The Hobbit
Just saw The Hobbit. My review below the cut - beware of spoilers.
There are many, many things I loved about this movie, from the New Zealand scenery porn to the the wonderful Martin Freeman, who has to be the most perfect person on the planet to play Bilbo. But there were a number of things which made me squirm in my seat, thinking, "Why, Peter Jackson, why?"
I suppose the main problem with making a movie of The Hobbit after the awesomely-successful Lord of the Rings trilogy is that The Hobbit was not in fact written as a prequel to LOTR. It was written twenty years earlier, and certain elements of the plot were later fleshed out and developed into major plot elements of LOTR (Bilbo's magic ring turns out to be the One Ring; the barely-mentioned Necromancer becomes Sauron on his way to power; and so on.) What The Hobbit book doesn't do is spend any time foreshadowing the events of LOTR. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson has decided that for movie purposes, foreshadowing was absolutely vital. As a result, instead of getting on with telling the story of Bilbo and the dwarves' quest to the Lonely Mountain, much time is spent dwelling on things which have absolutely no bearing on the current story. Some things seem to have been added in purely as a nod to those movie-goers who never read any of the books and are coming to see The Hobbit in the expectation that it will be another LOTR. The movie opens, after the initial introduction to the backstory of the dwarves' quest, with a lengthy and entirely unnecessary scene of old Bilbo writing his book and talking to Frodo. It's as if he's saying to the non-readers, "See? It's part of the same story!"
The thing is, the original Hobbit is vastly different to LOTR in style and tone - it is a shorter, simpler tale, with a lot more talking animals and the sort of whimsical storytelling that couldn't be used in the darker, more epic Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson, as a long-time fan of the books, has an excellent sense of their tone, but unfortunately, the resulting contrast that occurs when he tries to weave the two stories together is rather jarring.
All of which is a pity, because those parts of the movie which actually focus on the story of The Hobbit are thoroughly wonderful. I've said this already, but Martin Freeman is an absolutely perfect Bilbo, pulling off both his fussy hobbit ways, and his unexpected courage, with a sweetness that makes me want to hug him more or less all the time. I loved seeing all those classic scenes that I remember from reading the book as a child play out on screen: the gatecrashing dwarves at Bag End, the scene with the trolls, Bilbo's encounter with Gollum... I almost squeed in delight when the rock giants appeared - I loved that moment in the book when the company is suddenly endangered by these immense, legendary beings who aren't even aware our heroes are there: one of Tolkien's great moments of showing us that life in Middle Earth, with all its mysteries, goes on quite independently of the story we're currently reading.
A few other minor points:
* Thorin Oakenshield is considerably more attarctive than he has any right being. It was actually a bit distracting, because I struggled to believe he was a dwarf. On the other hand...
I may yet have to revise my stance on beards
* Much talk has revolved around the 48 frames-per-second shooting/projection and the resulting "soap opera effect". I did find it quite annoying at the start, but got used to it fairly quickly. My mum, with whom I saw the film, didn't comment on it at all. I wonder if it's because she has a HD TV and is therefore accustomed to the effect?
* Is it just me, or was this movie implying a bit of Galadriel/Gandalf? As in, actually implying it, not just in a"let's throw some fodder to the fandom" sort of way (why bother, when the fandom is already writing steamy Thorin/Legolas romance...)
* Trying to make The Hobbit into an epic to equal LOTR feels a bit wrong to me. I appreciate that three movies will give them the time to include just about everything that happens in the book, but I'm afraid there won't be enough and dread to think how they will fill up the extra time. As I said, I loved all those parts of the movie that actually existed in the Hobbit. Whenever the story veered off onto a "Let's talk at length about the gathering darkness" tangent, I just wanted them to get back to Bilbo and the dwarves.
* The music, as with the LOTR movies is wonderful, and I absolutely love the theme song. Extra delight to realise it's performed by Neil Finn - more power to the Kiwis!
* New Zealand. Stay beautiful.
There are many, many things I loved about this movie, from the New Zealand scenery porn to the the wonderful Martin Freeman, who has to be the most perfect person on the planet to play Bilbo. But there were a number of things which made me squirm in my seat, thinking, "Why, Peter Jackson, why?"
I suppose the main problem with making a movie of The Hobbit after the awesomely-successful Lord of the Rings trilogy is that The Hobbit was not in fact written as a prequel to LOTR. It was written twenty years earlier, and certain elements of the plot were later fleshed out and developed into major plot elements of LOTR (Bilbo's magic ring turns out to be the One Ring; the barely-mentioned Necromancer becomes Sauron on his way to power; and so on.) What The Hobbit book doesn't do is spend any time foreshadowing the events of LOTR. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson has decided that for movie purposes, foreshadowing was absolutely vital. As a result, instead of getting on with telling the story of Bilbo and the dwarves' quest to the Lonely Mountain, much time is spent dwelling on things which have absolutely no bearing on the current story. Some things seem to have been added in purely as a nod to those movie-goers who never read any of the books and are coming to see The Hobbit in the expectation that it will be another LOTR. The movie opens, after the initial introduction to the backstory of the dwarves' quest, with a lengthy and entirely unnecessary scene of old Bilbo writing his book and talking to Frodo. It's as if he's saying to the non-readers, "See? It's part of the same story!"
The thing is, the original Hobbit is vastly different to LOTR in style and tone - it is a shorter, simpler tale, with a lot more talking animals and the sort of whimsical storytelling that couldn't be used in the darker, more epic Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson, as a long-time fan of the books, has an excellent sense of their tone, but unfortunately, the resulting contrast that occurs when he tries to weave the two stories together is rather jarring.
All of which is a pity, because those parts of the movie which actually focus on the story of The Hobbit are thoroughly wonderful. I've said this already, but Martin Freeman is an absolutely perfect Bilbo, pulling off both his fussy hobbit ways, and his unexpected courage, with a sweetness that makes me want to hug him more or less all the time. I loved seeing all those classic scenes that I remember from reading the book as a child play out on screen: the gatecrashing dwarves at Bag End, the scene with the trolls, Bilbo's encounter with Gollum... I almost squeed in delight when the rock giants appeared - I loved that moment in the book when the company is suddenly endangered by these immense, legendary beings who aren't even aware our heroes are there: one of Tolkien's great moments of showing us that life in Middle Earth, with all its mysteries, goes on quite independently of the story we're currently reading.
A few other minor points:
* Thorin Oakenshield is considerably more attarctive than he has any right being. It was actually a bit distracting, because I struggled to believe he was a dwarf. On the other hand...
I may yet have to revise my stance on beards
* Much talk has revolved around the 48 frames-per-second shooting/projection and the resulting "soap opera effect". I did find it quite annoying at the start, but got used to it fairly quickly. My mum, with whom I saw the film, didn't comment on it at all. I wonder if it's because she has a HD TV and is therefore accustomed to the effect?
* Is it just me, or was this movie implying a bit of Galadriel/Gandalf? As in, actually implying it, not just in a"let's throw some fodder to the fandom" sort of way (why bother, when the fandom is already writing steamy Thorin/Legolas romance...)
* Trying to make The Hobbit into an epic to equal LOTR feels a bit wrong to me. I appreciate that three movies will give them the time to include just about everything that happens in the book, but I'm afraid there won't be enough and dread to think how they will fill up the extra time. As I said, I loved all those parts of the movie that actually existed in the Hobbit. Whenever the story veered off onto a "Let's talk at length about the gathering darkness" tangent, I just wanted them to get back to Bilbo and the dwarves.
* The music, as with the LOTR movies is wonderful, and I absolutely love the theme song. Extra delight to realise it's performed by Neil Finn - more power to the Kiwis!
* New Zealand. Stay beautiful.