text:
Scene 24 (Wow, our scene numbers are messed up)
[AUTHOR is scribbling in a notebook but keeps crossing it out, unable to make the words sound right. After about a minute she dumps the notebook on the bed, walks over to the desk and starts to type at the open laptop - having jogged the mouse once or twice]
Write a book into a story … how do I do that?
[AUTHOR types]
No, that doesn't work. Hmm. How about this?
[AUTHOR types again]
No, that doesn't work either. Ugh! Whoever knew this was so difficult?
[phone rings]
Hello? No, sorry, I've already got double glazing. No, honestly, I do. Yes, it was put in by a professional! No, I don't want it done again! Yes, thank you, thank you … All right, goodbye.
[she puts the phone down]
Stupid double glazing companies. Don't they ever get the point the first time they ring you? I'm sure that company called me yesterday.
[AUTHOR stares at the screen]
I know, I'll quit with this scene and get on with writing Kate and Ellie into something else. That'll take my mind off it.
[KATE bursts in, closely followed by ELLIE. They are both out of breath]
We've got the book! It's okay, we've got the book!
I never said you didn't.
What is it? What's wrong?
We were sort of hoping you'd write it in now? Because time might pass more quickly there and we don't want the Elves to get angry…
[ELLIE shudders. KATE looks exasperated]
She's convinced the elves are out to get her and nothing I say will convince her otherwise. I think she should get a copy of the book. Maybe then she'd realise that they're not the bad guys.
Just because they're not the bad guys, doesn't mean they're not scary.
You're scared - of the Elves? As in, turning round all the time to check they're not following you and convince that everybody who is tall with pointy ears must be an elf that's escaped from the books?
You're scared of creatures that are wise and good and saved Frodo from certain death at the hands of the Black Riders? You're scared of creatures that healed him from great injury and gave him advice that would save his life.
Yes! Okay, I'm sorry, I'm pathetic! There's no need-
Don't be sorry! It's fair enough - I used to be scared of them, too!
You did?
[KATE sniggers, her hand over her mouth to hide it]
Of course! And don't you laugh, either, Kate. Haven't you ever had an irrational fear that you couldn't tell anyone because they'd laugh at you and you didn't think it was funny.
That's not the point. She is telling people. She hasn't stopped going on about it. Earlier, on the way back from WHSmith's, she ran away from a man who was walking his dog because she thought he was an elf! Just because he was tall, with long hair, and may or may not have had pointy ears!
Perhaps that's taking it too far … but you shouldn't laugh. You know how it feels to be laughed at.
She doesn't care.
[ELLIE sniffs loudly]
She's heartless and insensitive and couldn't care less whether what she says hurts other people! I hate her!
[ELLIE storms out of the room. AUTHOR tries to grab her arm but fails, and so ELLIE leaves the room. KATE is standing in the middle of the stage, stunned. The lights suddenly fade and sweet, sad music comes on]
Do you think she really does hate me, Author? I didn't mean to be insensitive and I definitely wasn't trying to hurt her…
It'll be okay. She's just highly strung and thinks the world is out to get her. How old is she now?
Sixteen. Hang on, you're supposed to know that! You invented her!
I forget these things. Besides, my characters are walking and talking without my say-so … it wouldn't surprise me if they started aging as well.
[KATE and AUTHOR laugh]
[wistfully] Even so, I do hope she doesn't hate me. I don't want her to hate me. I wasn't trying to be mean, honest…


text:
Green Leaf is Bellingham's premier recreational one stop cannabis shop!
Offering the highest quality products available at competitive prices and new specials every day of the week!
- Munchie Monday! 10% off all edibles in store!
- Doobie Tuesday! 20% off all pre-rolled joints!
- Vape Wednesdays! 10% off all refillable and disposable vaporizer cartridges!
- Triple Tap Thursdays! 10% off purchase of any 3 cannabis products!
- CBD Fridays! 10% off all CBD products in store!
- Shatterday Saturdays! 10% off all dabbable concentrates!
- Sunday Build-An-Ounce! Save 15% when you buy 3 or more items equaling 28 grams.
Among the first cannabis retailers in Washington, Green Leaf opened its doors to the public August 23, 2014. Since then, We have taken pride in providing our customers with a large selection of rotating strains from hand chosen vendors ensuring only the highest quality cannabis from across the state. In addition to cannabis, Green Leaf carries the largest selection of vaporizers, both Local and production glass, and smoking accessories. Our knowledgeable and friendly staff are here to help guide you through the process and answer any questions you may have, guarantying you find the right product for you every time. Green Leaf is truly Bellingham's own original one-stop cannabis shop.
Every customer may purchase up to the legally permitted maximum. Price includes ALL taxes.
TAKE I-5 north to exit 256 - Meridian St. and travel North 5 blocks
Please confirm your email before writing a review.
First stop on a high level weed weekend. Stocked up on pre rolls from a variety of growers and grabbed some flower.
Have to say quality was top shelf. As a test I asked about Gorilla glue and and they had three growers. It's nice to have choice.
Just moved to Washington recently. Checked out a few shops and found that weed here in WA is dry. I am coming to terms with that. I did find Green Leaf and loved the atmosphere and the prices were decent. Getting used to dry weed, but with this last visit I am pissed. Open a nice new container of Vietnamese Bubba, was stoked because I have never tried it. Go to grab a nug and it damn near fell apart in my hands. Was the most dry I have ever seen. I look at the harvest date on it and it was harvested 08/23/2016. I about lost my shit. Almost four months it sat there just drying out. Tried to put it in a humidor with no luck. Even tried the old Q tip trick to no avail. To get to this shop it is about 48 miles from me, I pass a few different shops to get there. I was so happy with this place till then. Horrible. Waste of money. Get this warn and it turns to ash pretty quick. Will NOT BE going back and lesson learned I will ALWAYS look at the date before I waste my money again.
This is my favorite store. The staff are extremely friendly and helpful. The weed itself is excellent quality and they are constantly bringing in new stuff. They offer a great discount, 10 visits and you get 20% off your purchase.
Thanks for the fantastic review! Come back and visit us anytime!
1 person thought this review was helpful
First off, compared to the other local places this is a super convenient location and very in the open. Nothing wrong with the other places but this was just super easy to find with great parking.
The location was large with lots of types of weed. They also had a good selection of glass and other accessories though I didn't really spend much time with them.
We're glad you enjoyed your visit to the store! We recently added some more locally blown glass to our selection, we hope you stop back in to check us out in the future!
Thanks for the feedback!
1 person thought this review was helpful
I receicently just moved to the state of washington 2 months ago and have been suffering without weed since I left. So I recently called Green leaf and asked if they would still be able to help me even though I don't even have a washington state ID yet and they gladly said yes and that they were open (even though it was labor day) . So I made the 30 mins drive from burlington to Bellingham and was pleasently suprised when i got there. No paper work, no waiting, no worrying about if I was gunna get in. They checked my ID to make sure I was 21 and then I simply picked out my weed, was helped by a very nice chick named michelle I believe (shows how good the buds are) and was out in less than 5-10 mins. It was such a change! The buds were amazing, everyone who helped me out was awesome! However it was a shock when I got to the register I ended up paying 26$ for a Gram but I'd rather pay that than have nothing at all! Plus the quality made it worth it!
Thank you so much everyone at Green leaf !!!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
problem related to mesh
hi this is naveen ,i have problem while doing the surface mesh to my object in a domain.my object is cylinder which is having 16 mm dia,0.000625 depth.it is located in a domain which is having the 960mm lenght and 640 mm hight. i am get errors while i am doing the surface mesh to the cyliderical object.i dnt know where i gave good values for default body spacing and for the face spacing and also for the infaltion. this are the error mentioned below:
surface mesh has small internal angles. Result: This may result in a poor quality volume mesh.
Cause: Mesh spacing does not adequately resolve
CAD face or feature of CAD face. Action: Reduce mesh spacing in region of face.
Cause: Highly distorted parameterization of face. Action: Examine face and Re-Draw in CAD system.
Cause: You are using the Delaunay surface mesher and
part of the boundary of the problem surface has
a length scale on it that is much less, i.e. more
than an order of magnitude less, than the requested
length scale in the interior. Action: Try increasing the length scale on the overly
fine boundary or reducing the length scale in
the interior of the face. Also check that the
length scales in the interior of the face are not
being limited by a minimum edge length.
Cause: CAD edges almost tangent at CAD vertex. Action: Examine face and Re-Draw in CAD system.
The worst angle is 3.647D+00 degrees.
F3 coordinates: [ 7.5757E+00, -2.5378E+00, -6.2500E-03]
Boundary edge does not exit face (Subr: cutlist). Result: Failure of surface mesher for this CAD face.
Cause: Mesh spacing does not adequately resolve CAD face
and results in self-intersecting boundary edges. Action: Reduce mesh spacing in region of face.
Cause: Parameterization of faces poor near singular points. Action: Try rebuilding the model to improve the
parameterization of this face.
so, tell me does any one i having idea about this problem.thanks,,,,
Re: problem related to mesh
For small angle problem, check the location of those problematic cells and then try to simplify your geometry around that area if possible. Get rid of surfaces with sharp edges.
For complicated geometry, use ICEM instead of CFX-mesher. What meshing tool are you using anyway?
Re: problem related to mesh
thanks for the response , as i understood from you mail that the cylidrical circle which is haviing sharpe edges not complete circle, when i zoom it it shows something like that .for that circle i am using surface mesh.it was freezed in the domain. if it the reason,may´be i need to create the cylinder in CAD in order to get smooth the circle?
Re: problem related to mesh
just a gentle reminder: if u are drawing the geo in an external cad software, u might need a even finer mesh for geo created in cfx. this is from personal experience
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18.


text:
Bryn Clark, L. Ac.
Top Benefits
- Treatment modalities include acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, dietary therapy, movement therapy (Qi Gong) and meditation or inner reflection.
- We give careful attention to your needs in order to customize care packages that will meet your health care goals.
- Testimonial: "I started as a skeptic and ended as a firm believer in oriental medicine and acupuncture. New Harmony delivered! I don't know how it works, but all of my complaints have been successfully addressed. Thanks to acupuncture, nutritional counseling and botanical supplements I have eliminated medications, reduced others, have more energy, and achieved better health. Not a bad return from one provider."
- Testimonial: "In the two years that I have been receiving Chinese medicine, acupuncture and wellness services, I have been completely impressed by their level of service, professionalism and holistic solutions that have positively affected every member of my household. Whether injuries, illness, exploring a physical fitness or nutritional issue, they have exceeded all expectations. Even my traditional doctors have been impressed!"
- Testimonial: ?Among the joys of the team at New Harmony is their loving kindness, their gentleness, their attentiveness and the fact that they trust both your intuition and their own. In an emergency there is nowhere I would rather go then New Harmony for care and comfort.?


text:
ED Magedson – Founder
Ripoff Report
whitepages.us.orgInternet United States of America
whitepages.us.org Phone number look up, Internet
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/28/2012 06:04 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/whitepagesusorg/internet/whitepagesusorg-phone-number-look-up-internet-961284. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on whitepages.us.org
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company
SUBMITTED: Saturday, December 22, 2012POSTED: Saturday, December 22, 2012
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text:
Grandpa gets lucky
Little granny gets lucky
Mature woman gets lucky
Lesbian granny whale gets lucky
Kai gets lucky in space
Tiffany gets lucky
Fattie gets lucky in the forest
Pool boy gets lucky with a hot and sexy babe.
Daddy gets lucky for young pussy
Teacher gets lucky to fuck blonde student
Daddy gets lucky for young pussy
Perv gets lucky at the library
Perv gets lucky at the library
Horny guys gets lucky with one blonde in the bar
Czech hunter gets lucky with straight stud.
Czech hunter gets lucky one day before xmas.
Pool boy gets lucky with a hot and sexy babe.
Old dude gets lucky with a sexy blonde babe.
Bryan gets lucky with luke's big cock
Pizza guy gets lucky with a horny cougar
Handyman gets lucky
Guy gets lucky with two hot blondes
White guy gets lucky with big booty black
Bohemian lecher gets lucky
Horny husband gets lucky
Black grandpa gets in tight euro teen
Old poolman gets lucky
A stranger gets lucky
Busty babe gets lucky
Milo d (son's friend gets lucky!!!)
Nurse gets lucky with his patient
Skinny dude gets lucky with carmen
Peeping tom gets lucky with hairy mature babe
Big nurse with giant tits gets lucky
Dude gets lucky with blonde twins
She wants oral before he gets lucky
Lovely girl gets lucky man to fuck her
Angel piaff - horny guy gets lucky
Dutch girl gets lucky
Nerd gets lucky with a hot blonde
Peter north gets lucky with the strippers
Black dick gets lucky
Patient hits on her doctor and gets lucky
Sean gets lucky
Horny old goat gets lucky with a chick
Horny guy with two hot chicks gets lucky
Guy gets lucky with two big butt babes
Pervy old man gets lucky with teen
Old guy gets lucky some more
Old guy gets lucky with my girl
Old guy gets lucky again and again
Old guy gets lucky once again
Old guy gets lucky in threesome
Poolguy gets lucky
She gets lucky
Handyman gets lucky
Old man gets lucky with busty german
Old man gets lucky with busty teen
Homless guy gets lucky.
Grandpa gets a bj - brighteyes69r
Exotic blonde beauty nicole stone with
Lucky amateur guy gets two hot girls
Lucky grandpa fucks a skinny hottie
Lucky day for horny grandpa
Lucky grandpa fucks hairy young girl
Pretty teen fucking a lucky grandpa
Pretty teen fucking a lucky grandpa
Grandpa has a lucky day and a lucky year
Lucky guy gets sexy strip from milf
Lucky teen boy gets first striptease
Lucky coco gets cunt licked and dildo fucked
Hailey page gets banged by two lucky dudes
Grandpa asks for help and gets a blowjob
Lucky dude gets shared by hot sluts
Lucky dude gets massaged and sucked
Naughty teen gets poked by a lucky guy
One lucky boy gets two gorgeous teens
Lucky old man gets a hot busty teen to fuck.
Lucky guy gets screwed outdoors by sexy teen
Lucky anime guy gets threesome sex
Lucky guy gets blowjob and fucks hot milf
Fat guy gets super lucky
Lucky guy gets some college student pussy
Lucky grandpa fucks pretty teen girl
2 girls gets to fuck the very lucky dude
Lucky dude gets four huge cocks
Lucky twink gets double fucked
Lucky man gets two hot blonde babes on his cock.
Lucky bottom gets two cocks
Lucky old man gets a blowjob
Two horny babe gets fucked by one lucky cock.
More "Grandpa Gets Lucky" movies on our friendly site Nude Vista
Grandpa Gets Lucky With Two Beauties
Lucky Grandpa Gets To Fuck A Skinny Brunette
Grandpa Gets Lucky. Mp4
More "Grandpa Gets Lucky" movies on our friendly site Porn MD
Lucky grandpa gets to fuck a skinny brunette


text:
Unfortunate Cancellation
Unfortunately I have had to cancel my Melbourne tour for 11th-13th August due to lack of interest and pre-bookings. Which ruins it for the few that were keen to meet me. In saying this, I am going to be in Melbourne on the 18th to the 19th August. I have limited availability so be sure to book in quick if you wish to spend some time with me!
I'm also deciding whether to add Canberra to my Sydney tour in September. Please get in touch if you would like to see me in Canberra. I would most likely be there from 2.30pm Wednesday 7th Sept for one night until 10.30am Thursday 8th Sept. then heading to Sydney for 2 nights, leaving Saturday morning on the 10th.
Kind Regards,


text:
TO get great legs takes commitment to exercise and good nutrition – but the
great news is, just wearing your favourite footwear can help tone up your
Here, The Sun's fitness expert NICKI WATERMAN reveals the benefits of the
regular shoe choice of several stars.
Meanwhile nutritionist AMANDA URSELL advises how to keep legs strong and fight
Nicki says: "So-called 'super' shoes like the FitFlop do have fitness
"But style-conscious stars know their footwear is already keeping them in
shape, from Victoria Beckham's killer stilettos to Blake Lively's comfy
Ballet pumps: Kate Moss
THE SCIENCE: The lack of support makes the muscles in your inner thighs
and buttocks work harder than usual.
You burn fewer calories than in some other styles – 240 per hour – but you can
wear them for longer, which means you're likely to burn more calories in
THE EXERCISE: Pump it up – for legs like Kate's, stand with your feet
slightly more than hip-width apart and your hands on your hips.
Squeeze your buttocks, slowly bend your knees and drop your hips down towards
the floor (don't let your knees go further forward than your toes). Then
slowly return to a standing position. Repeat 15 times.
Ugg boots: Blake Lively
THE SCIENCE: Uggs help to contract and lengthen leg muscles, without
overworking them like heels can.
They also make your toes curl to grip the sole, which works the front of your
thigh and calf muscles, helping you to burn 264 calories an hour when you
walk in them.
THE EXERCISE: Ugg lift – for toned legs like Gossip Girl actress
Blake's, hold on to the back of a chair and stand with your feet hip-width
Lift your right foot several inches off the floor, extending your leg in front
of you.
Tighten your abs and bend your left knee as much as you can, distributing your
weight evenly for balance.
Hold for two seconds. Repeat 15 times on each leg.
Stilettos: Victoria Beckham
THE SCIENCE: The quads, hamstrings and calf muscles have to work harder
in heels so your legs become more toned, even when you're standing still.
Even so, experts recommend stilettos as a treat only – wearing them all day
can cause knee and back pain as well as bunions, corns and calluses. Walking
in stilettos can burn 312 calories and hour.
THE EXERCISE: Stiletto stretch – for Posh-like pins, stand with feet
hip-width apart. Hold the handles of a large, heavy handbag close to your
chest with both hands, keeping a small bend in your knees, your spine
straight and your stomach muscles tight.
Bend forward from the hips to a 45-degree angle, hold for five seconds then
return to a standing position.
Repeat 15 to 20 times.
Platforms: Cheryl Cole
THE SCIENCE: Platforms, or wedges, give you extra height and put less
stress on the foot than normal heels. Walking in wedges works your core
stability muscles, buttocks and thighs, and burns 228 calories per hour.
You need to be sure-footed, however, because you can easily twist an ankle if
you topple to one side in them.
THE EXERCISE: Platform power – for legs like Cheryl's, facing upstairs,
stand up straight and with your toes on the edge of a stair, your feet
hip-width apart – hold on to the banister for support.
Now rise up on to the balls of your feet, hold the position for one second,
then slowly lower yourself back down so your heels go well below the stair
you're standing on.
Repeat 15 to 20 times.
What to eat and what to avoid
NUTRITION expert Amanda Ursell says: "For legs to look great on the
outside, they need to be healthy on the inside.
"Bones need a cocktail of essential nutrients to help keep them strong so
that you can walk, run, skate, dance and skip them into fabulous shape."
Vitamin D
WHAT IT DOES: Crucial for the bone-building mineral calcium to be
absorbed from food but more than half of adults have insufficient levels of
this vital vitamin and, according to doctors at Newcastle University, 16 per
cent of us have a severe deficiency.
HOW DO WE GET IT? By spending at least 20 minutes in the sunlight each
day between April and October with our legs or arms exposed and no high sun
factor cream on, to allow the sun's rays to convert an inactive form of
vitamin D into an active form.
We can also get it naturally from regularly eating oily fish such as herrings
and mackerel, sardines and tuna canned in oil.
Some foods are also now being fortified with vitamin D. Actimel probiotic
drinking yogurt is a great way of topping up vitamin D. Many breakfast
cereals also have some added.
Pregnant and breastfeeding women should take a daily ten microgram supplement
of vitamin D.
WHAT IT DOES: Calcium is a hard mineral, which is deposited on to the
bone, helping to make it strong and resilient.
Our bodies contain around one kilogram of calcium, 99 per cent of which is in
our bones. Too little calcium can lead to fragile bones and an increased
risk of breaks and fractures.
HOW DO WE GET IT? Calcium is found in foods such as milk (skimmed has
the highest amount), yogurts, cheese, canned sardines eaten with their
bones, fortified soya milk, sesame seeds, almonds and dark green leafy
We need 700mg a day, which you can get by having a regular-sized skinny
cappuccino, baked beans on two slices of white toast and an individual
Fruit and vegetables
WHAT THEY DO: They provide us with a wealth of other bone-building
vitamins such as vitamins K, C and the B group as well as helping to make
our blood more alkaline so that calcium is not leached out of bones.
HOW DO WE GET THEM? Fresh, frozen, canned or dried all count. Try to
get five servings a day if you can, remembering that you can add vegetables
to soups and casseroles, shepherd's pies, bolognese sauces and to healthy
pizza bases to boost intakes.
Fruit can be added to yogurt or made into smoothies and puddings such as baked
apple and served with custard as well as eaten as a snack between meals.
What not to eat
TOO MUCH PROTEIN: Foods including meat, fish, cheese and eggs are
"acid-forming" and when too much is eaten may cause calcium to be taken out
of bones.
Having a regular serving of any of these at meal times will not overload your
system. The bottom line is not to overdo them.
CAFFEINE: Excessive intakes of caffeine may also disrupt bone health.
Stick to two to three caffeine-containing drinks a day to be on the safe
COLA DRINKS: The jury is still out but some scientists suspect the
phosphorus in cola drinks also increases loss of calcium from bones.
Moderation when having these drinks is probably wise.
How to beat those dimples…
CELLULITE is the biggest problem when it comes to perfecting a pair of
beautiful legs.
Cellulite-beating advice varies greatly, and there is no instant cure, but
these dietary tips may help:
usually made worse if you are also carrying a lot of extra fat under the
not adding salt in cooking and at the table.
Reducing salt to 3g a day or less – we currently eat triple this amount in the
UK each day – can help our bodies to reduce fluid retention.
Extra fluid can pool in cellulite sacs making it look more obvious.
mean that connective tissue under our skin may become weakened, again
allowing cellulite to appear more pronounced.
Skimmed milk, eggs, fish, Quorn, tofu and pulses all count as protein.
sugar can damage collagen and elastin, loosening skin and allowing
underlying cellulite to look worse.
Sweets, puddings, muffins, sugary drinks all need to go.


text:
Pardon the dust
I'm in the midst of updating this site. Until it's updated, please choose another site to be your homepage. ;)
About Me
I'm from Florida (yes, that Florida). I graduated from Dartmouth and then decided to pursue my doctorate in neuroscience at the University of Oxford.
Since then
I dropped out of my PhD program, spent some time at startups, and created and sold Assistant.to
San Francisco has been my home for many years and it's one of my favorite places. I do whatever I can to keep it beautiful, quirky, and amazing.
While I've worked in tech and startups, tech has always been secondary to me. I love building and creating things that are useful and liked by other people.
I mentor startups at 500Startups, head up design at Autolist, and volunteer at the SPCA (donate). Beyond that, I'm looking for a dog that can bark/howl/sing to holiday music; hopefully, earning millions off of the aforementioned dog's CD, and retiring early.
Contact Me
Questions, comments, complaints ;) ? Get in touch with me.
Or email me: jowo [at] jowo [dot] co


text:
It only takes a minute to get started. Fill out our uncomplicated sign up form and login to the website.
This step is discretionary but will greatly raise your chances of receiving views from other daters on the site. Write a little something about yourself, your pasttimes and upload a nice photo of yourself.
Use our website's sophisticated search to uncover over 60s members who satisfy your requirements. Or just look through listings and uncover members that appear interesting.
Found someone who looks interesting? Send them a word or two or just a wink and see if anything happens. With a little luck you'll be on your way to a once in a lifetime experience.
It only takes a few minutes


text:
At the climax of the last of the many sprawling, outrageous action set pieces in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug — a few with some textual basis in Tolkien, many without — comes a visual conceit so spectacularly gratuitous that it beggars the phrase "gilding the lily." What is gilded here is so far beyond lilies that, like "jumping the shark" and "nuking the fridge," it demands to be commemorated as the standard for future excess: in this case, excess in cinematic adaptation.
"Gilding the you-know-what" (or you will know what, if you click the link, so spoiler warning) has become, by now, the stock in trade of Peter Jackson and his collaborators, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. The Lord of the Rings films were already marked by excess, but also by poetry and grace — and the source material was one of the grandest literary epics of all time, giving Jackson and company a great deal to work with. Even when they went bigger than Tolkien, as in the Mines of Moria or at Helm's Deep, Tolkien was already so big that it wasn't entirely unfitting.
But then came Jackson's take on King Kong, a gleefully messy exercise in surfeit, shot through with moments of brilliance, but stuffed with characters no one cared about and such indiscriminate action spectacle and violence that it quickly became numbing instead of thrilling. After that came The Lovely Bones, a troublingly ham-fisted adaptation of Alice Seybold's paranormal thriller, long on trippy imagery but short on recognizable human emotion.
Now, two installments into the epically epic trilogification of Tolkien's slender fairy tale for children, it seems Jackson and company have only one abiding goal: to keep one-upping themselves with ever more preposterous action sequences, nastier violence and more inappropriate humor.
That's not to say it isn't still fitfully entertaining, as these things go. A battle of elves, orcs and dwarves — staged, with wanton disregard for Tolkien, amid the dwarves' barrel ride down the Forest River of Mirkwood — contains such madly choreographed stunts and wuxia-style wire-fu acrobatics that I laughed and laughed, only hating myself a little for it.
Yet as decapitated orc heads fly right into the camera in 3-D — and as Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and redheaded Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), an elvish Arwen/Eowyn/Xena/Buffy stand-in of the filmmakers' own creation, resort to ever more novel techniques for piling up orc corpses — I found myself longing for the comparative restraint of the Rings trilogy, where the roughest violence was at least deferred to the extended editions.
Then there's dwarvish heartthrob Kili (Aidan Turner) inviting Tauriel to search him before imprisoning him, lecherously adding, "I could have anything down my trousers." Parrying like a barmaid with a lustful patron, Tauriel shoots back, "Or nothing," but pretty clearly she thinks he's cute. Between overtly leering innuendo and the introduction of the limp love triangle of Kili, Tauriel and Legolas, the transformation of Jackson's Middle Earth into alt-Tolkien fan fiction is complete.
It's astonishing, given the brevity of Tolkien's story and the hours of screen time expended, how many of the novel's memorable incidents are nevertheless omitted, abbreviated or conflated. The story flies as quickly as possible past Beorn and the horrors of Mirkwood, presumably on the theory that the sooner Bloom and Lily are onscreen the better.
Gone are the lethal stream and the phantom elf-fires in Mirkwood. Even the squirm-inducing spider attack — perhaps the one action sequence that achieves any sense of urgency or feels as if anything is at stake — is strangely abbreviated. Bilbo's "Lazy Lob" and "Attercop" taunting of the spiders has been dropped, which is especially disappointing because the film's one kind of brilliant gloss on Tolkien is an explanation for why the spiders can talk when Shelob apparently didn't.
Gone is Gandalf's canny game with Beorn the skin-changer (Swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt), winning his hospitality by spinning a tale while the dwarves trickle in in "unexpected party" fashion. This is a lovely character moment in the book, giving us insight into Gandalf's methods as well as Beorn's personality. Perhaps the extended edition (and the third film) will flesh out Beorn's character; here, he's dull and irrelevant. Also gone: the heroes' welcome the dwarves receive at Laketown.
In a word, what's missing are the manners: anything relating to hospitality and courtesy, either offered or refused. This includes Bilbo's cheeky taunting of the spiders, for cheek flouts and thus presupposes manners. (Mere ribaldry is not cheek and does not presuppose manners.) Curiously, the cheekiness of Bilbo's repartee with Smaug has also been lost, even when the dialogue is drawn straight from the book, because of how the sequence has been staged.
Smaug himself, thank goodness, is a sight to behold, as lovingly rendered and fearsomely majestic a computer-generated beastie as ever graced the screen. Not until Bilbo comes face-to-face with the dragon do we get our first good look at him: a shrewd call. Voiced with dignity by a digitally tweaked Benedict Cumberbatch, Smaug sounds as he should, too. But there's an odd catch.
For some reason, Bilbo in this movie is strangely slow to put on the Ring and strangely quick to take it off. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to preserve the menace of the Ring from the Lord of the Rings films. Or perhaps, more crudely, they feel invisibility makes Bilbo seem too invulnerable and drains the tension. Either way, when you are invisible and hiding in an alcove in the lair of an affronted dragon, no hobbit in his right mind would take off his magic ring and begin wandering about in full view of the dragon, hoping against hope to distract him with banter.
After Bilbo's riddling with Gollum in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, his riddling with Smaug here is a bitter disappointment, without a shadow of the excitement and panache of the scene in the book. At least An Unexpected Journey managed a few resonant scenes here and there: above all, Bilbo's moment of decision about whether or not to kill Gollum.
I am racking my brain for a single emotionally resonant scene in The Desolation of Smaug. There is some grace in the scene in which the door in the mountain opens and Thorin and Balin catch their first glimpse of their old home. I'm glad the filmmakers didn't rush past that moment of memory and nostalgia. By itself, though, that's pretty thin gruel.
In place of all they omit, what do the filmmakers give us?
Lots of orcs, to begin with. Orcs lurking around Beorn's house, orcs on the Running River, orcs in Laketown. Orcs by night, orcs by day — even though in The Lord of the Rings it was a new thing when the Uruk-hai started traveling by day. Can I say I'm heartily sick of orcs?
Dreadful scenes between Kili and Tauriel, for another. The kindest thing I can say about their dialogue is that it isn't as awful as Anakin and Padme in the Star Wars prequels, but that's the lowest of bars. Aragorn and Arwen in the Rings films were bad enough, but at least that had some textual basis in the appendices.
The Desolation of Smaug recapitulates two of the worst lapses in judgment from the extended editions of The Return of the King. (And again, this is only the theatrical edition. They could have anything in store for the extended edition.)
First, like Aragorn lawlessly decapitating the Mouth of Sauron in what was meant to be a parley, a "good" character decapitates an evil one, not an enemy in battle, but a prisoner who, only moments earlier, was promised safety and freedom. Mitigating this, though, the "good" character is significantly more ambiguous than Aragorn, and his ruthlessness here is challenged by a more sympathetic character. Still, it's another example of the absence of manners.
Second, so help me, they've revisited possibly the single most atrocious moment in all The Lord of the Rings films: the destruction of Gandalf's staff by an evil power. "No staff-shattering sacrileges," I pleaded in a blog post two years ago, when the first Hobbit trailer was released. Alas, my pleas fell on deaf ears.
Steven D. Greydanus is the Register's film critic and creator of Decent Films.
He is studying for the permanent diaconate for the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey.
Follow him on Twitter.
Caveat Spectator: Intense fantasy-action violence and battle sequences; scary images and creature menace; fleeting sexual innuendo. Teens and up.
You lost me the moment you said the LOTR trilogy had restraint. Restraint like Legolas surfing down a shield while firing arrows. Restraint like Legolas defeating a dinosaur by himself?
The Elven King is clearly meant (in the movie) to be an antagonist and a very morally-ambiguous character, so that the audience is not meant to sympathize with him and especially not with his unjust and brutal act of murdering a prisoner. One can, thus, criticize the movie for demonizing a character that was intended by Tolkien to be more clearly on the side of good, but not for glorifying violence and injustice… in this case.
I write this because I skimmed through your review before seeing the film so that I was distracted for a good chunk of it after the murder scene, bewildered by the fact that you could have missed that the murderer was an antagonist, preparing the above criticism in my head. But then I just re-read your review and realized that you actually conceded he was supposed to be a morally ambiguous character. But I would hate the above comment to go to waste, so I'm posting it anyway :)
The lesson is : never skim through a review of a movie you're intending to go see.
Although I agree with the majority of this review, there was no mention of one of the two characters that made this movie not only watchable for me, but actually made me want to see the 3rd movie. Smaug (yes, impressive indeed) and Bard. I've loved Bard since first reading The Hobbit at age 9; in the film so far he seems to be an honorable character with courage and prudence who wants to defend his family and city, and I can't wait to see more of him.
More importantly though, to me this movie felt like a 3 hour orc-slaying rampage and less like a charming, fantastical tale. It was hard to have any sort of emotional connection to the characters…it seems they exist merely to create the spectacle (and send orcs' heads flying towards you) rather than to give a reason or purpose to any of it.
Thank you for your hard but realistic review. It seems everyone is excited by this film. I walked out angry at Jackson. I recall seeing him interviewed as saying he grew up on the books, and that he loved them. It seems to me that he shows no respect to Tolkien's text whatsoever. I was happy that you mentioned how quickly Jackson moved us through Mirkwood. There were lovely moments in the books describing Bilbo's terror of the giant spiders, the falling asleep (in the film it is passed off as some odd LSD like trip)and what is worse the time distortion. The creation of extra characters is even more vexing. Adding from other books, and creating scenes out of thin air, such as the last scenes where Thorin faces Smaug and the dwarfs get locked down in the mountain and battle with the dragon are silly. Gone is the sense of adventure that is wisely tempered by Tolkein with rests and magic of Beorn the Skin-changer, and in its place are absurd extended flights of combat evolving Bombur killing orcs with the ease of an Olympian athlete. And why all the romance? That was not in the book! And please pass this on to Mr. Jackson if you ever get a chance to speak to him directly. It is called "The Hobbit", not "The Dwarf". Jackson has been padding both films so far with far more invented scenes than exist in the text. He is deliberately trying to make Thorin the hero of the story, and not Bilbo. Why? Jackson has cut and created so much nonsense I can never forgive him. I am grateful for you honesty.
Why? Just…why? I read your reviews of the Hobbit movies before seeing them, and even after your review of the first I was still curious to see it. After this one, though, your "C" grade notwithstanding, I don't want to see it at all. So I guess, thank you for the warning. At least there's still the original book, and the Rankin-Bass cartoon which is at least somewhat faithful.
I agree whole heartedly with the review of the second instillation of the The Hobbit. With the first movie, I had a few reservations but really loved how they 'delved' into the dwarf characters and made them come alive on the screen. I didn't like the insertion of the white orc but thought overall it was still true to the theme of Tolkien's book. This second film however was a huge letdown. It reminded me of the fashion saying 'less is more'. I wish Jackson had applied that idea to the movie - instead it was an over the top derailment (yes, train wreck!). The book itself is so timelessly appealing - so I don't understand why Jackson felt the need to go out of the way to develop a story that is so off-track of the original. I do like the idea of Legolas making an appearance, after all it was his father who captured the dwarfs. However - an 'appearance' would have satisfied LOTR lovers, book and film alike. Why the extra storyline of chasing down the Orcs? It was too much, way too much! Also, the ring is supposed to be a subtle part of the story. Jackson obviously doesn't trust his film goers to understand the role of the ring - instead he shoves the malice of the object down the audience's throat. Again, the book is so wonderful! The film would have been wonderful too if Jackson would have stayed true to the original plot and characters and simply added enhancement like he did with LOTR. There have been fan films made about the background of LORT and The Hobbit that were so beautifully organic - wish Jackson would have followed that train of thought instead of imitating the mindless blockbusters that dominate our screens.
Let me preface this by saying that we love your reviews, SDG (that's what we call you), and you are our go-to reviewer for any movie we might be inclined to see.
My 14 yo daughter, a true Tolkien fan and lover of all things hobbit & LOTR, eagerly awaited your review. I guessed, based on your review of the first film, though, that you would probably not much care for this one, either, and I tried to warn her off. Still, your review actually made her cry! (I don't hold it against you.) We talked about your objections to the movie, and agreed to keep your well-informed opinions in mind as we watched the film, but that she should keep an open mind and see what she thought of the movie herself.
Maybe it was the low expectations your review set for the movie, but I have to say we ... *loved* it. It was a fun ride. Even the obsession with orc killing was actually funny, and the battle scenes well-choreographed. I found the real-life ages of the actors (Legolas & Gandalf, specifically) distracting, since this movie takes place significantly before the LOTR trilogy, and there is no doubt we are *not* watching a faithful rendering of the book. But that said, it was genuinely enjoyable. My daughter was so thrilled and relieved at how much she liked it that she almost cried all over again! (14 yo girls being what they are, of course.)
The "love triangle" is so mild throughout the movie you could almost miss it. The healing scene is actually sweet (though Kili is apparently the only dwarf to keep his fingernails clean. Just saying.) The unnecessary exchange between Kili and Tauriel was more of an annoying eye-roller than a deal-breaker. As long as it doesn't go any farther in the next movie (I'm not holding my breath), it's nearly as innocuous as it is unnecessary. Lily's character is kind of fun, too, and seems much less out of place here than I expected. (In fact, in the healing scene, I was reminded of Arwin caring for the injured Frodo, despite it seeming a bit overdone.) I hated everything about the creepy elf-king, but since you're not supposed to like him, well, there you are. Even Legolas was disturbed by his action with the orc, so there's no indication that this was supposed to be seen in a positive light, or appealing somehow to our baser instincts. When evil is *presented* as evil, and the viewer is invited and expected to condemn it, I'm less disturbed by it. (The glut of orc killing would be problematic in exactly this way, however. The viewer is most definitely invited to enjoy it, and to see the orcs as utterly disposable in every way. But that actually makes the reaction to the elf king that much more stark in relief.)
This is not to say that your observations are not well-taken and spot-on. I generally agree with your take on the movie's problems, and with most of the objections in the comments, as well. This is not a movie for the ages, and it is absolutely flawed. But it is gorgeously filmed, surprisingly fast-paced for its length, and definitely entertaining. That's more than I expect from most films these days, and I felt I got my (matinee) money's worth. Besides which, roller-coaster emotionality aside, discussing this movie, in light of the books, your review and our expectations, with my very well-informed and in all ways delightful daughter is lots of fun, too. :)
It's late in the day, but I just got the link to this review, so here goes:
The worst part of the LOTR movies was Arwen. Here we have a character who is supposed to be almost 2,500 years old, and she possesses the personality of a whinny late teenager. Where is the wisdom of the Elves? If I were Elrond I'd be snarling after 2,500 years of that performance, for sure.
While I admit the release of each new Star Wars prequel downgraded my opinion of the previous prequels, my opinion of the original trilogy remained untouched. So here, at least as regards Jackson's Lord of the Rings films: I've long since come to terms with what I think are their strengths and weaknesses, and I don't see the Hobbit films touching that.
One of the tragedies of Jackson's _Hobbit_ is how even with Bilbo, who's far from the worst aspect of this whole travesty, he falls short of understanding Tolkien's vision for the character. Freeman's talent as an actor shines through clearly, yet the way his character has been written shows a clear failure to "get" Bilbo. The "Attercop, attercop" banter and the playfully witty nature of Bilbo's dialogue with Smaug have been removed because the Bilbo they've created is a different character—-a less interesting character. Tolkien's Bilbo is primarily CLEVER, and he makes his way by his quickness and keenness of wit, even in direst straits. The way they make Freeman shiver and stammer his way through the scene with Smaug completely ruins the lilting, poetic elegance of the original scene. They fail to realize that it is in that very wittiness under pressure that hobbits find their inner strength. Instead they remove it as too "un-serious" or childish, ironically while inserting unnecessary and un-funny "humour" scenes of their own. Then again, I really don't think it's possible for them to understand Tolkien as he meant himself to be understood. They are too far culturally removed.
We just got back from seeing the movie, and your review pretty much nails it. The movie is basically a three hour videogame.
Haven't seen the movie and now I may not at all. But it's interesting to me to see your objections to crudity, especially among elves and dwarves. This (along with the washed-out colors) was one of my biggest disappointments in the Jackson "Lord of the Rings" movies. In particular I think of Elrond sneering, Agent-Smith-style, about Aragorn and mortal men in general; and about Gimli going from gritty to alternatingly comical and disgusting. I am wondering—will these sequels color your view of the Lord of the Rings films, the way the completion of the Star Wars prequels increased your perspective on "The Phantom Menace?"
It was a pretty awful movie, and a disservice to Tolkien and his work. I wonder who was responsible for ruining the elements of the story, like re-writing the scene with Beorn (and the trickery of Gandalf, which was much more child-friendly than what it was replaced with) and almost completely changing the passage through Mirkwood (no river, no elf-feasts, no taunting of the spiders by Bilbo). In fact, Bilbo sees the exact OPPOSITE thing in the book than in the movie, when he climbs the tree. (And did the sunlight in that scene in the movie look like morning or evening sunlight? I thought it looked like evening sunlight, and yet he was supposedly looking east towards Erebor.)
But hey, it'll make a great video game… "We've got to get to the forges!" "We've got to get Smaug to light the fires!" "We've got to pull the lever!" "We've got to get Smaug to the throne room!"
Too many orcs! Orcs, orcs, it get old too fast. I was not a fan of the love triangle either, but Tauriel was an okay character. And no singing spiders! The innocent, delightful spirit of adventure and friendship that was celebrated in Hobbit book is not captured in this film. The film itself is enjoyable. It is visually beautiful. I loved looking at all the dwarves hairstyles, outfits and personalities. Bombur was pretty awesome and funny especially in the barrel scene. That was a pretty good scene. Smaug was awesome. He was a majestic and magnificent dragon. A sight to behold. So Smaug and the Barrel scene were the highlights of this movie for me.
I'm sure adaptations can be tricky things for directors to undertake- trying to strike the right balance between being faithful to the source material, while also trying to make the movie one's own creative venture. I saw the movie yesterday with my husband and daughter, and all of us agreed it was a perversion of The Hobbit- even more so than the first. I fail to understand why Jackson made some of the choices he did. Steven, all of your criticisms are valid ones. I guess people(myself included) are so upset at this rendering because Tolkein's world belong's to everyone who has ever had the pleasure of entering it. It doesn't just belong to Peter Jackson. In my opinion, he does have certain obligations to that world and has strayed too far from it. My 11 year old even made a joking comaparison between the dwarves hallucinations and veering from the path in Mirkwood and Jackson's veering from the story. I'll end by saying this. It is very interesting to see how Jackson chose to open the movie. The opening shot is Mr. Director, himself, walking across the screen. And when he is in the center of the shot, he very conspicuously bites a carrot. An inside joke? Is Peter Jackson the "Carrot Master" eating the carrot he has lead us all along with?
Spot on Steve! I took my two teenage boys this past weekend and left the theater biting my tongue. Then while waiting for my wife to come out of Frozen (she took my six year old daughter to see it at the same time) I felt a rush come over me and out it came. I didn't mince words and my two kids chimed in too. They knew the Hobbit scene-by-scene and this was a perversion. I too was greatly Orced out. In the car I gave up the final word…I felt like was a captive in a video game for three hours.
Thanks, Dan and Mike for your intelligent, thoughtful reviews re the movie, I haven't seen it yet but intend to with your comments in mind. I'm writing this from the home of 'The Hobbit' - New Zealand and in this part of the world it has been raved about which is so interesting to me - two continents and two such differing opinions and ours is not based on favouring Peter Jackson -there are just as many 'nit-pickers' in this part of the world. MY son, who is an avid Tolkien fan, said it was a far better movie than the first but was most irritated by the love triangle and I agree with the comments posted here. I'm prepared to find deviations from the book but will try and view it as a whole and I'm so thankful someone has taken the time and effort to produce Tolkien's work. what a treasure we've been given and I will always rate LOR part 3 - The Return of the King as the greatest movie I've ever seen.
Cap Stewart FTW!
As my wife pointed out, it would have been better if Smaug had sung the following line as he soared into the air, molten metal falling off his body: "The gold never bothered me anyway." Incredibly funny—and, unfortunately, one of the few highlights of my experience at the theater that day.
Excellent review! Though my sister and I both enjoyed the movie (she more than I), we both noted exactly the failure you point out. Jackson has no feel at all for courtesy, and especially not for its moral dimension. Both of us said, "Thranduil wouldn't have broken his word!" In the book, of course, his action belongs to Beorn - and he wouldn't have broken his word, either. He would never have given it - which is rather different.
Further, Jackson is rather Manichean, presenting good and evil as equally powerful. Tolkien was not.
I wrote a blog post about this very issue - Jackson's failure to understand the virtue of courtesy. It's here if you'd like a look:
I SAW THIS ATROCITY yesterday…
There was almost NOTHING of the book in it.
One sentence sums this up.
THE RANKIN-BASS CARTOON WAS ***FAR*** SUPERIOR TO THIS PIECE OF SHIT! I HAD PURCHASED THE FIRST MOVIE BECAUSE IT WASN'T "BAD"...(unexpected journey). But, I have now thrown it away…there's no other part of the movie being made so I would have nothing to go with it.
I have NEVER been MORE disappointed EVER with a movie!
Saw the film yesterday with my best friend. Waaaaaaaay too much senseless killing to the point where it meant nothing. Soldiers I have talked to in real combat have said the worst part of the job was fighting and killing. It was the fellowship that formed among men far from home in dangerous situations that were the parts they relished. This film made killing look easy and inconsequential. I felt as the LOTR trilogy went on, the sweeping scenes where 100 unnamed, unidentifiable characters get wiped off the earth had a similar negative affect on me, as it cheapened loss of life to a mere spectacle of epic. The genius of Tolkien was his Catholic imagination—that is he showed the universal through the particular. In the Hobbit and especially the Fellowship of the Ring, the weight of sin, the corruption of power, the glory of friendship, and the sense of adventure and abandonment in life was all seen through the eyes of heroes you learned to care about. When Boromir met his fate, you felt a friend had left you. With the exception of Balin, do any of these characters have souls? Legolas and the she elf are mindless, cold killers. Tolkien went to such lengths to create culture and living traditions amongst his creations and Jackson reduced them to simply killing machines with flawless complexions. I am at least happy to read in most of these reviews that common audiences can still pick out when a movie lacks story, meaning, heart, and substance. That is the good that came out of this.
I saw two movies this weekend, the Desolation of Jackson, er, I mean Smaug and A Black Nativity. Both, I understand, took liberties with their source material. Beyond that, it would be hard to understate the differences between the two. After the Desolation, it was a blessing to watch a movie without the special effects but with real characters (as well as the singing).
I think Bilbo's final line in Desolation says it best: "What have we done?" (For what it's worth, Bilbo's concern for the folks in Laketown was the one touch of grace added in the movie that I don't recall from the book.)
Steven, I read your review before seeing the film, and hoped desperately that I'd enjoy it more than you did.
Unfortunately, I can only channel Roger Ebert's review of "North," because I hated this movie. Hated it. Hated, hated, hated, hated it.
I believe films that are adaptations of books should stand on their own merits, so I try not to play the "book accuracy" card, but things like Thranduil's murder of the Orc prisoner are so utterly out of place in Tolkien's mythos that they force my hand. The Necromancer subplot and love triangle are so awful that they speak for themselves. Even the film's best scene, the verbal confrontation between Smaug and Bilbo, was undermined by the constant cuts to uninteresting subplots, and then further still by the subsequent chase scene culminating in the Gilding of the Dragon.
As you said, Smaug is a wonder to behold, but any menacing screen presence is immediately destroyed when he turns out to be an idiot who the dwarves can outsmart with mining equipment. The citizens of Lake Town should adopt a new defensive strategy: they can simply run in different directions and Smaug won't know what to do.
Hi! I enjoyed reading your review and agreed with you on many points (Beorn was definitely far too rushed) and disagree with you on a few (I actually enjoyed Legolas and Tauriel's presence far more than I expected to).
Mostly I was wondering what did you make of the scene in which Bilbo brutally killed the spider that was trying to "steal" the Ring from him and his subsequent reaction?
I thought that was one of Freeman's better moments and an 'emotionally resonant' scene, for me anyway (I definitely agree with you that the other one was Balin and Thorin's entering into the mountain and Balin's truly heartfelt "I remember". Balin is my favorite of the Jackson dwarves', by the way, in performance).
Alright, it honestly floors me that anyone could interpret the trousers line as ANYTHING other than innuendo. Because it was 1000% meant to be innuendo. No, wait, let me change that: 1,000,000% meant to be innuendo. It's great to know that not everyone in this dirty-minded society is similarly dirty-minded…but you think Hollywood really meant that line to be subject to personal interpretation?
Matthew Seeley:
My only rebuttal to your comments is that if you didn't immediately recognize the innuendo of the "trousers" dialogue, you may not be tuned into the filmmakers' wavelength, at least in that respect.
To the pure all things are pure … but not all things are intended that way.
Can't disagree with this review more. Maybe it's because I'm not as well versed in Tolkien as I should be like my family, but I've been thoroughly pleased and delighted with Jackson's first 2 Hobbit films.
I do understand how controversial the many liberties Jackson has taken, but I honestly feel Jackson has done a very respectable job with the unenviable task of the "trilogifcation" of the Hobbit. Granted some of the violence in the Desolation of Smaug is a little startling and cold (almost immediately upon seeing the interrogation/execution scene I envisioned that you would have a big problem with lol) but I never felt like it was over done or without a moral point. In particular I thought Jackson's take on the ill-effects of the Ring on Bilbo with his fight with the baby spider(or whatever the heck that thing was) was a brilliant addition totally made sense in the context of his character development.
And I can't disagree more about the staff shattering. In the context of Gandalf battle with the one and only Necromancer (or to borrow a page from Harry Potter "You-Know-Who"), it completely makes sense to me that the Necromancer would completely dwarf Gandalf with his wicked power (sure maybe Gandalf the White wasn't quite as invincible as he probably should have been considering his staff shattering in the Return of the King, but the point was definitely put across that Gandalf's stature as a White Wizard was much more powerful than his stature as the Grey, so Gandalf with his Grey stature enduring more of this kind of humiliation and suffering makes more dramatic sense to me). Even though that scene could've maybe used a different take, the one they chose gives Gandalf's predicament more tension and high-stakes imo.
And to me the I didn't even come to the innuendo realization with the "trousers" until hours later, so I think honestly in the end it's harmless and is a line that can be interpreted in a lot of different ways.
Which brings me to my last point: The Tauriel/Kili relationship really grew on me on second viewing. It's not flawlessly executed, but it had alot of beautiful and touching moments to me, especially the "Runestone" conversation and the Kili's exhausted claim that Tauriel couldn't be there in person and was among the light far away (it's a little cheesy, but I fell for it because it felt completely Tolkien-esque in prose to me and reminded me alot of Sam's great moment with Frodo in the Return of the King of the one visible star in Mordor that wasn't shrouded by smoke and darkness)
I was pleased beyond all measure with Smaug …. his look, his demeanor, and his voice. Everything about the worm was spot on. Yet, that being said, everything else about the movie was "spot off." I endured LOTR, because even though it took many liberties, changed and rerouted many threads, it still maintained something of Tolkien. These two films, however, do not maintain the spirit of "The Hobbit" because it has lost all the whimsy and fun of essentially being a children's story. Tolkien is surely rolling around in his grave for he never envisioned a film like this, loosing its soul so as to stuff Hollywood's coffers full of gold. (Wouldn't they love to have the hoard that Smaug has?) I don't like to be sharp, but honestly, I'd rename this movie: "The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug and the Arrogance of Peter Jackson." Quite fitting. (It's still my favorite book, but I have no intention of watching this movie again.)
mike m:
"Then you are not familiar with Tolkien Lore beyond TLOR and the Hobbit, which Jackson is incorporating to extend this trilogy, of which I am enjoying. In the Eldar days, a family of elves of which Galadriel is a member suffered gravely because they committed fratricide in order to carry out an oath of vengeance against Morgoth.
That's a good rejoinder, although I don't think it's as strong as you do. The Oath of Fëanor, which led to the Kinslayings, was indeed a terrible thing. As far as I know, those who perished during them perished in battle. I don't recall any prisoners killed at mercy, and especially not prisoners promised safety and freedom. Unjust war is one thing, promising a prisoner safety and freedom and then decapitating him is something else.
"The elves are not perfect and are given to pride. The elves of Mirkwood are not portrayed very sympathetically in The Hobbit as I recall until the very end when there is a recognizing of their failures after the final battle.
Here is how Tolkien describes them:
These are not wicked folk. If they have a fault it is distrust of strangers. Though their magic was strong, even in those days they were wary. They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise. For most of them (together with their scattered relations in the hills and mountains) were descended from the ancient tribes that never went to Faerie in the West. There the Light-elves and the Deep-elves and the Sea-elves went and lived for ages, and grew fairer and wiser and more learned, and invented their magic and their cunning craft in the making of beautiful and marvelous things, before some came back into the Wide World. In the Wide World the Wood-elves lingered in the twilight of our Sun and Moon, but loved best the stars; and they wandered in the great forests that grew tall in lands that are now lost. They dwelt most often by the edges of the woods, from which they could escape at times to hunt, or to ride and run over the open lands by moonlight or starlight; and after the coming of Men they took ever more and more to the gloaming and the dusk. Still elves they were and remain, and that is Good People.
"Good People" is not how I would describe Thranduil in Jackson's movie.
This is what Evangeline Lily (actress for Tauriel) had to say about the love triangle:
"For the record, when I took this job, in 2011, I made one stipulation. That's it. I just said… I swear to God, I said, 'I will not do this film if you will not guarantee me one thing. You have to guarantee me there will be no love triangle,'
"And there wasn't. For the whole time I shot. For a year of shooting there was no love triangle.
"And then, I came back for reshoots in 2012 and they were like, 'Well, we made a couple of alterations to some scenes and we added a couple more scenes.'"
"And all of a sudden manifested a love triangle before my very eyes and the film was shot and I'm in and there's no getting out and there was no escaping it," she admitted.
It's a shame - she clearly knew better than anyone how badly a contrived love triangle would go down with viewers, and yet she's sure to bear the brunt of the audience's ire over its inclusion.
'No way does any elven-king murder prisoners in cold blood. Particularly prisoners whom he himself has just promised safety and freedom. Not in any Middle Earth in which the spirit of Tolkien is anything but a half-forgotten memory.' Then you are not familiar with Tolkien Lore beyond TLOR and the Hobbit, which Jackson is incorporating to extend this trilogy, of which I am enjoying. In the Eldar days, a family of elves of which Galadriel is a member suffered gravely because they committed fratricide in order to carry out an oath of vengeance against Morgoth. The elves are not perfect and are given to pride. The elves of Mirkwood are not portrayed very sympathetically in The Hobbit as I recall until the very end when there is a recognizing of their failures after the final battle. As to the idea of intermarriage, there may not be a previous elf/dwarf romance, but there is the Beren/Luthien saga that Tolkien himself wrote as a love story that he imagined as himself and his wife. Yes, the dwarves were the creation of the Valar, but it doesn't negate the fact that they are rational creatures. I really don't see these movies as doing any disservice to either the name or the reputation of the source material. It is amazing how varied two people will interpret source material after reading the exact same piece. Everyone brings themselves into a story, and can see the material vastly different than you or I would imagine it. Yes, we bring our Catholic paradigm with us when we read Tolkien, but that doesn't negate another paradigm which focuses on other aspects. Jackson focuses on the adventure and intensity of the characters, that is his paradigm. I hope people will just enjoy the movies for what they are, not with the predisposition that thinks that they know better. I actually find that criticism to be narrow minded and a little conceited.
Thanks for the follow up and the candid response. Yes, I am conflicted and you nailed my feelings. I am still on the whole more positive seeing this second part in light of the first part, which for the record I thought was great for all the reasons listed above in my last comment plus more. I know I rambled them off but are any of these accurate with the current movie seen in light of the first part?
We'll see if the gratuitous violence on the part of good characters in this movie changes my mind closer toward your review. This very well could be a problem, but then again the LOR movies had certain scenes reminiscent of the ones you described, like at Helm's Deep with Gimli and Legolas counting the number of orcs they killed in a joking manner to lighten the mood.
Also, I still think there is more to the scene of killing a prisoner than just a violation of justice - which certainly it is - but it also seems to me to be the opposite extreme to mercy. I really think this scene is trying to highlight the mercy of Bilbo. Well this is all I can say until I see it. Very soon!! Looking forward to it and again I thank you SDG for your thoughts. I will discuss them with my buddies I am going to see the film with. We will be going to a local pub after the movie for second breakfast or elevenses and dissecting the meaning of the movie for our lives! If there is no meaning present then well at least we will still have elevenses :-) God Bless.
And I say, in Tolkien, the elves of Mirkwood might be more capricious and less gracious than those of Rivendell or Lothlorien, but they're still elves. No way does any elven-king murder prisoners in cold blood. Particularly prisoners whom he himself has just promised safety and freedom. Not in any Middle Earth in which the spirit of Tolkien is anything but a half-forgotten memory.
Disagree about gilding-the-you-know-what.
The book does make mention of . . . something like that . . . uh . . . can't say any more. But while the film version was excessive, I don't think it was *that* excessive, all things considered.
Also, I agree with Dan on the execution scene telling us more about the character doing it than glorifying it having been done. I don't think Jackson intended us to think in any way that the act was a good one.
Thanks for your follow-up. To clarify, I didn't read your comments as harsh at all. I read them as conflicted, and believe me, I understand.
You sincerely want to like the movie, in part because of your attachment to Tolkien's fiction and the Catholic worldview underlying it. You'd like to see this movie as an avenue of grace in mainstream culture; you even feel a certain missionary zeal in this regard. (We don't usually talk about "promoting" movies we like unless there's more to it than that.) My hard-nosed refusal to moderate my criticism with some more positive acknowledgements bothers you. Why wouldn't it?
I get it. I saw, and still see, the Lord of the Rings films in that light. There were even shreds of it in An Unexpected Journey, particularly in the key moment you mention (which I also called out in my review last year) of mercy that Bilbo shows to Gollum.
But no, I don't see any of that here. At all.
On the contrary, what stands out to me is the way The Desolation of Smaug ramps up the violence — and, more disturbingly, is at pains to have the heroes slay hordes of villains in increasingly novel and creative ways — pandering to the audience's worst instincts in a way that an act of mercy in the last film can't compensate for.
I don't buy your proposal that the scene in which a "good" character murders an evil character can be seen in contrast to Bilbo's mercy to Gollum as a case of failing to show mercy. This isn't a "lack of mercy," it's a violation of justice, which is a very different thing. The evil character was a prisoner. The "good" character not only promised not to harm him, he specifically promised to release him if he cooperated. Then he decapitated him.
Add that to the increasingly creative, "cool" killings in battle (See Legolas put a single arrow through the heads of two orcs at once, like two butterflies on one pin! See an orc catapulted into the air so that Legolas on a second-story balcony can lean over and decapitate him in midair!), the film seems to me to be more preoccupied with nastiness than the earlier films.
It's my distaste for what seems to me the increasing nasty violence, in the absence of any leavening moral theme, that ultimately prompted me to give The Desolation of Smaug a minus-2 moral/spiritual rating at Decent Films, and the resultant C rating. If anything, I'm tempted to go lower, not higher.
That said, it's okay to disagree with me. I'm not here to tell anyone what to think about any movie in the world. I'm here to provide an informed, responsible perspective that's the best and most thoughtful response I can offer, hopefully offering readers food for thought, as you say, regarding movies they've seen as well as movies they haven't, and perhaps giving them a point of view to interact with in formulating their own thoughts about the film.
For what it's worth, I've learned a lot over the last 13-plus years in this gig. One of the most difficult lessons is that movies can look different after you've lived with them for awhile. In some films, flaws that seem forgivable at first become intolerable over time; in others, subtle virtues become brighter and more winsome. Learning to spot those early on is one of a critic's most valuable assets.
I initially wrote rave reviews for the first two Star Wars prequels, and their serious flaws dawned on me only slowly, with time and multiple viewings. I wrote a very nice but restrained review for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe because by then I'd learned enough to recognize that it wouldn't hold up to multiple viewings. Conversely, I now think my review of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie is insufficiently appreciative; it's a better crafted and more entertaining movie than I originally realized.
I think I've gotten pretty good at anticipating how well a movie will hold up over time, although I still make mistakes. J. J. Abrams has got me twice now with his Star Trek films, with witty humor, appealing banter and fun takes on the classic characters glossing over fatally flawed plots and serious moral problems. In general, though, I think I usually get it "right," at least in the sense that I watch a movie a few years later and I'm still happy with my review.
With The Desolation of Smaug, all my critical instincts tell me how I feel about this film today is how I'll feel about it five years from now. I can't write anything different than what I have.
First off, I am sorry if my review of your review also came across harsh. I can see how Allan would think I am hypocritical. I apologize as I didn't intend that and I am certainly not saying one cannot criticize a movie. (We shouldn't be blind consumers after all!) To this end, I actually pointed out several things where SDG was right in my first comment.
What I was calling for was more of a balance about what is good here. A balance that I still feel is lacking. For instance, SDG you mentioned how a "good" character kills an imprisoned "bad" character after he was granted a soon to be freedom. After reading reviews, I know about the scene (tomorrow I will see it in person) and who it was. But unlike you, I think this is actually a plus and not merely a negative of the movie. Peter Jackson et. al, although departing from the book here, is clearly trying to juxtapose Biblo's mercy and staying of the hand against Gollum with this other character's lack of mercy. So Peter Jackson if anything is highlighting mercy here when seen in light of the first movie. So this is one example where I would have liked to have more balance and to see the good Christian themes that are still present in the movie. Sure, I will be the first to admit that I wish the movies did embody more Christian values and virtues, but I still think they are pretty doggone good and yes despite your friend's review they have helped a younger generation, at least in my family, to go and read the book.
With all due respect, I also think your friend is wrong saying Jackson stole the story from Tolkien's audience. I think there is a level of mercy and thinking about the violence that is present. At least in the first movie that needs to be seen in light of the second. Why are we separating them here? Perhaps the second is supposed to be a contrast? And I am sure the issue of greed will be critiqued in the third movie when Thorin's greed will be the central focus. Basically, I think it is too early to give such a harsh review. I think we need to see the Trilogy as a whole or here at least see the two parts together.
To your point, I agree with what you are saying with Gimli and Galadrial. I just wanted to point this out to give more balance - that namely a love between an elf and a dwarf is not as foreign as Fr. Denis Limieux made it sound in his comments. But I agree that the sexual aspects certainly weren't there in Tolkien and it is a regret that this is a focus in the current movie. However, I also get what Bob Credenson is saying that the Dwarves aren't that pristine so it makes sense they have character flaws here. As for the elf Turiel's response well that is less explicable and I acknowledge the sadness of it. But then again elves are not perfect either.
Also, I am sorry when I used the word blacklisting as if I was indicating you SDG. I was actually using the term to refer to some of the people in the comments that are refusing to go see the movie.
In any case, please do know that I am thankful for your movie reviews (I read them regularly) and I agree that the Christian elements have been "dumbed down," which is a regret. But I am much more positive here towards this movie! Manners, hospitality and few references to sexual innuendo notwithstanding, there is still a good sense of good and evil here, a focus on mercy, of having a home/place in the world worth fighting for,a critique of a bourgeois lifestyle not willing to be daring or to go on an adventure for the good of others even if it costs them their lives, the virtue of courage, the virtue of temperance in the use of the powerful ring (which is why I think it is good that Bilbo hesitates to use it that often even in the Dragon's lair), doing little acts of love (in the first movie at least this was emphasized by Gandalf), the virtue of prudence in Gandalf, teaching the wrongfulness and temptation of the treachery of Saruman, a critique of power and influence as well as the corrupting nature of both, the destruction nature of greed that can ensnare even the best of people, the beauty of creation with the beautiful New Zealand backdrop as well as the promotion to care for creation with Radagast's role against Sauran who is destroying the forest and everything around him (in the first one), the hospitality of the elves (in the first one they gave them lots of food and shelter), etc. There is a lot to admire and this is why I am going to see the movie and promote it despite it not being a perfect rendition of Tolkien's novel. God Bless you in your work and thank you for giving much food for thought.
Note: I've updated the second paragraph in my review with a link to a new entry in my Very, Very Little Movie Glossary explaining what "Gilding The You-Know-What" is all about. Warning: It's a spoiler! Don't click the link if you don't want to know about the spectacularly gratuitous climactic image in the elaborate, pointless final action sequence.
Having a little fun on Twitter, Steve, with #IfPeterJacksonHadDirected.
I'll still go see the film because I believe in penance - and I'll try to find a couple things redeeming about it that will help me overcome the feeling that I had wasted my time.
Thank you, Mr. Greydanus. You do good work, and us a great service. If there are other movie reviewers who know what true substance is, I know not of them. You are the gatekeeper of this art form.
I missed the part of my review where I said "Minions! None of you contributes a nickel to this movie! No theater tickets, no DVDs or Blu-rays, no streaming!" That's what "blacklisted" means, right? Did you mean something else? I don't ordinarily think of a C review, or even an F, in the same breath as blacklisting.
You ask why my review is so harsh. I said I laughed and laughed at the Running River sequence, didn't I? I also said the talking spider gloss was kind of brilliant. And then I racked my brains for one emotionally resonant scene, and came up with one, but only one.
My feeling is, if you have to rack your brains to come up with one emotionally resonant scene, it's okay to write a harsh review.
"Wasn't the love between dwarf and elf insinuated between Galadrial and Gimli in Tolkien's LOR."
Good Lord, no. Gimli's devotion to Galadriel was part chivalric devotion, part filial Marian piety, utterly non-erotic on both counts. There was not the slightest hint of sexuality to it. This is absolutely foundational to the Catholic underpinnings of Tolkien's world.
You're free to take a bad adaptation of The Hobbit over 99% of what Hollywood puts out, but I think it's a bad deal.
I'd rank The Desolation of Smaug well below at least a third of the year's top films (even though it's been another dreadful year for Hollywood).
Like what? Like Gravity, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Monsters University and The Conjuring.
I'm very sure it won't make my top 20 or even 30 films of the year.
"The Hobbit movies have inflamed the love of Tolkien in another younger generation and it has stirred the imaginations of millions in a positive way."
Oh, I doubt this. I think the truth is closer to what my friend Jeff Overstreet wrote:
"It makes me sad to watch what new moviegoing generations will call The Hobbit when so many have found such joy — and more, meaning — by imagining their way with Tolkien through such a whimsical and meaningful tale about the dangers of greed and unthinking violence (two things celebrated by Jackson's films). Jackson hasn't brought Tolkien's story to a new audience — he's stolen it from them."
Thank you Steve, after seeing the train wreck that was the first Hobbit movie and finishing it only to get through it without any enjoyment, I'll skip this one completely. There were many things I didn't like about the LOH adaptation but all were bearable in the overall story. The Hobbit is a complete disaster.
Seriously, Dan? You can complain about the movie review, and the posts that follow it, but nobody can criticize the movie? Seems a little (lot) hypocritical.
And we should we be thankful these movies are being made, if they are not even faithful to the books? Especially when it seems the altered parts are those that might reflect Tolkien's Christian values? Given how much money these movies make from fantasy fans, it hardly seems necessary that Christians feel obligated to support them when they've been to some extent stripped of what should make them popular with a Christian audience.
If anything, Dan, you should be castigating Peter Jackson for trimming the Christian aspects of the books, rather than complaining Christians aren't more supportive of the movies. If you want to try to pin obligations on people to support certain movies, why not at least choose smaller-budget movies that aren't avoiding faith and virtue to appeal to a wider audience?
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I am disheartened here with the nature of this review and comments. Sure, there are several things I agree with SD about that shouldn't be in the movie but where is the graciousness here? Are there not positive things here in the movie that relate to the book? Why do critical reviews/comments have to be so doggone harsh without so few positive elements. And then the proud blacklisting of the film. Where is the Christian balance that tries to find the good in all things and the attempt to support good where ever we see it in a secular culture (by going to movies like this)? Is it really bad that little details like the love between a dwarf and an elf are off. Sure it's not true to Tolkien, but really is it that bad to blacklist a movie? Wasn't the love between dwarf and elf insinuated between Galadrial and Gimli in Tolkien's LOR. In any case, SDG is right to comment on the lack of hospitality and manners that have crept in, but we should continue to be thankful that Hollywood would do movies like this and pour millions of dollars into them to make them as beautiful as possible. Sure they could be more beautiful, but lets give a little credit here and not turn this into a big contempt fest. In this regard, I really appreciate Bob Credenson's comments. And for the record I'd take the bad adaptation of the Hobbit any day over 99% of the movies put out by Hollywood. So I am shocked SDG is only giving it a C. The Hobbit movies have inflamed the love of Tolkien in another younger generation and it has stirred the imaginations of millions in a positive way. The first had many memorable and honorable moments and I look forward to the second. Yes, I can put up with a few glitches here and there, can't you please? I fear we have let Sauron creep too much into our thoughts here. Looking forward to the second Hobbit!!!
Thank you for the insightful review. I will still see it, most likely, but my enthusiasm has been dulled significantly. I was 13 years old in the year 2001 when the first Lord of the Rings film came out. That trilogy had a major impact on my imagination and (it seems cheesy to admit it) even on my view of the world. It was encouraging to have an epic cinematic work on hand that celebrated not just courage and grace, but the truth that good will overcome the banality of evil. Now, at 25, living in a world that is even more complex and compromised, with greater concerns and responsibilities of my own, those films are still important to me - despite their flaws. I look forward to sharing them with my little son one day. Perhaps I'd better just read him The Hobbit, though.
After seeing the first movie I don't plan to go see the rest. I think money is more important to the producers than substance as the film doesn't follow the book.
Let's just hope the final installment doesn't end with all the characters doing a dance number like the end of Shrek to the tune of a Miley Cyrus song.
You totally nailed it. These were all the points that I noticed and winced over during the film.
One other thing that felt completely wrong were the several cutaways to crowd reaction shots when the dwarfs met the master of lake town. Showing extras with different skin colors does not counter the racism arguments.
What, it's ok to shove several entirely new characters into the story and to change the plot completely, but it's NOT possible to have some non-white elves and dwarfs? Lipservice, that's all.
They should never have made this film into three parts. I am re-reading the book as an adult right now, and it has a much more direct and to the point feel to it than Lord of the Rings—which as Steven stated, could stand up to expansions. Seems like they are milking the book for every bit of detail they can get from it (or imply from it) and milk the movie-goers for every dollar they can get. Having said all this—I'll still see it.
victor: No promises.
Marc: I don't think there are any notable plot spoilers in this review for anyone who knows their Tolkien, as you seem to.
Truly sad, but truly predictable bastardization. This mis-adaptation sounds like it's only good for the visual depictions of characters and special effects.
Thanks for all the story spoilers, Steven.
Posted by Fr. Denis Lemieux on Wednesday, Dec 11, 2013 7:25 PM (EST):
As a life long Tolkien geek, I have to say the most outrageous bit of this is the very idea of an Elf-Dwarf romantic pairing. That goes against every possible thing Tolkien created in Middle Earth - ludicrous!
But Fr. Denis, elf-human pairings, which are much more radical, are absolutely essential to the mythology. Tolkien says as much time and again.
Ludicrous, but at least the dragon doesn't rap. Please tell me Smaug doesn't rap.
I thought Peter Jackson's reimagining Tolkien was awful from Fellowship to the first Hobbit movie. I'll skip this one.
Awful. And the worst of it is, this is probably the last chance The Hobbit has for being adapted for film. Too bad they decided not to film The Hobbit…
As a life long Tolkien geek, I have to say the most outrageous bit of this is the very idea of an Elf-Dwarf romantic pairing. That goes against every possible thing Tolkien created in Middle Earth - ludicrous!
Is Sylvester McCoy in this one?
I'm almost ashamed to say it, but I'm with Bob on this one. It's a fantastic movie, it's a decent adaptation, and my only complaint is that it's not very English - but the current generation of Brits don't have the will or the way to tackle a project of this scale. If it gets a new generation to read the books and start to think about the deep moral quandaries which Gail mentioned, I say, mission accomplished.
Do you remember the excruciatingly stupid love triangle made with Arwen, Aragorn, and Eowyn? Eowyn was annoying enough in the books, but I despised how the film adaptation made it look like she had a chance…
Hey Hollywood- were erring a bit sick of forced low triangles. Believe it or not as a proud owner of female organs I don't need a love interest to get me to watch!
Looks like they're going in the right direction again. They did a great job with the first although it was a little too CG-y for my tastes. It's a good call cutting out the 'children's book' moments like Spider singing and the Gandalf-Beorn story that would have taken forever to tell. As for the 'lecherous moments', that's how I would expect a young dwarf to talk, makes sense to me. Can't wait to see Smaug!
How sad! The first one was awful. The commercials showing Bilbo talking to Smaug in a way that is nothing at all like the book showed me this would be worse. I read The Hobbit as a child and it is the first book I remember that really hit me emotionally, when Bilbo had to "betray" his friends to save them and took the consequences, and when Thorin forgave him. I remember feeling that I had understood something solemn and powerful and grownup. Guessing the third movie will just skip all that.
Tessa B: It'll be something in the C range. I'll decide by tomorrow. It really comes down to how annoying I decide the annoying bits are. Right now I'm leaning toward a plain old C.
So….am I right in thinking this review translates to a C+ rating? Terribly sad to hear how Jackson & Co. so thoroughly robbed this second film of moments of grace and light. From what I've seen in trailers and commercials, the love triangle is especially infuriating.
You can count on me, Devin.
Everything that I feared has come true. Thanks for the post-mortem, Steven.


text:
GovEx, has this article today that has ole AJ Strata "sorta" dancing in the streets, but like I told 'em before, "you should have been in the business" - AJ had this thing pegged from the git-go. Give it a read.
For myself, not much to add, we think alike. So just a few thoughts though on the article. In essence it just recaps the story, but then also gives us the whole picture and moreover the "moral of the story".
Again, and I don't know how to really put this. But in the real world of "international intrigue", there is sometimes "sacrifice", and other times, as AJ found out and as this article tells us, there is just good old fashion "Blue Dress" CYA at work. But remember this, life isn't fair and neither is intelligence work.
However, we also have to understand that beside the reasons cited for Able Danger's demise, There are other reasons that doomed it as well. One reason may be simple who we are - or rather who we were prior to 9/11.
The very reason that some people are in a huff about the "Secret Prisons" farse, is the fact is that possibly the United States isn't ready for a this type of scrutiny of it's people, or for the hard facts of serious intelligence gaming to be made known to it.
Ma and Pa Kettle would freak if they knew how much of their information is farmed, collected and stored on a daily basis.
Before September 11 we were more or less a victim of our own "openness", and desire not to be too secretive. We know that one of the concerns with sharing the data from Able Danger was "legal" - heh, only in America. At least pre 9/11 America.
Septemeber 11th, brought the needed reforms in the Patriot Act, but it also brought a slew of legal and constitutional hassles and questions as well.
Yes America changed on 9/11. Which is why I think we haven't had an attack on this soil since. In spite of the 9/11 Omission Commission's opinion on the matter, we are going just fine.
I don't want hearings on Able Danger just so we can hang people. That solves nothing and quite frankly if that were the case the hearings wouldn't see the light of day.
The article ends with the future of Data Mining and of harvesting other technologies to enhance our IC efforts. That's what we should be looking forward to in hearings and hopefully that's the way they'll pan out.
iraq Politics News murtha Able Danger Curt Weldon
Able Danger - Data-mining, Atta, and a Blue DressPosted by Jack Moss
GovEx, has this article today that has ole AJ Strata "sorta" dancing in the streets, but like I told 'em before, "you should have been in the business" - AJ had this thing pegged from the git-go. Give it a read.


text:
Feeling inspired? Stay tuned to this block to find out how you can get involved with this great initiative!
Northern Sport Accessibility Initiative
The region of northern British Columbia comprises more than half the province – approximately 500,000 sq km. And living within such a vast region can come with its challenges, especially for those living with disabilities (visible, invisible, sensory, cognitive and physical).
Fewer services, inaccessible facilities, and smaller populations can restrict opportunities to physical activity and recreation.
As a legacy of the 2015 Canada Winter Games, the Province of British Columbia, Canadian Paralympic Committee and viaSport have invested over $300,000 in a three-year project--the Northern Accessibility Initiative 2015 partnership--to expand these opportunities and provide people in northern BC living with a disability an enhanced quality of life via sport.
The partnership is being guided by a team of advisors with decades of experience from disability sport and recreation, sport, community, health, and education sectors—two-thirds of whom are from northern BC. The Northern Accessibility 2015 Initiative Advisory Team will guide in the prioritization of resources, programming, delivery and assessment across the provinces' largest geographic region, helping develop a "made-in-the-north" accessibility plan, which will become the first phase of long-term sport accessibility strategy for the province.
This project supports Accessibility 2024, a ten-year plan to make BC the most progressive place in Canada for people with a disability.


text:
Product Highlights
The Armasight PVS-7 Combat Carrying Case with Molle-Lok is an attaching system designed for military and law enforcement. The Molle-Lok attaches the case to Pals/Molle body armors, load bearing equipment, vests, tactical bags, pouches, etc.
The Molle-Lok is constructed of a hard proprietary polymer for strength and durability and can withstand the most extreme operating conditions. No weaving is required to attach the lok, making it easier to manipulate. This time-saving system allows the operator to easily set up gear before each mission and is especially beneficial during low-light conditions and maneuvers. The Combat Carrying Case's Molle-Lok has been designed with press locking tabs. Once in place, it can be fastened permanently. No special tools, like a screwdriver or knife tip, are required to separate the locking mechanism, which avoids any bodily injury.


text:
346 Prospect Boulevard
Carrollton, Frederick, 21701
Commute to Downtown Ballenger Creek
Most errands require a car.
About your score
346 Prospect Boulevard has a Walk Score of 47 out of 100. This location is a Car-Dependent neighborhood so most errands require a car.
This location is in the Carrollton neighborhood in Frederick. Nearby parks include Harry Grove Stadium, Loats Park and South End Park.
Explore how far you can travel by car, bus, bike and foot from 346 Prospect Boulevard.
View all Carrollton apartments on a map.
Search for homes in Frederick or find a Frederick real estate agent who knows walkable neighborhoods. Links will open on our partner site Redfin.com.
346 Prospect Boulevard is in the Carrollton neighborhood. Carrollton is the 4th most walkable neighborhood in Frederick with a neighborhood Walk Score of 63.