![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexTo be precise, what we saw is titled The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and as everyone knows by now (except, apparently, my kids) is the first of three movies made up out of the book "The Hobbit," various published and unpublished Tolkein materials related to the story and characters of the book, and Peter Jackson's fevered imagination.
I went in with very low expectations (2D, traditional 24 fps) and was pleasantly surprised. If you like Jackson's previous work - particularly his LotR movies - and/or The Hobbit book then you should see this movie. I'm a little more iffy on its appeal to non-fen but I doubt many of those read my LJ.
Much of the critique of Jackson's film has to do with his padding out a fairly small novel to three movies. This one alone runs about 2h40, which many people have felt would be a decent length to do the entire novel. I was surprisingly entertained by the full movie, including the extras.
To be honest it's been long enough since I read The Hobbit that I don't remember which bits are actually in the novel versus just described as having happened off-stage. Jackson shows us everything, as well as adding in pieces for other characters. Cate Blanchett is fantastic as Galadriel, though I thought some of the lighting and shot composition in her scenes were excessively heavy-handed.
The other big surprise to me was the degree to which this is Thorin's (Richard Armitage) movie. The whole thing rises or falls - in this case rises - on his ability to be kingly. Among all the buffoonery of the other dwarves Thorin has the most serious story to tell and Armitage manages it with exceptional presence and grace. Pygment commented that from his first moment on screen you got the sense that this was a real king - someone with the charisma to inspire people who would follow him to the death.
To be fair, Martin Freeman turns in a fine performance as Bilbo and conveys his complex and yet simple nature with style. But it's not his movie, except for the scenes with Gollum. Likewise, I felt McKellen was almost phoning it in with Gandalf. I'm not sure that's McKellen's fault so much as it is the much lighter way the character is portrayed in The Hobbit vs LotR (in which he is both a transformative and transformed character). The script also doesn't give him a ton to work with. He has a lot of dialogue but almost of it is reactive; he doesn't drive much of the story or action.
Speaking of action I do tend to agree with critics who've said it's drawn out. Both the warg chases and the long scenes inside the goblin mines could have been significantly shortened without harming the movie. In fact, shortening that would have lent more weight to the Bilbo-Gollum interactions.
In the end, these are largely nitpicks and stylistic differences. The movie is much better than I was expecting and I'll definitely be looking forward to part 2.
I went in with very low expectations (2D, traditional 24 fps) and was pleasantly surprised. If you like Jackson's previous work - particularly his LotR movies - and/or The Hobbit book then you should see this movie. I'm a little more iffy on its appeal to non-fen but I doubt many of those read my LJ.
Much of the critique of Jackson's film has to do with his padding out a fairly small novel to three movies. This one alone runs about 2h40, which many people have felt would be a decent length to do the entire novel. I was surprisingly entertained by the full movie, including the extras.
To be honest it's been long enough since I read The Hobbit that I don't remember which bits are actually in the novel versus just described as having happened off-stage. Jackson shows us everything, as well as adding in pieces for other characters. Cate Blanchett is fantastic as Galadriel, though I thought some of the lighting and shot composition in her scenes were excessively heavy-handed.
The other big surprise to me was the degree to which this is Thorin's (Richard Armitage) movie. The whole thing rises or falls - in this case rises - on his ability to be kingly. Among all the buffoonery of the other dwarves Thorin has the most serious story to tell and Armitage manages it with exceptional presence and grace. Pygment commented that from his first moment on screen you got the sense that this was a real king - someone with the charisma to inspire people who would follow him to the death.
To be fair, Martin Freeman turns in a fine performance as Bilbo and conveys his complex and yet simple nature with style. But it's not his movie, except for the scenes with Gollum. Likewise, I felt McKellen was almost phoning it in with Gandalf. I'm not sure that's McKellen's fault so much as it is the much lighter way the character is portrayed in The Hobbit vs LotR (in which he is both a transformative and transformed character). The script also doesn't give him a ton to work with. He has a lot of dialogue but almost of it is reactive; he doesn't drive much of the story or action.
Speaking of action I do tend to agree with critics who've said it's drawn out. Both the warg chases and the long scenes inside the goblin mines could have been significantly shortened without harming the movie. In fact, shortening that would have lent more weight to the Bilbo-Gollum interactions.
In the end, these are largely nitpicks and stylistic differences. The movie is much better than I was expecting and I'll definitely be looking forward to part 2.
