Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey

SF: Here we are following Bilbo on his big adventure set many years before the events of Lord of the Rings. I am a huge Tolkien fan. So really it would take a great deal for me not to like this. Somehow with all the hype I wasn't that excited. The idea of three films baffled me and still does. First there was a great deal of padding out which seems unnecessary and probably rather boring for non-die-hard fans. However as expected the production value was pretty impressive and very much in keeping with the previous movies. Sadly, as it was filmed in 48 frames per second everything looked too real thus a bit more fake and CGI then it should have (edit - we saw it in 24fps but still looked more fake than LOTR - oh dear). Sometimes fantasy films need that ethereal air to the camera work, new Zealand does still look beautiful though. That all said, the acting was very good and on the whole I was pretty satisfied and didn't notice the running time as much as expected. I didn't leave the cinema desperate to see it again (as I had done with the previous LOTR films) but I did still enjoy it (yes even all the back story references to wider Middle-earth histories). An unsurprising 7.5/10

50 Eggs: OK so first off, the decision to make this into 3 films was a bad one, undoubtedly driven by dollar signs. On the other hand I think anyone who thought this could be done in just one film was being hugely naive. The book of the Hobbit was written in an entirely different style to LOTR - a single page of the former contains as much story as a chapter of the latter. Furthermore, matching the tone of the earlier films necessitated bringing in exposition from The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. This is what Peter Jackson has done really well, adding flesh to the bones of the story, giving it added purpose and emotion that isn’t evident in the standalone book (which was after all aimed at small children). I was pleasantly surprised by this.8.5/10

DonkeyB: I think I should declare from the start that I am a Tolkien sceptic, a denier if you will. Middle Earth is not my thing. In Primary school Matthew Mold was reading The Hobbit and suggested I try it. I don't think I got beyond chapter 2. I have never even started Lord of the Rings- the furthest I have ventured is having to find a reproduction of a map as some sort of test of computer literacy as a fresher at Uni. I didn't watch the first Lord of the Rings film, I fell asleep twenty minutes in to the Return of the King (which I believe is the second film - edit - its the third film) and I have seen part of the ending to the last film once when it was on TV: I say part because it seemed to have at least five endings and I honestly can't remember how many of them I sat through.

It is therefore safe to say that I was never going to like the film very much. But by any standards it is far too long. I think it could quite easily lose 40 minutes. Obviously I don't know what more lies in store, but it seems unlikely that there is six hours more material to make up the next two films. For a start how many more cliffs can there be for some or all of the band of 14 to hang over?

On the plus side apart from the length and [Bilbo?] Bagginess of the film there isn't much to object to. It looks stunning, the acting is fine, the script is adequate, as a fantasy film it is hard to imagine anyone doing one any better. I'm not sure what purpose the film really serves though except to provide the first of three more films for Ring nutters to add to their Lord of the Rings marathons. 6/10

Overall: 7.33/10

10 comments:

50 Eggs said...

I couldn't fit everything I wanted to say into my review so I'm using the comments section: I don't agree with SF about the frame rate. I was worried about this but I honestly didn't notice any difference, good or bad. But that may have been because I was watching it in the Electric Cinema which is the oldest one in the UK and probably not capable of showing it as it was intended.






50 Eggs said...

Now time for a gripe: Some of the Dwarves were caked in makeup, some of them just had a prosthetic nose and a couple had no significant face make up at all. Why? I'm guessing the film makers wanted some human faces in there to allow the audience to relate, but for me it was jarring. The fact that they didn't all look like they belonged to the same race took me out of the fantasy and just made me wonder why they thought it was a good idea. They really should have consulted with me on that one.

ShadowFalcon said...

50 Eggs - you're right you might not being seeing it in uber clarity but I'm no expert. I just thought the wargs looked really fake. I do agree with the departure from the drawf look on certain people. Possibly they are trying to show that drawf looks are as varied as humans...

50 Eggs said...

SF...I'm now almost sure that I saw it in 24fps, not 48. I'd recommend it. It seems we have another 3D style 'improvement' on our hands! As for the Dwarves being as varied as humans...was it just me or were two of the Dwarves gay?

ShadowFalcon said...

If you are reffering the Fili and Kili they are brothers! Thorin's Nephews in fact

50 Eggs said...

I'm referring to the ones with camp accents! I don't think it matters if they are brothers, as far as I know its not genetic Lol.

ShadowFalcon said...

I've no idea what a camp accent is but I'll let you continue to dig this hole

50 Eggs said...

What hole? Not digging one as far as I can tell! A camp accent = effeminate. Think Graham Norton and Alan Carr.

Simboid said...

We saw it in 2D 24 fps.

ShadowFalcon said...

Really - then it's even worse that all the creatures looked so fake. Now I'm extra glad we didn't see it in headache 3d