I finally saw the movie for the first time today and made a few observations.
[Show spoiler]
As most forum members are aware, The Hobbit was originally written for children, but due to its popularity became the springboard for The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made a superficial revision to the Hobbit story to make the Ring the unifying element with The Lord of the Rings, and wrote a more substantial chapter, "The Quest of Erebor", to be used in the LotR Appendices, but this was omitted from the final publication. Later, he attempted a complete revision of The Hobbit to give the text the same adult "feel" and seriousness as LotR, but quickly abandoned this effort. So I was curious to see if Peter Jackson could successfully integrate the story of The Hobbit into his Lord of the Rings movies and the overall scheme of Middle-earth - an area that even Tolkien failed to tread.
The result was mixed.
Prologue:
There were some excellent scenes here, but they could have done so much more. It was nice to see Ian Holm and Elijah Wood reprising their role as the elder Bilbo and Frodo, but I felt their inclusion was not vital and the time could have been more wisely invested.
The Erebor and Dale sets were simply amazing and set a high bar early in the film. And then the Elvish army appeared. WTF??? I won't even try to guess how the coming of the dragon was a big surprise to everyone; everyone that is, except the Elves who had time to assemble an army, march from Mirkwood to the Lonely Mountain, decide that they didn't want to fight - and then go home. Although the Elves in this film are more "convincing" as Elves than they were in LotR, don't put them in this scene! The reason for the discord between the Elves and Dwarves goes far back in time beyond this story, and for a much more important reason - the Silmaril, which is the unifying thread of the entire Middle-earth saga. Wrong turn, Pete! Anyway, with all of the additional material available, there is far more that could have done with the prologue.
An Unexpected Party:
For the most part this was well done. Martin Freeman is a convincing Bilbo, and of course it was great to see Ian McKellen reprise his role as Gandalf. With all of the effort expended in its construction, I was hoping to see more of Hobbiton, which was also my favorite set piece in the LotR movies. One improvement of the movie compared to the book is the inclusion of personalities for the dwarves. In the book, only Thorin, Balin, Bombur, and perhaps Fili and Kili are given any real personality. Who remembers anything from the book about Nori, Bifur, Bofur, Oin, etc.? Although Jackson's dwarves are not exactly my idea of what they would have been like, I applaud his attempt to make them somewhat interesting. Most of this section was entertaining, I enjoyed the "Chip the glasses and crack the plates" song as well as the "Far over the Misty Mountains cold" song, which apparently was the basis of dwarven theme song. There are a few parts of the book I would like to have seen included, for example, instead of the scene where Bilbo simply looks out his window, consider the passage from the book:
"He looked out the window. The stars were out in a dark sky above the trees. He thought of the jewels of the dwarves shining in dark caverns. Suddenly in the wood beyond The Water a flame leapt up - probably somebody lighting a wood-fire - and he thought of plundering dragons settling on his quiet Hill and kindling it all to flames. He shuddered; and very quickly he was plain Mr. Baggins of Bag End, Under-Hill again."
There were many details similar to this associated with the story as a result of having read the text many times (e.g. the red lamp hanging above the map table, etc.) that I was hoping to see in the extra time allotted for three films. Anyway, for the most part we are off to a good beginning.
Roast Mutton:
This was mostly a good section of the movie, but not without caveats. I enjoyed seeing the dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf riding ponies on the adventure, and the scene with the Trolls was OK, although again, it did not have the "feel" of the book. The flashback to the Battle of Azanulbizar was one of the more convincing battles, with the exception of a key character, Azog the goblin, who in my opinion looked like a bad CGI character from a video game. I appreciate the inclusion of Radagast, but was left wondering why Jackson constantly needs to over-dramatize stories, as he did in the LotR movies and King Kong, to their detriment. Would Radagast - a representative sent from Valinor by Eru [God] - have been that nutty?
A Short Rest:
The scenery here is outstanding, with 3D put to excellent use. However, the situation where the dwarves are "hunted' (?) by the orcs seemed contrived, as did the confrontation between Thorin and the Elves, and in my mind these plot twists were totally unnecessary. It was great to revisit Rivendell, although I was hoping to get the feel of "the Last Homely House west of the Mountains" as described in the book. As a minimum, I thought Jackson would give us a peak at The Hall of Fire, one of the most desirable places in Middle-earth, but anyway, we were rewarded with even more detailed exterior scenes of Rivendell than were present in LotR. The inclusion of "Figwit" was somewhat humorous, and I thought Elrond's reading of the moon-runes on the map was well done. And then, one of the big moments I had been waiting for - the White Council. Sure, it was great (and worth the price of the movie) to see Cate Blanchett reprise her role as Galadriel. But here was Jackson's chance to make some serious ties with the rest of the Middle-earth saga - that he let slip away. The White Council was a major event to decide what action to take concerning "The Necromancer", who of course was Sauron. Important characters omitted from the movie most likely would have been there: Cirdan from the Gray Havens, Radagast, Celeborn (as the "wisest of the Elves in Middle-earth"), Elrond's chief councilor Erestor, Glorfindel, etc. ...in other words, most of the roster of the "good guys" in Middle-earth. To add insult to injury, in the film version Saruman objects to taking action against Dol Guldur, which is counter to the actual story. Anyway, moving on...
Over Hill and Under Hill
Again, spectacular scenery and good CGI stone giants. The Goblin-town sequence started out good, but became bogged down in excess. At the expense of sounding like a broken record, this section is another example of needless over-dramatization. Was the "Bilbo hanging over the cliff" scene necessary? I wouldn't have been surprised if Sam showed up to rescue him, as he rescued Frodo at the Crack of Doom. And the Dwarves' series of amazing escapes from the orcs started out entertaining, but then there was more, and more, and... we get the idea. Just like King Kong, if a battle with one T-Rex is good, two has to be better, and three, well...
Riddles in the Dark
This was one of the best parts of the movie, despite the inconsistency between the finding of the Ring in the Fellowship prologue and this movie. I think Tolkien himself would have been impressed by Andy Serkis' performance.
Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire
For the most part this was OK, although (again) the over-dramatized scene of the dwarves falling from tree to tree strained credibility. The wargs in The Hobbit are more convincing than their counterparts in The Two Towers. The rescue scene with the Eagles was my favorite scene of the movie. Although the final shot with the Lonely Mountain seemed premature, I'm not sure in what other manner the movie could have ended and still left the audience anticipating the second part.
With the exception of the dwarven theme, I felt that the musical score for this film was underwhelming. I understand that many of the LotR themes were used to tie the films together, but after a while, this just seemed "lazy".
The bottom line is that, similar to the LotR movies, The Hobbit excels when Jackson stays closer to the original text. But, despite my criticisms, I nonetheless did enjoy this film, highly recommend it, and look forward to the second part of the trilogy.
Awesome review. What you described and articulated us one of the reasons that, no matter which version, it's hard to watch Towers and King.
I just don't see how this film is going to get an extended cut...
I finally saw the movie for the first time today and made a few observations.
[Show spoiler]
As most forum members are aware, The Hobbit was originally written for children, but due to its popularity became the springboard for The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made a superficial revision to the Hobbit story to make the Ring the unifying element with The Lord of the Rings, and wrote a more substantial chapter, "The Quest of Erebor", to be used in the LotR Appendices, but this was omitted from the final publication. Later, he attempted a complete revision of The Hobbit to give the text the same adult "feel" and seriousness as LotR, but quickly abandoned this effort. So I was curious to see if Peter Jackson could successfully integrate the story of The Hobbit into his Lord of the Rings movies and the overall scheme of Middle-earth - an area that even Tolkien failed to tread.
The result was mixed.
Prologue:
There were some excellent scenes here, but they could have done so much more. It was nice to see Ian Holm and Elijah Wood reprising their role as the elder Bilbo and Frodo, but I felt their inclusion was not vital and the time could have been more wisely invested.
The Erebor and Dale sets were simply amazing and set a high bar early in the film. And then the Elvish army appeared. WTF??? I won't even try to guess how the coming of the dragon was a big surprise to everyone; everyone that is, except the Elves who had time to assemble an army, march from Mirkwood to the Lonely Mountain, decide that they didn't want to fight - and then go home. Although the Elves in this film are more "convincing" as Elves than they were in LotR, don't put them in this scene! The reason for the discord between the Elves and Dwarves goes far back in time beyond this story, and for a much more important reason - the Silmaril, which is the unifying thread of the entire Middle-earth saga. Wrong turn, Pete! Anyway, with all of the additional material available, there is far more that could have done with the prologue.
An Unexpected Party:
For the most part this was well done. Martin Freeman is a convincing Bilbo, and of course it was great to see Ian McKellen reprise his role as Gandalf. With all of the effort expended in its construction, I was hoping to see more of Hobbiton, which was also my favorite set piece in the LotR movies. One improvement of the movie compared to the book is the inclusion of personalities for the dwarves. In the book, only Thorin, Balin, Bombur, and perhaps Fili and Kili are given any real personality. Who remembers anything from the book about Nori, Bifur, Bofur, Oin, etc.? Although Jackson's dwarves are not exactly my idea of what they would have been like, I applaud his attempt to make them somewhat interesting. Most of this section was entertaining, I enjoyed the "Chip the glasses and crack the plates" song as well as the "Far over the Misty Mountains cold" song, which apparently was the basis of dwarven theme song. There are a few parts of the book I would like to have seen included, for example, instead of the scene where Bilbo simply looks out his window, consider the passage from the book:
"He looked out the window. The stars were out in a dark sky above the trees. He thought of the jewels of the dwarves shining in dark caverns. Suddenly in the wood beyond The Water a flame leapt up - probably somebody lighting a wood-fire - and he thought of plundering dragons settling on his quiet Hill and kindling it all to flames. He shuddered; and very quickly he was plain Mr. Baggins of Bag End, Under-Hill again."
There were many details similar to this associated with the story as a result of having read the text many times (e.g. the red lamp hanging above the map table, etc.) that I was hoping to see in the extra time allotted for three films. Anyway, for the most part we are off to a good beginning.
Roast Mutton:
This was mostly a good section of the movie, but not without caveats. I enjoyed seeing the dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf riding ponies on the adventure, and the scene with the Trolls was OK, although again, it did not have the "feel" of the book. The flashback to the Battle of Azanulbizar was one of the more convincing battles, with the exception of a key character, Azog the goblin, who in my opinion looked like a bad CGI character from a video game. I appreciate the inclusion of Radagast, but was left wondering why Jackson constantly needs to over-dramatize stories, as he did in the LotR movies and King Kong, to their detriment. Would Radagast - a representative sent from Valinor by Eru [God] - have been that nutty?
A Short Rest:
The scenery here is outstanding, with 3D put to excellent use. However, the situation where the dwarves are "hunted' (?) by the orcs seemed contrived, as did the confrontation between Thorin and the Elves, and in my mind these plot twists were totally unnecessary. It was great to revisit Rivendell, although I was hoping to get the feel of "the Last Homely House west of the Mountains" as described in the book. As a minimum, I thought Jackson would give us a peak at The Hall of Fire, one of the most desirable places in Middle-earth, but anyway, we were rewarded with even more detailed exterior scenes of Rivendell than were present in LotR. The inclusion of "Figwit" was somewhat humorous, and I thought Elrond's reading of the moon-runes on the map was well done. And then, one of the big moments I had been waiting for - the White Council. Sure, it was great (and worth the price of the movie) to see Cate Blanchett reprise her role as Galadriel. But here was Jackson's chance to make some serious ties with the rest of the Middle-earth saga - that he let slip away. The White Council was a major event to decide what action to take concerning "The Necromancer", who of course was Sauron. Important characters omitted from the movie most likely would have been there: Cirdan from the Gray Havens, Radagast, Celeborn (as the "wisest of the Elves in Middle-earth"), Elrond's chief councilor Erestor, Glorfindel, etc. ...in other words, most of the roster of the "good guys" in Middle-earth. To add insult to injury, in the film version Saruman objects to taking action against Dol Guldur, which is counter to the actual story. Anyway, moving on...
Over Hill and Under Hill
Again, spectacular scenery and good CGI stone giants. The Goblin-town sequence started out good, but became bogged down in excess. At the expense of sounding like a broken record, this section is another example of needless over-dramatization. Was the "Bilbo hanging over the cliff" scene necessary? I wouldn't have been surprised if Sam showed up to rescue him, as he rescued Frodo at the Crack of Doom. And the Dwarves' series of amazing escapes from the orcs started out entertaining, but then there was more, and more, and... we get the idea. Just like King Kong, if a battle with one T-Rex is good, two has to be better, and three, well...
Riddles in the Dark
This was one of the best parts of the movie, despite the inconsistency between the finding of the Ring in the Fellowship prologue and this movie. I think Tolkien himself would have been impressed by Andy Serkis' performance. The key scene where Bilbo (while invisible) spares Gollum's life, is extremely important and well-acted.
Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire
For the most part this was OK, although (again) the over-dramatized scene of the dwarves falling from tree to tree strained credibility. The wargs in The Hobbit are more convincing than their counterparts in The Two Towers. The rescue scene with the Eagles was my favorite scene of the movie. Although the final shot with the Lonely Mountain seemed premature, I'm not sure in what other manner the movie could have ended and still left the audience anticipating the second part.
With the exception of the dwarven theme, I felt that the musical score for this film was underwhelming. I understand that many of the LotR themes were used to tie the films together, but after a while, this just seemed "lazy".
The bottom line is that, similar to the LotR movies, The Hobbit excels when Jackson stays closer to the original text. But, despite my criticisms, I nonetheless did enjoy this film, highly recommend it, and look forward to the second part of the trilogy.
A review only a purist can give (I mean that in a positive sense). Incredible dteailing, thank you.
Yea i noted that Sir Peter has already completed the E.E. Hopefully (unless specs have already been released) there is no 6 month break in between releases, and just gives us a seamless branched edition featuring theatrical and E.E's , not holding my breath.
That is possible but i am betting otherwise. Unless you are adjusting for inflation I believe this will end up as the highest grossing film in the franchise both North AMer. and Internationally . I see this doing about $400 million here in north america and at least another 850 million wolrldwide. So it should do at least 1.25 billion.
$400M? I highly doubt that. Getting to $325M might be stretching it.
[Show spoiler]Yea i noted that Sir Peter has already completed the E.E. Hopefully (unless specs have already been released) there is no 6 month break in between releases, and just gives us a seamless branched edition featuring theatrical and E.E's,
It's been over a decade since moviegoers last set foot in Middle Earth, the world J.R.R. Tolkien created back in his first novel, 'The Hobbit' in 1937. After the massive success of Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, it was only a matter of time before we saw 'The Hobbit' on the big screen. After years of development, and originally being a producer only role on the film, Peter Jackson stepped back behind the camera to bring us back to Middle Earth in the original first chapter of this epic saga. In a move that has become very popular in Hollywood, 'The Hobbit' isn't being told in just one film, but being split into multiple films to tell the story, turning it into a new trilogy. Bringing back some of the fan favorite actors from the original trilogy back, while bringing a whole new array of actors in as the new characters, Jackson has brought us back to Middle Earth in great fashion, but can it live up to the expectations fans have put into their heads for many years, while living up to the previous series? That's what many want to know, but the answer isn't a simple yes or no.
Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is a mild mannered hobbit who lives a carefree life in his hole in the ground in the Shire. But when Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) arrives one day asking him to go on an adventure, his life will become never be the same. When a company of thirteen dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), sets their sites on going to the Lonely Mountains, the remnants of their race's destroyed kingdom, Bilbo is enlisted to help them on their journey. Bilbo decides that a life of adventure is exactly what he wants, and agrees to join them on their mission, which will eventually lead them face to face with Smaug, the dragon who destroyed the dwarves' kingdom. This journey will set events into motion that will forever change the characters, and Middle Earth, forever.
Waiting to finally see 'The Hobbit' on the big screen really set the expectations for this film at an all time high, especially coming after the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. Fans may want to temper their expectations going into 'An Unexpected Journey', because this isn't a simple adaptation of the book. Jackson and his team have dived into the appendices of 'Return of the King' to pull more material that happens during the time of 'The Hobbit' to bolster the story, hoping to expand the story to fit it over three films. Unfortunately, at least thus far, adding material to the story doesn't necessarily help it, and ends up making the film feeling bloated, overlong, and simply unfocused on the core story of 'The Hobbit', making it take a backseat to some of the new subplots that the behind the scenes have cooked up. There seems to be a desire to link this story to 'The Lord of the Rings' films, more so than in the original story. Exploring things like The White Council, as well as the addition of the Pale Orc, Thorin's arch nemesis, may be interesting subplots, but they really drag down the film. The whole middle of the film feels a bit overlong as they begin exploring these plots in such great detail, and really took focus away from Bilbo and his journey, as well as changing the entire tone of the story from a whimsical kids story to a more serious take on it. Not completely serious, mind you, but more serious than the initial tale.
Thankfully, even with those changes, 'An Unexpected Journey' manages to be a very good film in its own right. With Martin Freeman leading the film as Bilbo Baggins, the film sits on his shoulders, as well as those of Ian McKellen and Richard Armitage, who all help carry the film. Freeman has been a character actor for many years that many may recognize, but has recently gotten critical acclaim in the role of Doctor John Watson in the BBC series 'Sherlock'. There are few actors who completely disappear into character and become that character, and thankfully, Freeman is able to do just that as Bilbo. He's excellent as the titular hobbit, and really captures the magic of the character from the novel, bringing him to life perfectly. It's really just excellent casting, and one of the best since Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. Bilbo is just such a wonderful character, and Freeman plays him with the wide eyes and wonder that you'd expect the character to have, leaving his safe life behind for a new adventure. This role is going to fully land Freeman on the map for those who don't know him yet, which is excellent, because more people should really appreciate his acting. Sir Ian McKellen returns for the fourth time to play the great wizard, Gandalf, a role he made famous in 'The Fellowship of the Ring' almost a decade ago. It's great to see him returning to the role once again, and it really seems like one that was tailor made for him. He's just so great as the character, and it's nice to see him having a bit more fun in the role this time around, with the slightly lighter tone. But he still brings gravitas and importance to his character, especially in the scenes featuring the White Council, where you can see the more withered and older side of this great man begin to show through. There's no one else who could do the role the way McKellen has, so it's really nice to see that didn't change all these years later. His chemistry with Freeman is nothing short of excellent, and they play off each other wonderfully, and you really believe there's a great friendship, and appreciation, for each other between them. Gandalf never would have chosen someone he didn't believe in for this quest, and you can see just why he would ask Bilbo to that person.
Finally, we can talk about Richard Armitage as Thorin, who really stood out in his role as the tortured and haunted dwarf leader. He, like Freeman and McKellen, really brought Thorin to life in the exact way the character was in the novel. It's rather excellent casting, and you can't help but feel for him after the losses he's faced in his life, and having the rest of the future of his face on his shoulders, as it were. If there's one thing Jackson knows, it's how to cast the roles in his films, and it's great to see that he managed to get three excellent actors to really sell these roles. One who will also be hugely convincing in their role is Andy Serkis as Gollum, who returns once again, in what is the films best scene. It's amazing seeing how far the effects of the character have come, and how easily Serkis slipped back into the role as the rather disturbed character. He just oozes the creepy, strange, yet rather entertaining characteristics of the character so well, and you can't help but feel uncomfortable and worried for Bilbo as he deals with the rather strange character. The whole scene between Bilbo and Gollum is really the best scene in the film, and as fans of the series know, one that will set many events in the future into motion. It's executed absolutely perfectly, and it's scenes like this that really elevate the film. As for the many supporting actors as the rest of the dwarves, while they're all quite good, we aren't given a whole lot of time to get to know the different characters. They all stand out by their appearances, but unfortunately, they all begin to bleed together in their characteristics. It really makes one hope that we'll eventually get to know them more over the next two films in the series, so that they don't feel so one dimensional later, but for now, they're entertaining characters, and very well acted, but nothing really sets them all apart to make them standout.
If there was one thing that was most disappointing about the film, it's the move from extras to CGI when it came to some of the creatures. In 'Lord of the Rings', the pure scope and size of the films were so epic, and it helped in the many scenes featuring orcs that they were all extras in makeup and costumes, so it's a bit jarring to now have the orcs as completely CG characters now. It never looks bad, in fact, the effects are quite good, but it's definitely a noticeable difference, and it definitely makes you wonder why they decided to take that route instead of using extras this time around. The creature effects in the film are excellent across the board though, and it's really just amazing how far they've come over the last decade. Jackson's Middle Earth is really something to behold, and it's great to see the sweeping New Zealand landscapes once again on the big screen. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, really making the film feel huge and epic, and it's good to see that Jackson and Andrew Lesnie haven't lost that touch from the original series. It just goes to prove that Lesnie is still one of the greatest cinematographers in the business right now, and that none of his films should be missed for that reason alone. He did an amazing job with the 3D as well, which is a major plus. It really made parts of the film feel incredibly immersive, especially many of the scenes inside Bilbo's home and scenes inside the Goblin tunnels, that stuck out the most. It really added quite a bit of depth to the proceedings, without feeling incredibly gimmicky, and it actually benefited the film. It doesn't make or break the film, but it didn't hurt it, which is a major plus.
The action in this film is few and far between, but the wait makes each set piece worth it. While not nearly as exciting as some of the final war scenes in 'Return of the King', which isn't surprising, many of them in this film are a bit more fun. One in particular is the scene set inside the Goblin mines, which is a bit reminiscent of the Moria scene in 'Fellowship of the Ring' that is really a lot of fun to watch, and brings some of the whimsy feeling of the original novel to the screen. It's very fun to watch, and in 3D, even more so. There are some excellent action sequences in flashbacks regarding Thorin's past as well, and those felt very huge and epic, really reminding me of 'Return of the King' and 'The Two Towers', specifically the scenes at Minas Tirith. Once again, Lesnie brings some amazing visuals to all these scenes, really making them pop. It's really good to have him return to make these films feel like they fit into the same mold of the original series. Howard Shore has also returned to score the films, and that's a great thing as well. The cinematography and music were two of the things that really made the original trilogy standout, and it's great to have these returning components to the series, making them mesh with the original series. Shore does an excellent job once again, really crafting the mood and feel of all the scenes in the film, making what is one of the best, and most sweeping, scores in recent memory.
While 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' may not be a perfect return, or even the best of the Middle Earth series thus far, it's not a slouch either. Taken as it's own thing, it's very good, but could be slightly trimmed down a bit to cut some fat off the run time. Led by an excellent trio of actors, an excellent score, and some absolutely breathtaking cinematography, it alone makes returning to this world absolutely worth it. It's good to see Jackson back in fine form, but a less is more approach for the next two films may be something he should think about. Overall, the film sets up what should be a rather fun trilogy down the road, and it's nice to revisit some old friends again. Even a decade later, Middle Earth is still a place that many can call home and enjoy new adventures in.
I finally saw the movie for the first time today and made a few observations.
[Show spoiler]
As most forum members are aware, The Hobbit was originally written for children, but due to its popularity became the springboard for The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made a superficial revision to the Hobbit story to make the Ring the unifying element with The Lord of the Rings, and wrote a more substantial chapter, "The Quest of Erebor", to be used in the LotR Appendices, but this was omitted from the final publication. Later, he attempted a complete revision of The Hobbit to give the text the same adult "feel" and seriousness as LotR, but quickly abandoned this effort. So I was curious to see if Peter Jackson could successfully integrate the story of The Hobbit into his Lord of the Rings movies and the overall scheme of Middle-earth - an area that even Tolkien feared to tread.
The result was mixed.
Prologue:
There were some excellent scenes here, but they could have done so much more. It was nice to see Ian Holm and Elijah Wood reprising their role as the elder Bilbo and Frodo, but I felt their inclusion was not vital and the time could have been more wisely invested.
The Erebor and Dale sets were simply amazing and set a high bar early in the film. And then the Elvish army appeared. WTF??? I won't even try to guess how the coming of the dragon was a big surprise to everyone; everyone that is, except the Elves who had time to assemble an army, march from Mirkwood to the Lonely Mountain, decide that they didn't want to fight - and then go home. Although the Elves in this film are more "convincing" as Elves than they were in LotR, don't put them in this scene! The reason for the discord between the Elves and Dwarves goes far back in time beyond this story, and for a much more important reason - the Silmaril, which is the unifying thread of the entire Middle-earth saga. Wrong turn, Pete! Anyway, with all of the additional material available, there is far more that could have done with the prologue.
An Unexpected Party:
For the most part this was well done. Martin Freeman is a convincing Bilbo, and of course it was great to see Ian McKellen reprise his role as Gandalf. With all of the effort expended in its construction, I was hoping to see more of Hobbiton, which was also my favorite set piece in the LotR movies. One improvement of the movie compared to the book is the inclusion of personalities for the dwarves. In the book, only Thorin, Balin, Bombur, and perhaps Fili and Kili are given any real personality. Who remembers anything from the book about Nori, Bifur, Bofur, Oin, etc.? Although Jackson's dwarves are not exactly my idea of what they would have been like, I applaud his attempt to make them somewhat interesting. Most of this section was entertaining, I enjoyed the "Chip the glasses and crack the plates" song as well as the "Far over the Misty Mountains cold" song, which apparently was the basis of dwarven theme song. There are a few parts of the book I would like to have seen included, for example, instead of the scene where Bilbo simply looks out his window, consider the passage from the book:
"He looked out the window. The stars were out in a dark sky above the trees. He thought of the jewels of the dwarves shining in dark caverns. Suddenly in the wood beyond The Water a flame leapt up - probably somebody lighting a wood-fire - and he thought of plundering dragons settling on his quiet Hill and kindling it all to flames. He shuddered; and very quickly he was plain Mr. Baggins of Bag End, Under-Hill again."
There were many details similar to this associated with the story as a result of having read the text many times (e.g. the red lamp hanging above the map table, etc.) that I was hoping to see in the extra time allotted for three films. Anyway, for the most part we are off to a good beginning.
Roast Mutton:
This was mostly a good section of the movie, but not without caveats. I enjoyed seeing the dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf riding ponies on the adventure, and the scene with the Trolls was OK, although again, it did not have the "feel" of the book. The flashback to the Battle of Azanulbizar was one of the more convincing battles, with the exception of a key character, Azog the goblin, who in my opinion looked like a bad CGI character from a video game. I appreciate the inclusion of Radagast, but was left wondering why Jackson constantly needs to over-dramatize stories, as he did in the LotR movies and King Kong, to their detriment. Would Radagast - a representative sent from Valinor by Eru [God] - have been that nutty?
A Short Rest:
The scenery here is outstanding, with 3D put to excellent use. However, the situation where the dwarves are "hunted' (?) by the orcs seemed contrived, as did the confrontation between Thorin and the Elves, and in my mind these plot twists were totally unnecessary. It was great to revisit Rivendell, although I was hoping to get the feel of "the Last Homely House west of the Mountains" as described in the book. As a minimum, I thought Jackson would give us a peak at The Hall of Fire, one of the most desirable places in Middle-earth, but anyway, we were rewarded with even more detailed exterior scenes of Rivendell than were present in LotR. The inclusion of "Figwit" was somewhat humorous, and I thought Elrond's reading of the moon-runes on the map was well done. And then, one of the big moments I had been waiting for - the White Council. Sure, it was great (and worth the price of the movie) to see Cate Blanchett reprise her role as Galadriel. But here was Jackson's chance to make some serious ties with the rest of the Middle-earth saga - that he let slip away. The White Council was a major event to decide what action to take concerning "The Necromancer", who of course was Sauron. Important characters omitted from the movie most likely would have been there: Cirdan from the Gray Havens, Radagast, Celeborn (as the "wisest of the Elves in Middle-earth"), Elrond's chief councilor Erestor, Glorfindel, etc. ...in other words, most of the roster of the "good guys" in Middle-earth. To add insult to injury, in the film version Saruman objects to taking action against Dol Guldur, which is counter to the actual story. Anyway, moving on...
Over Hill and Under Hill
Again, spectacular scenery and good CGI stone giants. The Goblin-town sequence started out good, but became bogged down in excess. At the expense of sounding like a broken record, this section is another example of needless over-dramatization. Was the "Bilbo hanging over the cliff" scene necessary? I wouldn't have been surprised if Sam showed up to rescue him, as he rescued Frodo at the Crack of Doom. And the Dwarves' series of amazing escapes from the orcs started out entertaining, but then there was more, and more, and... we get the idea. Just like King Kong, if a battle with one T-Rex is good, two has to be better, and three, well...
Riddles in the Dark
This was one of the best parts of the movie, despite the inconsistency between the finding of the Ring in the Fellowship prologue and this movie. I think Tolkien himself would have been impressed by Andy Serkis' performance. The well-acted scene where Bilbo (while invisible) spares Gollum's life, is perhaps the most important scene in the movie, as it illustrates the key human attribute of pity (compassion).
Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire
For the most part this was OK, although (again) the over-dramatized scene of the dwarves falling from tree to tree strained credibility. The wargs in The Hobbit are more convincing than their counterparts in The Two Towers. The rescue scene with the Eagles was my favorite scene of the movie. Although the final shot with the Lonely Mountain seemed premature, I'm not sure in what other manner the movie could have ended and still left the audience anticipating the second part.
With the exception of the dwarven theme, I felt that the musical score for this film was underwhelming. I understand that many of the LotR themes were used to tie the films together, but after a while, this just seemed "lazy".
The bottom line is that, similar to the LotR movies, The Hobbit excels when Jackson stays closer to the original text. But, despite my criticisms, I nonetheless did enjoy this film, highly recommend it, and look forward to the second part of the trilogy.
Great thoughts! I will keep these in line upon returning to this film later this week.
I finally saw the movie for the first time today and made a few observations.
Good review.
[Show spoiler]I agree completely with Azog looking like a video game character. It felt poorly done, especially with everything else looking so great (especially Gollum). Also, how did the Orcs know where the Dwarves were? Why are they "hunting" them? They kinda popped up out of nowhere.
I saw it with my 10 year old and she liked it, but it did drag in parts for her. She's only seen a few minutes of LOTR, I'm hoping this will peak her interest.
I also am not sure how I feel about the 48 FPS, it does take some getting used to. But it did deem to enhance the 3D, which was pretty good. I think I'll have to see a bit more of it before I come to my own conclusion.
[Show spoiler]I agree completely with Azog looking like a video game character. It felt poorly done, especially with everything else looking so great (especially Gollum). Also, how did the Orcs know where the Dwarves were? Why are they "hunting" them? They kinda popped up out of nowhere.
There are other instances in the movie, but with regard to those scenes, I wondered why it was necessary to
[Show spoiler] have this thread with the CGI Azog pursuing the dwarves - just as they meet Bilbo and leave Hobbiton - may we say that those events would perhaps be suspiciously coincidental? Those familiar with the saga are aware that Azog was killed at Azanulbizar by Dain, who figures in the last installment of these movies, and therefore could have appropriately appeared performing his correct role in this movie. If Jackson really wanted to pursue this revenge plot line, why would he not use Bolg (Azog's son), who actually figured into the story?
Anyway, I applaud the obvious painstaking effort put forth by the art and special effects departments and production crew that made Middle-earth "real" again after an eleven year hiatus. But IMO, as with LotR, the screenplay appears to be the weak element of an otherwise excellent effort.
Last edited by Grand Bob; 12-17-2012 at 04:50 AM.
Reason: grammar
Had some areas to respond which, was possible reasons for why things were (or weren't) done...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Bob
I finally saw the movie for the first time today and made a few observations. Prologue:
[Show spoiler]
The reason for the discord between the Elves and Dwarves goes far back in time beyond this story, and for a much more important reason - the Silmaril, which is the unifying thread of the entire Middle-earth saga. Wrong turn, Pete! Anyway, with all of the additional material available, there is far more that could have done with the prologue.
Roast Mutton:
[Show spoiler]
Would Radagast - a representative sent from Valinor by Eru [God] - have been that nutty?
A Short Rest:
[Show spoiler]
The White Council was a major event to decide what action to take concerning "The Necromancer", who of course was Sauron. Important characters omitted from the movie most likely would have been there: Cirdan from the Gray Havens, Radagast, Celeborn (as the "wisest of the Elves in Middle-earth"), Elrond's chief councilor Erestor, Glorfindel, etc. ...in other words, most of the roster of the "good guys" in Middle-earth. To add insult to injury, in the film version Saruman objects to taking action against Dol Guldur, which is counter to the actual story. Anyway, moving on...
Riddles in the Dark
[Show spoiler]
This was one of the best parts of the movie, despite the inconsistency between the finding of the Ring in the Fellowship prologue and this movie.
Responses:
Prologue:
[Show spoiler]
This is true, and while New Line Cinema and MGM own the film rights to The Hobbit and LotR (appendices included) I imagine the studio lawyers would prefer to stay away from things covered in much greater detail in The Silmarillion as to avoid a lawsuit from the Tolkien Estate, which is already more than a little trigger happy. Additionally, how much time would need to be spent in order to properly delve into the Silmaril, or even the Elves disliking of the Dwares because Aulė created them.
For there to be a major payoff at the end of the Battle of the Five Armies and for character development for Thorin PJ's addition of Thranduil and his army makes sense.
Roast Mutton:
[Show spoiler]
Using that same logic why would Saruman succumb to tempation and lust for power and turn from his mission? We have very very little actual information from Tolkien regarding Radagast, what we do know is that he prefers plants and animals. Given that most of his interaction is with animals I personally thought the portrayal was fine and fit the image/behavior I'd had for Radagast in my mind.
A Short Rest:
[Show spoiler]
There were four known meetings of The White Council during the Third Age, given the subject matter and location of the meeting this meeting it's safe to assume it was the 2nd meeting of the White Council. At that meeting Sarumon was against taking any action on Dol Guldur because he was desiring the One Ring and was actively looking for it and had also hoped that whatever/whomever the Necromancer was could possibly draw The One Ring out so that he (Saruman) could possess it. It's not until the 3rd meeting that Saruman yields and The White Council agrees to assault Dol Guldur.
Now I will say, lines are little blurred since at the 2nd meeting Gandalf was supposed to have confirmed the identify of the Necromancer, and it was supposed to have happened before the Quest of Erebor. I assume we'll get the "third meeting" of The White Council sometime during the 2nd film.
Riddles in the Dark
[Show spoiler]
Someone else in the other thread had a logical reasoning for this from a 'story' view point (ignore the actual reasons it was different). In FotR its just a quick recap -- which in lots of cases (Movies, TV) recaps are slightly different portals that get the main point across while possibly altering or skewing some of the actual details.
Had some areas to respond which, was possible reasons for why things were (or weren't) done...
Responses:
Prologue:
[Show spoiler]
This is true, and while New Line Cinema and MGM own the film rights to The Hobbit and LotR (appendices included) I imagine the studio lawyers would prefer to stay away from things covered in much greater detail in The Silmarillion as to avoid a lawsuit from the Tolkien Estate, which is already more than a little trigger happy. Additionally, how much time would need to be spent in order to properly delve into the Silmaril, or even the Elves disliking of the Dwares because Aulė created them.
For there to be a major payoff at the end of the Battle of the Five Armies and for character development for Thorin PJ's addition of Thranduil and his army makes sense.
In this case, I thought a simple statement from Thorin concerning the reason for the actual rift between the Elves and Dwarves would have been appropriate and more effective (if not as flashy) than the scene concocted in the prologue. Namely, the rift occurred when the Dwarves of Nogrod, seeking to regain the Nauglamir (the necklace containing the Silmaril) were confronted by Elu Thingol, king of the Elves of Middle-earth with the statement that began "... ye of uncouth race ... " after which they killed him.
Quote:
Roast Mutton:
[Show spoiler]
Using that same logic why would Saruman succumb to tempation and lust for power and turn from his mission? We have very very little actual information from Tolkien regarding Radagast, what we do know is that he prefers plants and animals. Given that most of his interaction is with animals I personally thought the portrayal was fine and fit the image/behavior I'd had for Radagast in my mind.
A Short Rest:
[Show spoiler]
There were four known meetings of The White Council during the Third Age, given the subject matter and location of the meeting this meeting it's safe to assume it was the 2nd meeting of the White Council. At that meeting Sarumon was against taking any action on Dol Guldur because he was desiring the One Ring and was actively looking for it and had also hoped that whatever/whomever the Necromancer was could possibly draw The One Ring out so that he (Saruman) could possess it. It's not until the 3rd meeting that Saruman yields and The White Council agrees to assault Dol Guldur.
Now I will say, lines are little blurred since at the 2nd meeting Gandalf was supposed to have confirmed the identify of the Necromancer, and it was supposed to have happened before the Quest of Erebor. I assume we'll get the "third meeting" of The White Council sometime during the 2nd film.
The instance in this movie is the Third White Council,
[Show spoiler]which from the Appendices that Jackson says he is using state:
"The White Council meets; Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur, since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River [for the Ring]"
Quote:
Riddles in the Dark
[Show spoiler]
Someone else in the other thread had a logical reasoning for this from a 'story' view point (ignore the actual reasons it was different). In FotR its just a quick recap -- which in lots of cases (Movies, TV) recaps are slightly different portals that get the main point across while possibly altering or skewing some of the actual details.
Yeah, I have no real problem with that, since Jackson had no way of knowing that a Hobbit movie would be made when he filmed "Fellowship". Again, overall I think Jackson did a good job, but considering that many years were available to think about this film and from what I understand, the largest movie budget in history, I was expecting something better from the screenplay. I keep wondering, what if some other (fresh) screenwriters had been involved in this project... ?
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
, not holding my breath.
Linear Mode
