a more enjoyable trilogy

Rating: 9/10 (29 May 2015)

for what it's worth, i like the hobbit trilogy better than the fellowship trilogy. first, i love martin freeman. i love the simplicity of the characters. it doesn't have the bloat, in my opinion, that the fellowship trilogy suffered. there are expansions on the original theme, including of course the obligatory love story, but in this case i felt like Taurien actually added something to the story, which due to the times and culture in which it was written is a little overwhelmingly patriarchal. there were significant other sub-plots to the fellowship trilogy (film version) that to me added nothing to the original plot-line and simply functioned to enable a three-parter rather than a simple sequel. i did not enjoy jackson's depiction of frodo and his weepy comrade Samwise, who i think could have been far better enacted from a directorial interpretation standpoint. the hobbit is cleaner, and simply more appealing. i still enjoy the fellowship trilogy, although i am not so fond of two towers. i thought this trilogy held the pace of action and plot development much better. maybe part 1 of the fellowship trilogy was more engaging than part 1 of the hobbit trilogy, but as a whole i enjoyed the storyline of the hobbit much better, even with the egregious addition of Legolas and the woefully underused talent of Cate Blanchett, who deserves a trilogy of her own!