Archangel (1990)
seen from United States

seen from Azerbaijan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Norway

seen from Singapore
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
Archangel (1990)
Hang'Em High 1968
Careful (1992)
What the fuck does this mean? A metaphor for what? People who own cell phones and people who don't?
Careful | Guy Maddin | 1992
Gosia Dobrowolska, Michael O'Sullivan
Michael O’Sullivan’s Review of “The Desolation of Smaug” Panders
★★★½☆
3.53 stars for Michael O’Sullivan’s 756‑word review of “The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug” on Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-movie-review-a-fun-redemption-of-the-franchise/2013/12/12/df05fcca-6112-11e3-bf45-61f69f54fc5f_story.html
Michael O’Sullivan’s “‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’ A Fun Redemption of the Franchise” is a solid review that spends too much time acknowledging potential fan-boy objections.
A Fun Redemption wastes space pointing out the movie’s divergences from Tolkien’s original novel and where purists might object. Divergences from the source text are not important when considering the finished film qua film.
The whole endeavor raises the question whether the review reader cares about what a sub-group of fans think (hint: Not in the least!) Also Tolkien is hardly an unknown cult writer. His “Lord of the Rings” books have been popular since the early 1960s, and “The Hobbit” has been on high school reading lists for years. He’s not some unknown whose material Jackson is shamelessly mangling.
O’Sullivan and others need to stop treating Tolkien purists as if their approbation of the film adaptations matter; and stop pretending Tolkien’s books are flawless.
One objection O’Sullivan and others have raised is Jackson’s inclusion of a female elf character not present in the book. Jackson wouldn’t have to do such things if Tolkien actually included female characters in his oeuvre, which is, though transcendent, a giant sausage-fest in which female characters are plot devices or on the sidelines—when they’re not non-existent.
Buy Tickets: fandango.com/thehobbit3athedesolationofsmaug2013_158474
Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/3RPG
More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771315407
Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771315407
IMDB: imdb.com/title/1170358