This "poll" made me think of a television commercial in the 1990s.
Not that the Hobbit trilogy was rancid, but it was clearly not as a good as the LOTR trilogy.
That is my opinion of
Incredibles 2. It's a decent movie. It's just that
Incredibles 1 was near perfect.
For the most part, the parts I didn't like from the Peter Jackson LOTR were mostly on the extended cut, not the theatrical version.
Aargon should not have killed the Mouth of Sauron. That is out of character. The booby trap that dumped skulls on Aragon's trio was pretty tacky.
In my opinion, the Hobbit should have a been a two-parter not a three-parter. Nothing in the Hobbit movies was
bad but a lot of it was unnecessary.
It doesn't really matter which one of these is the best looking. All three are impossibly out of my league.
Liv Tyler's voice gives her an unfair advantage in general attractiveness in my opinion. Cate Blanchet gets bonus points for being the only one of the three that was never divorced. Evangeline Lily gets bonus points for being based and speaking against Trudeau.
While Evangeline Lily did a great job acting and the costume/makeup/cinematography crew did a good job pushing a natural 10 to an 11, the character of Tauriel did not really enhance the story in any way nor did Legolas' inclusion.
Radagast the Brown was brilliantly portrayed, but again, his inclusion did not enhance the story.
Tauriel and Radagast should have been extended edition features.
I would trim Smaug's villain monologues by 25% and Gandalf and the other characters exposition by 25% and remove one out of four of the dwarf prat falls.
I would cut the panoramic walking in New Zealand shots down by 20%.
)
