatre's best actor captured on home video.
Perhaps knowing that
stretching out The Hobbit like this is suspiciously avaricious (if this were Green Eggs and Ham,
the film would stop at approximately the point at which you would not eat them
with a fox), the movie offers a couple of sidebars to imply that future instalments
will feature the corruption of Mirkwood despite the intervention of addled wizard
Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), and a hushed council composed of Gandalf,
Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving, not Korean in this one, but
maybe Vulcan), and Saruman (Christopher Lee) that essentially says, "You've
already seen the real trilogy, suckers." A pity that Hobbit 1 will
ultimately be most remembered as yet another doomed project that robbed
Guillermo Del Toro of a couple years of prime productivity. And after
Jackson's disastrous, pandering The Lovely Bones, comparisons of Hobbit
1 to Episode I and of Jackson to George Lucas land uncomfortably
close to the bone.
The story finds twelve homeless dwarves and their
elderly caseworker kidnapping a vest-wearing English twat and forcing him to
help them steal back a giant stash of gold that some monster has allegedly
taken from them. It's a task easier said than done, as their quest involves a
lot of walking, some camping, a trio of slapstick trolls defeated in a way that
is nowhere near as clever as it is in the book, a senseless sturm und drang fight
between rock giants, and, just for this movie, an arch-villain, albino orc Azog (growled by Manu Bennett). The need for Jackson and company to manufacture
an BigBad is accompanied of course by the need for Jackson and company to
manufacture a grim fantasy hero, and so dwarf Thorin Oakenshield (Richard
Armitage) is made to be an asshole instead of hilarious. He's called "oaken
shield" because he uses a log as a shield. Which is fine until one sort of
magically appears on his arm long after such improvisation would have been
necessary–see, now it's an affection; he's just showing off. Many will
proclaim the riddle sequence with Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis; so sick of
his shit) the highlight of the film–and they'd be right, given that a large
portion of Hobbit 1 is a bunch of dwarves running across slat bridges while
fighting a grotesque, wattled Great Goblin (Barry Humphries, because Ian McShane
was voicing some other humiliating project). They'd call it the highlight,
really, because it's difficult to invest three hours in something without
trying to divine one good reason for having done it.
Unforgivably protracted, unbearably familiar, Hobbit
1 lacks the sense of wonder and gravity of any portion of Jackson's Lord of
the Rings trilogy. There's a scene where the dwarves clean up their dinner
by throwing the crockery and washing dishes to the consternation of
stick-up-me-bum Bilbo, for God's sake, followed by a real-time post-consumption
pipe-smoking and song-singing, causing me to briefly hope that some Led
Zeppelin lyrics ("Misty Mountain Hop"?) would make an appearance
just to provide a moment's respite from all the opulent, self-satisfied
self-indulgence. The worst isn't the additions to the source material, in other
words–the worst is that when it's not suturing shit willy-nilly to the he's-not-gonna-make-it-doctor
carcass of the piece, it's dedicated to filming every single comma, period, and
weak resolution that J.R.R. Tolkien hardwired into his minor opus. Nothing in the book
or movie is resolved honourably; rather, those frickin deus ex Giant
Eagles save the day, or a rock falls the right way, or the sun rises, or, hey,
there goes my traveling party–wait up, guys! It's sloppy writing translated
into sloppy filmmaking and magnified, sped-up, and brightened
preternaturally so that it approximates what I could do with my
smartphone and a ton of cheap makeup. There's no magic in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, no sense of wonder, and of all the crimes it commits,
the biggest is the one against wonder. There's a Proust quote that goes
something like, "Trying to understand eroticism by looking at a naked
woman is like trying to understand time by taking apart a watch." The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is clockwork guts, copper and springs. It's a disaster. Originally published: December 13, 2012.
THE BLU-RAY DISC
by Bill Chambers The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey docks on both the Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D formats from Warner Home
Video. This review refers to the 2-D release. The film was infamously shot at
48fps, but strictly speaking there's not yet a way to replicate HFR at home (one could
simulate it by turning up the Hz on one's TV, but why would one do
that?), so the Blu-ray transfer ditches every other frame, just as the
"flat" and IMAX versions did in theatres. Despite this, there's no
choppiness to what's on screen–I'd go so far as to call the 2.40:1, 1080p
image cinematic, though it's so razor-sharp it threatens to put the plastic
in fantastic cinema. Alas, Middle-Earth is a fully digital realm now, and I try
not to fault a video presentation for being faithful to questionable
aesthetics. Faint traces of noise are ultimately just that; dynamic range is
stupendous. The accompanying 7.1 DTS-HD MA track is ferocious if, and giving it
the benefit of my doubt, perhaps a bit more cacophonous downmixed for 5.1 than
it is in all its 7.1 glory. In any case, dialogue is lamentably clear, while the soundstage
achieves real, impressive transparency.
A second BD warehouses ten "video
blogs"–"Start of Production," "Location Scouting,"
"Shooting Block One," "Filming in 3D," "Locations Part
I," "Locations Part II," "Stone St. Studios Tour,"
"Wrap of Principal Photography," "Post-Production
Overview," " Wellington World Premiere"–originally produced for
the web. In spite of their teasing nature and spoiler-phobia, they manage to
entertain and, occasionally, edify. I didn't know, for instance, that Andy
Serkis stayed behind to direct second-unit after filming his part as Gollum.
(Serkis admits to struggling with his signature role this time around.) But the takeaway
from this 127-minute 'diary,' other than the sideshow fascination of Peter
Jackson's fluctuating weight, is the offscreen chemistry between the dwarves,
which echoes the camaraderie between members of the "fellowship"
captured behind the scenes of the original trilogy. There's a joy here that's
absent from, or that at least feels prefabricated in, The Hobbit: Yadda
Yadda Yadda proper (an irreverence, too: actor James Nesbitt takes the piss
out of Tolkien's songs, comparing them to Cole Porter), although Jackson looks
and acts so depleted I'm not surprised that all the film communicates is
fatigue. "New Zealand: Home of Middle-Earth" (7 mins., HD), which
opens with a startlingly slim Philippa Boyens expressing Kiwi pride, is fairly
up front in its desire to promote tourism; it joins six (!) trailers for the
film plus trailers for the games "Kingdoms of Middle-Earth",
"Guardians of Middle-Earth", and "Lego Lord of the Rings"
in rounding out the disc. The set includes DVD and Ultraviolet copies of The
Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, in addition to a secret access code to view the trailer for the first sequel when it goes live next week.
![Blade II (2002) [New Line Platinum Series] - DVD](https://filmfreakcentral.net/wp-content/plugins/contextual-related-posts/default.png "Blade II (2002) [New Line Platinum Series] - DVD")
So it is a bloated monster with a love of gold? Who knew the film was so meta.
Well, how do you like that? This might be the first time it takes longer to watch the movie than read the book. Isn’t it wonderful?
Isn’t Bilbo ‘the lucky number’ 14? So, shouldn’t it be thirteen homeless dwarves?
Sorry to be that kind of person. Otherwise excellent as usual.
This review is appalling. My goodness, is it ever awful… It’s like listening to an 8-year-old talk about why he/she doesn’t like school. It’s completely ignorant! Clearly Walter Chaw has his own “stick-up-me-bum” thing going on. I mean, seriously? It seems like it’s being hated on for the fact that it’s different from the book. What a pathetic excuse to call is “bad”. Long story short, this review is nothing but a disgrace to the art of writing a review.
The movie was a masterpiece. Take it from somebody who actually appreciates creativity and innovation.
(@StevenSpassov)
I stopped reading when he said he was sick of Andy Serkis. That’s…just no.
worst review of all time. lmao .5/4? wow…
just stop and find a new career bro
Sort of agree with the assessment of the film, but I think the jab at Andy Serkis needs more elaboration. “Sick of his shit,” meaning… annoyed that he’s the go-to guy for mocap? Or that he’s a bad actor? Or that he interpreted the “gollum” noise wrong and it kills a little bit of your soul each time he does it? What’s the deal? I like him personally but moreover am baffled that anybody could actually have a vendetta against him.
My goodness, was Steven Spassov’s review of this review ever awful and completely ignorant?
I have a feeling I enjoyed this review more than I will the film. I think Peter Jackson is a nice guy and that doesn’t necessarily make for a strong director. I suspect he’s dominated by Fran Walsh, afraid to tell her ‘no’ and thus his films are suffering. Her scripts are as bloated and undisciplined as she is.
@jason
ha.
what is with Walter Chaw and run-on sentences? Jesus Walter put down the thesaurus and go read some fucking Hemingway already. You have interesting things to say but your writing style is insufferable.
Three installments of The Hobbit? The Hobbit was never an epic. It’s basically a kid’s story. An elaborate kid’s story no doubt. But, still. My view is movie going is a visceral experience. So what am I going to be experiencing viscerally while watching hours on end of dwarf-bonding and hobbity daring do? Perhaps what those queer folk (to borrow from Tolkein) feel whilst waiting in line for tickets to the next Star Wars, acting out their favourite scenes. In full garb. And that scares me. Not that there’s anything wrong with it.
That said, I enjoyed LoTR. It had enough of a mix of characters that provided some weight. If I had to spend hours with the hobbits in that movie I would probably start to feel like a silly goose.
“Take it from somebody who actually appreciates creativity and innovation. ”
steve spassov…thanks for posting the most halariously idiotic comment in the history of the internet.
as much as i often agree with you, Walter, i knew this was one movie you were gonna hate and i was gonna love. simply put, i thought it was great storytelling (insomuch as the slight source material allows, and almost all the changes made were smart ones in terms of trying to bridge the huge gap between The Hobbit text and LotR) and often virtuosic filmmaking and, for whatever its problems, i think there’s enough heart and technical merit to give it at least one or two stars and not act like it’s worse than a lot of the other blockbuster tripe out there. because it really isn’t.
HFR is a totally optional experience. as you noted, at the very least it makes 3D better. at best, you get a sequence like the stone giants which in HFR 3D is an experience like seeing a snippet of Shadow of the Colossus translated into something that–though totally surreal in content–practically feels like it’s happening in real-life right before your eyes. but, yeah, it makes the movie not look like a movie at all and that can be very distracting and an obstacle to being immersed in the movie as escapism. whatever the case, though, i don’t think a viewing option should have that much of a bearing on what you rate a film, and your review kinda comes across like it did, like HFR dropped it from two stars to half-a-star or something like that.
it’s fine to complain about deus ex machina but i’m not sure the Troll scene qualifies (they have to use their wits to delay the Trolls and then Gandalf enables the sun to hit before the Trolls realize it’s coming) and the Eagles–yes, they are a deus ex machina, but at least they are consistently so throughout Tolkien’s texts, to the point where they start to transcend being just a bail-out and kind of get at the heart of what the term “deus ex machina” refers to. if PJ hadn’t included the eagles here, fans would have been in uproar about total infidelity to the text, and you may have thought that would be the preferable choice, but not to appreciate the beauty with which the scene was translated into a cinematic sequence seems just a tad unfair. to insinuate that this scene had no sense of wonder or magic, well, sorry, but i got that sense big-time…and also during the prologue and the stone-giants sequence that you so casually dismiss.
it seems like HFR really ruined any hope the movie had of reeling you in because a lot of the comments you make in this review just kind of glance off what was actually going on in the movie and the reasons the filmmakers had for their choices, whether you agree with those choices or not. but then again, this super-sized prequel may have been doomed from the start as far as your perspective on it goes. i suspected as much but am sorry that you disliked it to the extent of giving it no credit at all. i was hoping that your appreciation for PJ’s King Kong might provide a bridge to appreciating this kind of gargantuan adventure with an emphasis on fun but some earnest moments, too. i really think that compared to KK, AUJ is just as ingenious and ambitious in its spectacle and action and as beautifully simple in its characters and theme (as the Empire review noted, Bilbo’s little speech to the dwarves about helping them reclaim their home is a minor stroke of genius on the part of the writing team–Bilbo choosing to stay on this perilous adventure that takes him farther and farther away from the home he cherishes so he can help bring the dwarves closer to theirs).
@cb: “to insinuate that this scene had no sense of wonder or magic, well, sorry, but i got that sense big-time…and also during the prologue and the stone-giants sequence that you so casually dismiss.”
I don’t think Walter’s issue with the troll sequence was the deus ex machina of it, but that the dialogue between Bilbo and the trolls was a lot cleverer in the books, which got somewhat lost in translation.
i just re-read the book before seeing the movie and i don’t see how what’s in the book is any more clever than what’s in the movie. and what’s in the book is actually more of a deus ex machina as Bilbo and the dwarves basically are done for and then Gandalf does some ventriloquism work in the troll’s voices to get them fighting each other until suddenly the sun hits them (not to mention that the dwarves kinda stupidly wander in to get sacked a few at a time) and Bilbo is initially sent in to burglar from the trolls on the flimsiest of premises (whereas in the film he is sent to save the ponies). and, in the book, there’s a talking purse that gets one line so as to foil Bilbo’s burgle attempt. this scene is just one example of how saying that there were no improvements made in adapting this text into a movie is giving the filmmakers far too little credit. what Tolkien wrote worked as a simple kid’s tale but does not work in the larger context of his work and LotR, just as a straight-up adaptation would not have worked in a post-LotR movie climate. but either you want to see these movies and what they contain or you’ve already had your Tolkien fill. that’s fine. it’s just weird that in this review Chaw criticizes PJ both for straying in general from the original text and for not straying enough from the text. i’ve seen this same self-contradiction in a few other respected critics’ reviews, and i hate to say it, but i think they are missing the forest for the trees and getting confused in the process. this movie is trying to strike a balance between the character of the book and the character and scope of Tolkien’s larger mythology and narrative. obviously, this attempt at such a balance is not working for a lot of critics, including Walter. but it worked for me and i think it will greatly enrich this particularly story’s own pathos once we come to the journey’s end, not to mention enrich the LotR trilogy by providing this rich groundwork for what came before in the discovery of the ring. WhatCulture had a great piece on the 8 Reasons they thought this was the best movie of the year, and they touch upon the pitch-perfect moment where Bilbo spares Gollum’s life. there is value in this movie taking its time, letting moments breathe in a way that LotR couldn’t since it had so much narrative to fly through. as they say, God is in the details.
“it’s just weird that in this review Chaw criticizes PJ both for straying in general from the original text and for not straying enough from the text.”
The movie spends so long on unimportant bits of the book’s minutia, then sees fit to add useless fluff in other parts. What it gets right doesn’t matter and what it adds doesn’t either. This film is a train-wreck of style and substance. It offers nothing new to the franchise and is even more of a massive step back in terms of coherent storytelling than we saw as the original trilogy passed into mediocrity with each successive film.
This isn’t a review so much as it’s a guy bitching about Tolkien’s writing (and completely missing the point of it). Bravo! And for all the Deux Ex Machina we see in the movie, it’s actually been toned down compared to the novel. Furthermore, there’s 13 dwarves. If we spent more time fleshing out the characters, there’d be no adventure, at all. You ever see Seven Samurai? How well were those characters fleshed out? I’d rather watch the Hobbit over and over than read another one of your terrible reviews.
Oh for goodness’ sake, people.
Is it really going to take you all five years before you’ll be able to look back and think “Wow. That movie was clumsy, worthless and awful. What was I thinking?”
Because, you know, this movie really is clumsy, worthless and awful, and all your whining right now is going to look funny as hell once the long aftermath hits.
Oh, and FFC? PUH-LEAZE restore the hate mail section for the Star Wars prequel. I miss it very badly.
Nicholas, the film doesn’t need to flesh out every character, but it does need to decide what they hell it is about. This first installment looks like the script was made by tossing the book in a blender then messily gluing it all back together. There are no coherent motivations, goals, or character arcs. Seven Samurai doesn’t try to set you up with the pretense of the individuals. ‘Hobbit’ wants you to care for a titular character with no motivation and giving land to an asshole king with less personality than the shield he shares his name with.
Here you go, @Bob – http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/12/attack-of-the-drones.html
Now that’s prompt service! Thanks very much, Bill.
You’ve made my day.
Hopefully everyone will soon realize that Jackson’s LOTR movies weren’t that good. I really wanted them to get this one right, by not hiring Jackson! His big budget films lack atmosphere and magic.
A few thoughts of my mine to flesh out my odium for this film.
First. Characters. This movie is called “The Hobbit,” if you are going to take liberties and flesh out a character it should be the titular hobbit. It isn’t called Epic Dwarf Movie. We really needed to know and care about Bilbo as a character for this film to work.
Second. Exposition. Movies are a visual art form. It’s show not tell. The amount of exposition in this film was unforgivable. Granted LOTR was heavy on the exposition but it always fit in the context of the film. Characters expositing (sic) during the council of Rivendell is fine, a random dwarf telling us Thorin’s whole back story while he poses dramatically on the side of a mountain is not. It is just lazy writing.
Third. Motivation. Characters need some motivation, this goes for the good guys and the bad guys (even most monsters). Other than a vague sense of “my life is boring” Bilbo has none. Why the albino orc chief wants to wipe out of the line of Durin is vague at best. Same with the Goblin-King. Why did he try to capture the dwarves in the first place? He only found out after the fact that he had Thorin and he was worth something.
Four. Tone. While many viewers seemed to think the riddle scene was the highlight of the film, it felt misplaced in this film. It was a complete tonal shift from everything before and after and had little impact on the plot of the film. If you are going to do multiple films this fits much better as the prologue to the second act. More broadly pick what you want your film to be and make that film. The dwarves doing dishes, the three stooges trolls, Radagast the Brown, the singing Goblin King (can I just call him Jabba?), the dwarf with the slingshot all belonged in one movie, a light-hearted action-adventure romp, perhaps even one aimed at children. Thorin, the mini-council at Rivendell, the ring, and the albino orc all belonged in another film, an epic film, perhaps one called Lord of the Rings. Make one or the other, when you try to do both it comes off as a sloppy incoherent mess.
Five. Action. Considering the masterful set pieces that littered the LOTR films, the ineptitude of the action scenes in the Hobbit was shocking. I could go on all day here but I would simply invite you to rewatch the Moria tomb fight from Fellowship and the Battle of Helm’s Deep from Two Towers and reflect on the difference between an action scene that is set-up, paced, developed, and resolved vs an extended shot of dwarves running and mowing down CG goblins (I felt like I was watching someone play Diablo II). There was no tension or excitement to these actions scenes, I found myself laughing at them.
Overall the problems aren’t the framerate, or the length, or even the source material. The problems are the film making.
Good write-up, Jason. You really flesh out the way I felt about this movie. It isn’t just disappointing as a poor movie, but simply subpar and downright lazy film-making. ‘Shocked’ is indeed the right word. As much as I was afraid of how much P. Jackson would indulge himself in this film, his other films were at least competent. In other words, I expected even more of the droning exposition and schizophrenic storytelling that marred the LotR trilogy, but The Hobbit delivered it at a deplorable, dollar-bin level.
it’s not gonna take me five years because i know a good action-adventure movie when i see one.
but, then again, i have a soft spot for PJ and Tolkien both, so i won’t claim objectivity. the bashing of the filmmaking is wildly overstated, though, because some people here aren’t taking enough time to think about the reasons for the decisions made or to evalute it within the context of the rest of the story to come. and getting worked up about the movie’s fun moments.
if you can’t appreciate the level of filmmaking and storytelling at work in the “Riddles in the Dark” scene, then you are clearly just out to hate.
but i get it, this movie and/or this approach to the story isn’t for everyone. what befuddles me is that someone who gave King Kong 4 stars could think that this film is a whole 3 1/2 stars worse. Tone, technical virtuosity, lots of CGI, elaborate, over-the-top setpieces, level of characterization and theme, a slow-paced first hour followed up with abundant action and character moments interspersed…i mean, outside of the characters and worlds they are very similar. maybe Walter doesn’t like King Kong any more. or maybe he’s just that fed up with Middle Earth. or maybe he doesn’t like dwarves.
“There are no coherent motivations, goals, or character arcs.”
and this is just blatantly false. i dunno how the movie could be any more clear about the motivations, goals, and character arcs without venturing into ham-fisted territory.
I can’t believe you didn’t remark on the godawful music. Omnipresent, invasive, atrocious saccharine music. Everywhere. Ugh.
I went to see this as part of a family outing, and didn’t care for it, but felt the same about all the LOTR movies. This one seemed no worse. I will give it credit on one point: the 166 minutes went by mercifully fast. I’ve been tortured by many 90-minute films that felt longer.
Just a couple of thoughts to add to the furor:
1. I felt like a hungrier director with more to prove would have done more with the riddles scene. There’s so much potential there for something weirder and more intense, with that strange mixture of humour and sick tension that’s right there in the source, especially given the inherent “classic match-up” factor that anyone who saw Gollum as a highlight of LOTR would be feeling. Am I right in thinking that this may have been the most anticipated scene of the whole trilogy? And what we get is this flat high school play staging. I felt like I came to this movie with very grounded expectations, pretty much having decided to enjoy it no matter what, and I would say this scene popped out as the only real surprise disappointment (that includes the pale orc thing, which just seems cynical on PJ’s part). Walter’s right about everything, although the harsh on Serkis seemed a bit out of nowhere. i guess the split personality thing is becoming a bit two-dimensional, like he’s leaning on it a little hard? Maybe Walter could elaborate.
and
2. did anyone else get the zionist parable thing? guys with prominent noses longing to return to a lost homeland, league of rich white people deciding things behind the scenes, rescued in a tight spot by giant eagles? listen, i don’t want this reading either, but once you’ve seen it you can’t unsee it. i just can’t decide if i’m supposed to be more offended by the zionists as gold-hungry midgets or by palestinians as the horrible smaug.
My two word review: Bore-bo Baggins.
Wrong on the deux ex machina. Tolkien addressed that idea in his essay “On Fairy Stories.” He coined the phrase “eucatastrophe,” the darkest moment when everything reverses. Tolkien survived WWI and lost all his friends in it. He was no Pollyanna. But he believed life had purpose and meaning. This is of course poison to nihilistic white American guys who think hope is bullshit. It takes a bored and remarkably safe culture like ours to believe that any hint of providence in a stoy is somehow inauthentic.
I thought the movie was basically shit, but let’s not blame it on Tolkien’s writing. This reminds me of all the fantasy fans who hate LOTR because it’s too black and white. Just because the Orcs don’t rape Frodo anally when they capture him doesn’t make it black and white. Tolkien’s ideas of good and evil were highly nuanced and remarkably complex. Jackson misinterprts him at all the wrong points, playing to our 21st century naval-gazing milieux and making the primary conflicts internalized: will the hobbits overcome their self-doubt and low self-esteem in order to overcome the bad guys? Sometimes external conflict is okay.
Anyway…I love your writing and your site. But I disagree with it a lot.
Pardon my posting here, but although the re-uploads of old reviews and DVD spots are cool and all, and I like the new scrolling format of the site, it’s been two weeks since you’ve guys have done a review of a new release (the last was March 7th and Walter’s awesome review of “Oz the Great and Powerful”, I believe). This is such a bummer because I feel like this has become a pattern recently, and well, there are so many films that come out each week, good and bad, that could use your guys insight. Like “Olympus Has Fallen” that just came out. Yeah sure, it looks like garbage, but often times when I’ve felt that way about a picture, your reviews have swayed me to put money down and buy a ticket. That’s how great of writers you all are.
@Brando: Appreciate the hunger for fresh(er) content. Explanations would look like excuses; this is just one of our fallow periods, unfortunately.
@BillC, no worries, thanks for your response.