The Hobbit (movie review)
Dec. 30th, 2012 10:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
la_samtyrJust in case there are a few people who haven't seen it and/or want to remain as unspoiled as possible, my review is under the cut. Also, I may revise the review if I get a chance to see the movie again.
I have seen 'The Hobbit' twice now, both times in 3D. The first time was at the midnight premiere; the second was because it was the earlier showing. I won't talk about the entire 3D aspect because that is an entirely different kind of review and one that I am in no position to critique it. All I can say is that the 3D aspect did not bother me or hinder my viewing of it.
Ok, now to the movie.
I loved it. I *loved* being back in Middle Earth and the Shire and the whole nine yards. I enjoyed how it had been adapted to the screen and I thought it was a lot of fun. There are few things better than seeing a movie for the first time on the silver screen, the way they are meant to be seen. (Personally, I believe that any film adaption of Tolkien's work will suffer when compared with the book, for the simple fact that book was meant -- and published -- to be read, not made into a movie.)
I didn't feel that the movie dragged at all. I did feel that some of the longer scenes were being used to show more of the backstory, though the whole goblin king bit was a bit meh. But at least we got to learn more of Gollum's background. I also think that the movie is clearer after a second or third viewing; it is easier to pick up on more nuances and a lot of the finer details that tend to be overlooked. In some ways, there is there is almost too much information to process in a single viewing. But I don't think that can be considered a flaw.
As for the cast -- they are wonderful! I appreciated that that they used some members of the LotR cast to lend a better sense of continuity. Bilbo is so sweet, and the Dwarves are excellent, though I have to wonder if perhaps some of them have a little Elvish or Mannish blood as well. (Of course, this might have been a casting decision for wider audience appeal.)
Seeing Elrond as so much 'younger' and happier than he is in LotR was especially nice. (In LotR, Elrond is darker and less... caring? In any case, he changes a lot in the sixty years between films.) Galadriel is as elegant as ever, and just as inscrutable. Thranduil is just as, if not more, inscrutable and enigmatic than either of the Noldor leaders. I think he has great potential and hopefully we will see that in the next two movies. The antagonism Thorin holds for him is perhaps understandable in some ways; otoh, I think Thranduil did not want to deal with another mad charge at an overwhelming enemy and lose the rest of his people, as happened to Oropher at Dagorlad. (Also, if we take LACE as being definitive, then there were a lot of widows left behind, who could not remarry, which would only hasten the decline of an already small elven population.)
The only real issue I have (and it's a minor one) is that of Radagast. I feel he is played in way that is suited more for a 1960's 'hippie' film than in an epic of Middle earth -- though had 'The Hobbit' been filmed as it is *in* the 1960's, I probably *wouldn't* have a problem. Go figure, eh? (In my opinion, it would have been better if he had been played in a fashion like either Edmund Gwenn or Richard Attenborough -- Kris Kringle from 'Miracle on 34th Street' when he is talking to the little Dutch girl or signs to the little deaf girl, respectively.) I hope that my impression will change over the next two films but as it stands now, I doubt it.
'The Hobbit' is a very good movie. Is it great though? I'm not sure. I want to say it is great and yet... there are just a few odd bits that make me hold off. I will wait until the trilogy is complete before I pass any sort of final judgment.
I have seen 'The Hobbit' twice now, both times in 3D. The first time was at the midnight premiere; the second was because it was the earlier showing. I won't talk about the entire 3D aspect because that is an entirely different kind of review and one that I am in no position to critique it. All I can say is that the 3D aspect did not bother me or hinder my viewing of it.
Ok, now to the movie.
I loved it. I *loved* being back in Middle Earth and the Shire and the whole nine yards. I enjoyed how it had been adapted to the screen and I thought it was a lot of fun. There are few things better than seeing a movie for the first time on the silver screen, the way they are meant to be seen. (Personally, I believe that any film adaption of Tolkien's work will suffer when compared with the book, for the simple fact that book was meant -- and published -- to be read, not made into a movie.)
I didn't feel that the movie dragged at all. I did feel that some of the longer scenes were being used to show more of the backstory, though the whole goblin king bit was a bit meh. But at least we got to learn more of Gollum's background. I also think that the movie is clearer after a second or third viewing; it is easier to pick up on more nuances and a lot of the finer details that tend to be overlooked. In some ways, there is there is almost too much information to process in a single viewing. But I don't think that can be considered a flaw.
As for the cast -- they are wonderful! I appreciated that that they used some members of the LotR cast to lend a better sense of continuity. Bilbo is so sweet, and the Dwarves are excellent, though I have to wonder if perhaps some of them have a little Elvish or Mannish blood as well. (Of course, this might have been a casting decision for wider audience appeal.)
Seeing Elrond as so much 'younger' and happier than he is in LotR was especially nice. (In LotR, Elrond is darker and less... caring? In any case, he changes a lot in the sixty years between films.) Galadriel is as elegant as ever, and just as inscrutable. Thranduil is just as, if not more, inscrutable and enigmatic than either of the Noldor leaders. I think he has great potential and hopefully we will see that in the next two movies. The antagonism Thorin holds for him is perhaps understandable in some ways; otoh, I think Thranduil did not want to deal with another mad charge at an overwhelming enemy and lose the rest of his people, as happened to Oropher at Dagorlad. (Also, if we take LACE as being definitive, then there were a lot of widows left behind, who could not remarry, which would only hasten the decline of an already small elven population.)
The only real issue I have (and it's a minor one) is that of Radagast. I feel he is played in way that is suited more for a 1960's 'hippie' film than in an epic of Middle earth -- though had 'The Hobbit' been filmed as it is *in* the 1960's, I probably *wouldn't* have a problem. Go figure, eh? (In my opinion, it would have been better if he had been played in a fashion like either Edmund Gwenn or Richard Attenborough -- Kris Kringle from 'Miracle on 34th Street' when he is talking to the little Dutch girl or signs to the little deaf girl, respectively.) I hope that my impression will change over the next two films but as it stands now, I doubt it.
'The Hobbit' is a very good movie. Is it great though? I'm not sure. I want to say it is great and yet... there are just a few odd bits that make me hold off. I will wait until the trilogy is complete before I pass any sort of final judgment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-31 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 02:48 pm (UTC)But Radagast needed to be a little less... eccentric. But the bird poop.... just no. My worry is that in the next films, he (Radagast) will never quite be seen as anything more than the first impression that he made.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-01 02:59 am (UTC)It was hard for me at first to accept the different designs of orcs and wargs in this movie. But I ended up telling myself that, as the darkness in the East grew, the orcs became more twisted.
I like the sense of respect this movie gives the Dwarfs. I felt that Gimli in LotR was used too much as comic relief. Yes, there are amusing scenes with these Dwarfs, but they seem to be taken more seriously in The Hobbit.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 03:31 pm (UTC)I like the point you make about the different designs of orcs and wargs -- it makes a lot of sense.
Gimili being used as comic relief was one of the main criticisms I heard in LotR, so it's nice to see them being much more dignified here. Of course, Gimli was the only dwarf of note in LotR buthere we have a larger glimpse into Dwarven society.