The one thing that I noticed while I was watching Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was the blatant nods and winks to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Whether it was the music, a line of dialogue or a sweeping shot of Middle Earth it felt like someone was whispering in my ear: "Look! It's like the Lord of the Rings, only a bit different! Aren't we clever? Oh look – It's Lord Elron! You know, from LORD OF THE RINGS!!".
Maybe it was that annoying bloke sitting next to me in the cinema ...
I know, of course you're going to get nods and winks. This is a prequel or sorts after all, but I wonder if this film suffers from some kind of inferiority complex when compared to LOTR (which I shall refer to it as from now on because it's quicker to write). Maybe that's why Jackson pushed for a trilogy so that it could stand up to LOTR in terms of scope, depth and, er, number of films.
The Hobbit is an enjoyable enough romp through Tolkein's fantasy world with plenty of battles and close shaves with a bit of dwarvish angst thrown in. Needless to say, our heroes make it to the end of the film (no, that's not a spoiler because part 2 is coming out next year) having developed slightly as individuals and moved a bit closer to their ultimate destination (the lair of evil dragon Smaug).
Overall I found it a bit, well, just more of the same. A group go on a quest, they fight some orcs, have a rest, fight some trolls, have a rest, eat then sleep, fight some goblins and then – um, that's about it really.
It's not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but personally I don't think it's the masterpiece everyone seems to be saying it is. LOTR broke the mould by doing decent fantasy that wasn't too ridiculous. Sure, it was long, but it was an epic and you kind of expected that. The Hobbit feels like it's trying to punch above its weight and only coming off as mediocre (Hobbits are short, after all).
The problem is, The Hobbit is always going to suffer because it's from a book that's just a couple of hundred pages long. A lot of people have said that Jackson deliberately extended the films so that he could make more money. I don't want to be one of those moaners who accuse Jackson of being greedy. I think that's unfair and unwarranted. I genuinely believe he loves everything Middle Earthy with a passion and has been determined to stay as faithful to Tolkein's vision, but I think maybe he loves all things Hobbity and Elfy and Dwarfy a bit too much. Perhaps he saw this as his last ever chance to ever do Tolkien on screen so wanted to milk it for all it was worth creatively.
The one character that stands out in this film is Radagast the Brown, excellently portrayed by ex-Doctor Who Sylvester McCoy. The wizard is wonderfully eccentric (moreso that Gandalf), with an interesting mode of transport that is both hilarious and awesome at the same time. It would have been good to see more of him, but given that Radagast doesn't actually appear in the original novel (he has a part in LOTR, albeit briefly), it seems unlikely – although on the Internet Movie Database he is listed as a character in the sequels so who knows.
Martin Freeman does a good job being the reluctant hobbit hero, but still behaves like his character from The Office, which is kind of annoying. While he looks remarkably similar to a younger version of Ian Holm (who plays the older Bilbo), his mannerisms are pure Martin Freeman which kind of spoils things for continuity (well, for picky sods like me, anyway). The rest of the cast are well-chosen, particularly Ken Stott, Richard Armitage and James Nesbitt giving both humour and gravitas to the ragtag band of dwarves.
Anyway, in conclusion I came away slightly disappointed. I had to watch it in 3D for various reasons and, for me 169 mins in three dimensions was hard work (I tend to find that 3D doesn't really work for me - my eyes really have to strain and the effect is a bit lost on me unfortunately), so perhaps I wasn't in a totally objective mood. This could have been a nice little film without too much pretensions but just feels over-bloated and stodgy (a bit like Hobbit stew, probably).
Verdict: 5 out of 10.
Maybe it was that annoying bloke sitting next to me in the cinema ...
I know, of course you're going to get nods and winks. This is a prequel or sorts after all, but I wonder if this film suffers from some kind of inferiority complex when compared to LOTR (which I shall refer to it as from now on because it's quicker to write). Maybe that's why Jackson pushed for a trilogy so that it could stand up to LOTR in terms of scope, depth and, er, number of films.
The Hobbit is an enjoyable enough romp through Tolkein's fantasy world with plenty of battles and close shaves with a bit of dwarvish angst thrown in. Needless to say, our heroes make it to the end of the film (no, that's not a spoiler because part 2 is coming out next year) having developed slightly as individuals and moved a bit closer to their ultimate destination (the lair of evil dragon Smaug).
 |
| Martin Freeman does a double-take ... for a change |
Overall I found it a bit, well, just more of the same. A group go on a quest, they fight some orcs, have a rest, fight some trolls, have a rest, eat then sleep, fight some goblins and then – um, that's about it really.
It's not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but personally I don't think it's the masterpiece everyone seems to be saying it is. LOTR broke the mould by doing decent fantasy that wasn't too ridiculous. Sure, it was long, but it was an epic and you kind of expected that. The Hobbit feels like it's trying to punch above its weight and only coming off as mediocre (Hobbits are short, after all).
The problem is, The Hobbit is always going to suffer because it's from a book that's just a couple of hundred pages long. A lot of people have said that Jackson deliberately extended the films so that he could make more money. I don't want to be one of those moaners who accuse Jackson of being greedy. I think that's unfair and unwarranted. I genuinely believe he loves everything Middle Earthy with a passion and has been determined to stay as faithful to Tolkein's vision, but I think maybe he loves all things Hobbity and Elfy and Dwarfy a bit too much. Perhaps he saw this as his last ever chance to ever do Tolkien on screen so wanted to milk it for all it was worth creatively.
The one character that stands out in this film is Radagast the Brown, excellently portrayed by ex-Doctor Who Sylvester McCoy. The wizard is wonderfully eccentric (moreso that Gandalf), with an interesting mode of transport that is both hilarious and awesome at the same time. It would have been good to see more of him, but given that Radagast doesn't actually appear in the original novel (he has a part in LOTR, albeit briefly), it seems unlikely – although on the Internet Movie Database he is listed as a character in the sequels so who knows.
Martin Freeman does a good job being the reluctant hobbit hero, but still behaves like his character from The Office, which is kind of annoying. While he looks remarkably similar to a younger version of Ian Holm (who plays the older Bilbo), his mannerisms are pure Martin Freeman which kind of spoils things for continuity (well, for picky sods like me, anyway). The rest of the cast are well-chosen, particularly Ken Stott, Richard Armitage and James Nesbitt giving both humour and gravitas to the ragtag band of dwarves.
Anyway, in conclusion I came away slightly disappointed. I had to watch it in 3D for various reasons and, for me 169 mins in three dimensions was hard work (I tend to find that 3D doesn't really work for me - my eyes really have to strain and the effect is a bit lost on me unfortunately), so perhaps I wasn't in a totally objective mood. This could have been a nice little film without too much pretensions but just feels over-bloated and stodgy (a bit like Hobbit stew, probably).
Verdict: 5 out of 10.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment