a one-sentence review of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
It was excellent, and you should go see it immediately – I’m not sure what, exactly, the critics who gave it negative reviews were smoking.
The books of Jonathan Moeller
It was excellent, and you should go see it immediately – I’m not sure what, exactly, the critics who gave it negative reviews were smoking.
Just saw it today! I’ve been waiting so long for this trilogy…my chance to return to Middle-Earth!
That said…I’m confused.
What do I mean by that? Well I think I mean I need to see the film again before I give it final judgement. Yes, I think that is what I need to do. Sometime before the end of the year I’ll go back and watch it again. Aw, heck I’d have done that anyway, but now it’s imperative. I see you really enjoyed the film, I’m glad. My whole family loved it, our local paper had given it a c+ and they were a bit worried at first but came out wondering as you did, what were they smoking? Well, given recent changes in the law, weed probably. š
Concerning myself, as I said before, I’m unsure. Part of the reason is that sadly I was not feeling up to snuff, but the rest was bemusement. Honestly my thoughts often wondered during the film, pondering this change or that, or wondering why the film seemed so different than I thought it would be. That is something I normally never do. It was like watching the film as a critic, and only that. I never truly connected with it and I have no idea why. It wasn’t that it was unenjoyable, but I think there was something else that doomed me. I had already read The Hobbit before I saw the film, unlike when I saw the LOTR trilogy (those films got me into the books), and so even though I knew it was going to be expanded, sometimes the book and the film felt like two different beasts, with some of the additions working well, and silly Jacksonion changes bungling other things up.
There was alot to like though, but not all the criticisms leveled at the film were misplaced. There was plenty of action and adventure, the score was brilliant (as it was in LOTR), the acting was great, the vistas awe inspiring…but…
There were some things that jut held me up: Radagast was one of them. I was really excited about this addition, but I thought it flopped in general. I had thought of Radagast in more of a St. Francis vein, not a bumbling moron. He seemed more a comic relief than a wizard. I know he was supposed to be odd, but this was just silly, his entire inclusion into the storyline seemed misplaced and unnecessary, and honestly a missed chance on PJ’s part. Oh and the fact that he had bird crap on him the whole time. And the bunny powered slay.
Another missed part was the White Council. I was really, really waiting to see that one. *Sigh* Another missed chance. Not only did they cut the council down to only a handful of people that were supposed to be there, once again cutting out Glorfindel (NOOOOO!!!!!) and others, having no template to go on, it’s obvious the writers had to write it from scratch, and it just felt rather meh-ish.
There were other things too, like I was unconfortable with how they did Azog. I was excited to see that history be a part of the film…but really they had to screw up the history of Middle-Earth and keep the guy alive…just to chase Thorin’s people around? Pacing? Oh he was a cool villian, but the way Tolkien wrote that history was better, heads with purses full of gold stuffed in them, Balrogs, revenge. I wanted to see that on film.
Then there was the CGI…some looked great (Gollum better than ever) but alot looked less life like than in the LOTR trilogy, which was odd given the advances in tech since then. Too much CGI in general I think, it made the film feel too….fake? Shiny? I don’t know.
The film did feel uneven in parts, and sometimes rushed in one area (like riddles in the dark) and too long in others.
Though there were also great parts, the opening Erebor sequence, the battle of Azanulbizar was SWEET, and while wildly revisionist, the battle around the tree tops, with Thorin facing down Azog, getting his butt handed to him and Bilbo coming to the rescue.
I’m really confused, lol. I need to see it again. While it’s sad that it does not look like this new trilogy will be getting the same praise as the old, the fans certainly love it, and that’s good. š
BTW I saw the film in traditional 2D 24 FPS format, what did you see it in? And if you saw it in the new 48 frame rate, what did you make of it?
P.S. Another highlight was getting to see a preview for the new Lone Ranger film with Johnny Deep playing the Indian Tonto…..words fail me here š
“Well, given recent changes in the law, weed probably.”
Ha!
“Concerning myself, as I said before, Iām unsure. Part of the reason is that sadly I was not feeling up to snuff, but the rest was bemusement. Honestly my thoughts often wondered during the film, pondering this change or that, or wondering why the film seemed so different than I thought it would be. That is something I normally never do. It was like watching the film as a critic, and only that. I never truly connected with it and I have no idea why. It wasnāt that it was unenjoyable, but I think there was something else that doomed me. I had already read The Hobbit before I saw the film, unlike when I saw the LOTR trilogy (those films got me into the books), and so even though I knew it was going to be expanded, sometimes the book and the film felt like two different beasts, with some of the additions working well, and silly Jacksonion changes bungling other things up.”
I suppose that’s the downside of knowing the LotR mythos so well. I think the way the film merged The Hobbit and the LotR appendices worked, but a reasonable case can be made that it did not. (Though a film entitled “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Appendix C of The Lord of the Rings” would be a bit of a mouthful.)
“There were other things too, like I was unconfortable with how they did Azog. I was excited to see that history be a part of the filmā¦but really they had to screw up the history of Middle-Earth and keep the guy aliveā¦just to chase Thorinās people around? Pacing? Oh he was a cool villian, but the way Tolkien wrote that history was better, heads with purses full of gold stuffed in them, Balrogs, revenge. I wanted to see that on film.”
I suspect the film’s Azog was a distillation of Azog and Azog’s son Bolg. I can see the reasons for it, though I think it would have worked just as well to have Bolg trying to hunt down Thorin to avenge his father’s death.
“BTW I saw the film in traditional 2D 24 FPS format, what did you see it in? And if you saw it in the new 48 frame rate, what did you make of it?”
It didn’t cause me any troubles. That said, I thought it looked slightly pixelated, like leaning in too close to an LCD monitor. I think that might have been an artifact of the theatre. I think that might have also been why some of the CGI looked a little flat…the 48 fps was too detailed fro the CGI. š
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this…I have been very busy as of late.
“I suppose thatās the downside of knowing the LotR mythos so well.”
Yes it is. The one and ONLY downside š
“I think the way the film merged The Hobbit and the LotR appendices worked, but a reasonable case can be made that it did not. ”
Well I’m not saying that it did not work, just that the film makers screwed up certain bits, like it’s Jar Jar Binks like portrayal of Radagast, it’s rushed and greatly downsized White Council, and needless tinkering with Middle-Earth’s history. If it did not work, it’s not because the elements would not have worked on their own, but that they were not done well, or well enough.
“(Though a film entitled āThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Appendix C of The Lord of the Ringsā would be a bit of a mouthful.)”
lol, yeah but I’m sure some Tolkien purists would have been happy with it. š
Actually, it really doesn’t sound that much more clunky than “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”. š
“I suspect the filmās Azog was a distillation of Azog and Azogās son Bolg.”
That was my thinking as well.
“I can see the reasons for it, though I think it would have worked just as well to have Bolg trying to hunt down Thorin to avenge his fatherās death.”
That’s exactly what I was thinking while watching the film. Bolg not only would have worked better, BUT it also would have left alot of Tolkien’s history intact.
That’s the thing though, he not only gave Azog what should have been Bolg’s part, he is still actually including Bolg in the future films, where he’ll be a major antagonist, as I understand it. One does wonder where Jackson & co. are going with this…
What ever is going on, I’ll be getting a 2nd viewing of the film later Christmas week, now that I know what I’m, dealing with, I think I’ll enjoy it more the second time around. Plus it will also help me make a final opinion of the film!
BTW, do you think it’s like PJ and others say, that 48 FPS is the future of film?
I do think 8 fps is the future of film – there really isn’t any reason it won’t be. I think I will probably see it again next week, so I might have more opinions then.