Previous Entry Share Next Entry
A General Criticism
Flash
lil_shepherd
At the end of Django Unchained, the conversation went something like this.

Me: Great movie, but it could have done with 20 to 25 minutes cut out.
Ina: Yes. They will not kill their babies nowadays, will they?
Me: And you haven't even seen The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Ina: Yeah. On purpose.
Tags: ,

  • 1
Wise choice not to go see The Hobbit. It is very bloaty.

What would you have cut out from "Django Unchained"?

Personally I liked The Hobbit a lot more than the Lord Of The Rings movies. There's a difference between running time and appropriate pacing. For example, in "The Two Towers" theatrical cut it features Aragorn falling into a river and then turning up later on. That whole sequence felt like a complete waste of time and utterly bizarre. In the extended cut? While passed out in the river Aragorn has dream where he's psychically connected to his elvish love-interest and important information is revealed to him about what the elves are doing. The idea of a body being magically protected as it flows down the river is also relevant later in relation to Boromir and without the sequence involving elves, the magical side of it is pretty hard to register. So in that film that sequence was less rubbish in the longer version than it was in the shorter version.

But in the end I preferred The Hobbit because, unlike the oh-so-serious Lord Of The Rings films, it was fun. I don't mind (within reason) how long a film makes me sit and watch so long as it puts on a good enough show to make it worth it.

Inglorious Basterds felt longer than Django Unchained to me. I know it was shorter, but it was such an odd cut-and-paste job in the way the scenes tied together that I felt the time moving more than I did in Django.

I was dreadfully bored with the dwarves and hated the so-called 'humour' in An Unexpected Journey. It felt (and was) padded and it gave you far too much time to think about the motivation of the characters and why they were doing what they were doing. I hated Rhadagast with a deep and dreadful hatred, and likewise his bloody bunnies. Some of the CGI was crap, too. I didn't find it funny or fun. Oddly, I prefer the extended cuts of LotR, but then they made the motivations clearer, though I would have cut the Smeagol and Deagol scenes in RotK and the multiple endings, started with Isengard and ended with the wedding.

I understand the extended cut of An Unexpected Journey will give us even more pratting about in Hobbiton, something that almost made me give up when I first started reading The Fellowship of the Ring back in about 1965.
I'd've cut quite a lot of the non-witty chat in Django Unchained, particularly towards the end. The dialogue could have been a lot tauter.

I hated Rhadagast with a deep and dreadful hatred, and likewise his bloody bunnies.

But, that's the best thing to come out of any of Jackson's LOTR movies!

(I'm very possibly highly biased. Sylvester McCoy was my version of The Doctor growing up...)

I understand the extended cut of An Unexpected Journey

Hang on, what? I thought the whole purpose of having three movies when adapting The Hobbit was so we didn't NEED extended cuts....

According to Empire which has an in depth article this month (and a cover for The Desolation of Smaug there will, indeed, be an extended cut.

Oh, just to be clear, I liked Sylvester McCoy as the Doctor - I just hated the comic, over-sentimental and ridiculous figure of what is, in effect, a demi-God or archangel (which is what the Istari are). Jackson is prone to this, as witness his version of The Paths of the Dead in which he takes terrifying ghosts and turns them into zombies of which it is very difficult to be scared - the Dead are one of the parts of LotR that do not work.

:-)
I can so hear that conversation.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account