“Why is he splitting them up?”
“Why are they so long?”
“Why must he take something we love and ruin it?”
No these are not reviews for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. They were the assumed reaction of the tens of people who read Part 1 of my 2012 wrap up; where I dissected the year of Channing Tatum, had two Lincolns square off, and looked at one of the two live action Snow White adaptations. Part 2 will start with…
2 Films, 20 Dwarfs
Snow White and the Huntsman featured Chris Hemsworth as a hunter whose prey is apparently trees since his weapon of choice is an axe, and Kristen Stewart as a Snow White who went to the distinguished school of parted lip acting. There’s a love triangle that nobody cares about – and I’m not talking about director Rupert Sanders, K. Stew, and R. Patt – and Charlize Theron acting with as much subtly as a nuclear explosion. The dwarfs were entertaining but tragically underused.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was what I expected. It’s similar to The Lord of the Rings trilogy in a lot of ways but is not as good as any of them. Where we came to know and love every character in that series we only really get to know Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin in this. Meanwhile there are a mess of other dwarfs that are only distinguishable by variations of hair above the neck, and sometimes that doesn’t even do enough to make them stand out. Did it need to be a trilogy? No. Is the book being dragged through the mud? More like dropped in a puddle before quickly being grabbed and dried off quickly. As long as fans of The Lord of the Rings series don’t go into it expecting it to be world shattering they should enjoy themselves. I should mention I didn’t see it in 48fps but I heard mostly negative things about it.
And the Winner Is: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - even though Peter Jackson obviously thinks “dues ex machina” is Latin for giant eagles.
DIRECTOR: Peter Berg
FLICKCHART FUTURE: Maybe the worst big-budget trailer of all time? I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt because there is some strong talent behind it but it really seems like this will end up being to the Transformers series as Pearl Harbor was to Titanic. Only worse, because the Transformers movies kinda already suck.
We’ve all known it for a while, but now it’s official: Originality in Hollywood is dead. It’s bad enough that we have movies adapted from the toy lines Transformers and G.I. Joe, now Hasbro is bringing their board games to life on the silver screen. Battleship, directed by Peter Berg and starring Liam Neeson, is due in theaters in 2012, and now it’s just been announced that a writer has been hired to pen a screenplay based on the strategy game Risk. And let’s not forget those persistent rumors that Ridley Scott is working on Monopoly. It’s not necessarily an idea without precedent; remember Clue? But still, Clue has to be the only board game in history that has anything that could possibly be referred to as a “plot”.
What does this mean? Well, of course it means it’s time to mock Hollywood mercilessly. You want ideas for movies based on board games (or quasi-board games, as the case may be)? Try these on for size: Read the rest of this entry »
Hasbro has their movie adaptations of their toy lines Transformers and G.I. Joe. Battleship is on the way (in 2012, directed by Peter Berg and starring Liam Neeson). Now add Risk to the absurd line of toy-themed movies coming to our cinemas.
Columbia Pictures has reportedly tapped John Hlavin to write a screenplay based on the strategy board game, Risk. Oddly, the film is being touted as an action thriller set in the modern day, so I’m not sure how much resemblance it’s supposed to bear to the game. Hlavin’s writing credits include a couple episodes of FX’s The Shield, the forthcoming Underworld: New Dawn, and a Western revenge thriller called The Gunslinger, which 3:10 to Yuma director James Mangold is currently attached to.
(via The Hollywood Reporter)