A Mostly-Expected Journey

[rich_jacko]

So, The Hobbit film...

It's mostly good. It's more of the same, so lots of sweeping vistas, epic battles, and the occasional gory silliness. I think I want to like it more than I actually did.

The main problem is that it tries to be too much like Lord of the Rings, too grandiose and portentous. Some of the charm and character of Tolkien's book gets lost in all that, although Martin Freeman's Bilbo is spot on and helps lighten things up a bit.

Also, someone really needs to beat Peter Jackson over the head until he remembers about pacing and editing. Most of the time there's enough things going on, but overall you could probably chop at least an hour out and it'd be a better film for it.

The first six chapters (I've engaged smugness mode for having correctly guessed where they'd split the films ;o) ) of the book have been padded out a lot. I'd hoped that'd mean more time to develop the characters of the individual dwarves (something a bit lacking in the book), but no. Instead we get unnecessary cameos from the previous trilogy and lots of foreshadowing, plus the usual obsession with spending too long showing off the scenery. Most of the added bits I could easily do without, although Sylvester McCoy's appearance as Radagast the Brown is well worth it and is one of the most fun elements of the film.

That aside, the best bits are those translated direct from the book. The "Good morning" conversation and of course, "Riddles in the dark" being particular highlights. Several of the songs from the book have made their way in, which was surprising, but they work. There is, however, wrongness at the end. I don't object in principle to the film diverging from the book, but the turning point which causes the dwarves to change their opinion of their 'burglar' is very different, and much lamer and shallower by comparison.

All in all, it's worth seeing but you're better off reading the book. Which you can actually do in less time than it takes to sit through the film.

Comments

[mathcathy]

And that 169 minutes is only the first part? They're planning to turn the short little book into NINE hours of movie?

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I'd say it was a triumph of money-making over artistic sense, but there's no money to be made in making each film three hours long (If anything, it costs money as cinemas can fit in fewer screenings). They badly need an editor who isn't so close to the footage that they can't bear to leave some of it on the cutting room floor for the good of the film.