The film Tolkien fans have waited for since 1956 has finally been made. I've been a longtime Lord of the Rings fan (movies mainly), and I've been looking forward to a 'Hobbit' film ever since they first announced they were moving to make it. Peter Jackson made 'Hobbit' unlike 'Rings': 48 fps (frames per second) and in 3D. But it didn't detract from quality or beauty. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I haven't mentioned the long wait we had while in the theater. It was raining when we got to the mall, which may or may not have been a cause of the power outage the theater experienced a mere 8 minutes prior to showtime (yes, I was keeping close track of the time!). We sat until probably 2 or 2:15 waiting for them to resolve the power problems, and we FINALLY got video and audio. It made the entire experience longer, but I suppose it was worth it in the end.
So, where to begin? I guess I should start with the story. Because this was Peter Jackson's work, and not the work of certain 'other' directors (if you know me well enough, I guarantee you know exactly WHO I'm referring to!), I was fairly confident that the movie would follow the majority of the book. I don't claim to know a ton about Tolkien or the history of Lord of the Rings, so some of the events may or may not have been in the Appendices/History of Middle-earth. But I felt that, overall, Jackson did a superb job of blending the book's narrative with the backstory that Tolkien created that is not in the Hobbit: Necromancer, anyone? In fact, most everybody's complaint about Jackson turning the book (which is short in comparison to Lord of the Rings) into a trilogy of films is that there isn't enough material to justify such a move. If Jackson has the right to Lord of the Rings AND Hobbit (which he does), why not flesh out the history and background of events we see or are told about in Hobbit? He did the same with Lord of the Rings (I think primarily exemplified with Aragorn and Arwen's on-screen story). Up until this film, I was never really curious about how Sauron regained his power, or how the Ringwraiths came to exist. The movie has made me want to re-examine both Lord of the Rings AND its subsequent texts (i.e. the Appendices) to find out exactly what Jackson was using in the film. Anyway. I felt like the screenplay was well written, though I do have to agree with some of the critics who say that Hobbit lacked the emotional depth of Lord of the Rings; this is true, but this is also the general tone of the book and the critics need to realize that (they don't, of course). But come on, who didn't tear up at the end when Thorin hugged Bilbo after admitting he was wrong?! The only quibble I really have with the way this one ended is: where was all that stuff with the Eagles? I'm still holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, the stuff with the Eagles will end up being in the 2nd film.
Score. One thing I appreciated about Howard Shore here is how he was able to blend the old and the new. There were enough of the themes of Lord of the Rings present to make us feel like we were in Middle-earth, but plenty new themes and music to tell us we were on a different adventure. I LOVE, repeat, LOVE the Dwarves' theme ("Misty Mountains"/"Song of the Lonely Mountain"). Richard Armitage and the group did a great job singing a portion of a long(er) song from the book; very haunting melody. A mistake made with other films, like Narnia: Prince Caspian, was taking too much of the previous film's score and inserting it into the film. Shore, I feel, did not make that mistake here. Also, the song at the end by Neil Finn was beautiful. Some might argue that Shore's score lacks the classicality of Lord of the Rings, but THIS ISN'T Lord of the Rings!
Acting. I was so nervous really about Bilbo, since he is the central character. Long story short: Martin Freeman is the perfect Bilbo; he has the gentle Englishman nature about him, with a kind of quirky nervousness. Richard Armitage? I will say he's a good Thorin. Doesn't hurt that he's pretty good looking as well. :) Ian McKellen again shines as Gandalf, and I think after seeing Hobbit, I actually like Gandalf more than in Lord of the Rings because he has a sense of humor in Hobbit! Same can be said for Elrond; I never liked him in Lord of the Rings, but I came away from Hobbit actually liking him more. And Gollum. Dear ol' Gollum. What would Middle-earth be without Andy Serkis as the very-definition-of-bipolar-disorder Gollum/Smeagol? One of my favorite scenes was the scene between him and Bilbo; very well done in regards to the book, and whether it was because of Serkis, the dialogue, or both, I still felt sorry for Gollum and hated him at the same time. And, lastly, is it really fair for Cate Blanchett to look virtually the same as she did 12 years ago filming Lord of the Rings? I mean, really!
Finally, the controversy swirling around Jackson's use of 48 fps versus 24 fps has been an unfortunate detraction from the film itself. We saw it in HFR (48 fps) 3D, and I honestly could tell little difference between it and a traditional 3D film. What I did notice was the sharp, clear quality of the film. This didn't subtract anything: it enhanced the film tremendously. All the naysayers and nags who keep flapping their gums over the 'groundbreaking' new frame rate really should get out more. I still believe that those who were "sick" when watching the HFR were really disoriented by the 3D. Maybe I'm just not as critical of those things as some. I just wanted to see it in that frame rate to see if there really was a difference in quality or speed. Disappointed in that regard, I have to say.
So, overall, it was an enjoyable film that was faithful to its source material (yes, all you Tolkien purists out there will most likely disagree with me), with a solid cast and music. 8.5/10 stars for this return to Middle-earth. Jackson can count on my presence next December at The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
No comments:
Post a Comment