Viggo Mortensen Isn't Wild About 'The Hobbit'

There's a riff in the realms of men.

Viggo Mortensen, who played Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings, has some harsh words about director Peter Jackson's career — specifically, The Hobbit films, and even the final installments of the original trilogy.

It's best to let the man speak for himself. Here are Mortensen's thoughts on why The Fellowship of the Ring was the best of the three Lord of the Rings films, and why he's not a fan of The Hobbit:

"Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.

“I guess Peter became like Ridley Scott – this one-man industry now, with all these people depending on him. … But you can make a choice, I think. I asked Ridley when I worked with him (on 1997’s GI Jane), 'Why don’t you do another film like The Duellists [Scott’s 1977 debut, from a Joseph Conrad short story]?’ And Peter, I was sure he would do another intimately scaled film like Heavenly Creatures, maybe with this project about New Zealanders in the First World War he wanted to make. But then he did King Kong. And then he did The Lovely Bones – and I thought that would be his smaller movie. But the problem is, he did it on a $90 million budget. That should have been a $15 million movie. The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…”

(via The Guardian)

The Batman: Pattinson Explains What to Expect From His Dark Knight Voice

More in Movies