bigdaddy2003;1344197 wrote:I enjoyed most of it. I thought the dinner scene near the beginning ran a little long but other than that I don't have any complaints. I didn't read the book so I will enjoy the new characters this trilogy brings to my attention.
gut;1344090 wrote:No, it was Smeegle. I loved LOTR, but I just don't know if I can tolerate more of Smeegle.
GoPens;1344077 wrote:Saw it. Way too long. Give it a C+. If each movie in this trilogy is 3 hours, then I could read the book faster than 9 hours.
isadore;1344092 wrote:its pretty good but suffers in comparison to Rings.
So which parts did they add in for filler then? My buddy who went with me said they didn't make it that far into the book with this first installment. He told me the scene with Gollum/Bilbo was longer in the book as well.ernest_t_bass;1344248 wrote:It was long in the book.
bigdaddy2003;1344275 wrote:So which parts did they add in for filler then? My buddy who went with me said they didn't make it that far into the book with this first installment. He told me the scene with Gollum/Bilbo was longer in the book as well.
LOTR flew in comparison to this one. I mean the book was only 280 pages long so to try and get 3 movies out of that, let alone three-3 hour movies, there's going to be a lot of lulls.GoChiefs;1344262 wrote:Is this your first Peter Jackson movie? Lol I think all 3 LOTR and King Kong were about 3 hours long.
