Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Friends, I watched "The Hobbit" and was disappointed. It's Tolkien's fairy tale for younger children, a small story in terms of volume. One film is unnecessary, unlike "The Lord of the Rings," it's cheerful and not stressful. They walked around, explored, found gold, and went home.
Why remake "Thirteen Friends of Ocean in Middle-earth"? I'm not interested in the characters of the 13 dwarves; four hobbits were enough for me. I could barely distinguish Meriadoc Brandybuck from Peregrin Took until the end of the third film. And here, there are 13 dwarves, each of whom, taking advantage of the successful first trilogy, tries to win an Oscar for a supporting role. I don't care about the relationship between the fourth dwarf on the right and the third on the left; I need a plot. But there is no plot, and where would it come from? Peter Jackson doesn't want to deviate too far from Tolkien, and the original source has only about 30 pages of text.
So, the dwarves, dwarves, dwarves... and Gollum take up all the space, and they somehow need to save the plot. I think he became the main character of the film.
In conclusion, I regret wasting the money. Although all three "Lord of the Rings" films are among my favorites.