data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2b84d/2b84d53ce8da28f75f8f8a27bfc4c4316532f912" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d9a3d/d9a3dc4c9d9a4e9f1ef132e37049ae2793260238" alt=""
A look at movies, especially films based on books (Yes that includes comics); Opinions, facts, movie charts, production news and, when possible a look at the movies VS their source material. I may also champion books I've read that really should be movies. I've also used it to display the unedited versions of my blogs for SyFy; (The sci-fi channel UK website.)Feel free to let me know about any stories that you think deserve the big screen treatment. TheRealEverton
Well man saying the first two movies sucked isn'. xktl fair since they adressed an younger audience then yourself. But I agree there is no competion between the to "series" 'cause Tolkien rules. Have to admit I love the Potterconcept though. Think the last two are gonna rock. None the less question is can they compeet with the hobbit.
ReplyDeleteHello there Met.
ReplyDeleteI do know what you mean, but good is good and bad is bad. I remember I had this problem with the reviews at the time, which basically said it was average, but gave it 4 or 5 stars becase it's aimed at kids.
Pixar movies are aimed at kids but Toy Story, Monsters' inc are very good films. Ditto The Lion King beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty. Then you have the likes of the first two Harry Potters which take the view that they are "only aimed at kids" so don't have to put as much effort into being good films.
Whatever you do the first rule is make it good. I know plenty of kids who can't sit through either of the first two Potter Movies beause they are so long and dull.
Lord of the Rings made good films first then worried about being good Rings adaptations