(no subject)

[eee1313]

I could go to see Les Miserables tonight with my sister- and mother-in-law. It starts in 45 minutes. However, I'm exhausted, I didn't shower this morning, and now that I think about it I'm fairly certain I never put on deodorant or brushed my teeth. (We all camped out on the floor of my in-laws' for NYE, so everything today has been a bit of a haze. And no, I'm not hung over; I barely drank. I'm just tired and achy from sleeping on the floor.) Anyway, I think I'll probably pass on the movie. The Scientist is even more tired than I am, and I think I'd feel guilty leaving him for nearly 3 hours with the baby.

I'll see it eventually. That, and The Hobbit: An Unnecessary Trilogy.

Comments

[nutmeg3.livejournal.com]

<< The Hobbit: An Unnecessary Trilogy. >>

OMG, yes! There's barely enough there for one movie, two was stretching it, and when I heard there were going to be three I threw up my hands in disgust at the display of ego (PJ), creative complacency (PJ) and greed (the studio). I don't honestly care if I never see it.

[eee1313.livejournal.com]

Well, I just got back from it, and as someone who hasn't read the book in over 20 years I have to say that I enjoyed it. Sure, it could use some significant editing down. But it was nice to see the Shire and Rivendell again. And Frodo and Elrond. (They made me happy.)

Honestly, it felt as if it were a director's cut gone straight to the big screen. My husband, who was raised on the books, did not like it as much as I did. (That's being generous. I asked him "So what did you think?" He replied simply "I'm pissed.") He didn't like the bloating of the film and how padding the story out across three films ended up making Bilbo more of a wuss that he should have been. Frankly, I think that two movies would have been enough to show what was needed AND give extra padding/backstory without feeling "director's cut"-like. But I did find it enjoyable.