It feels good to be back in Middle Earth. It really does. 9 years ago, 2003's "Return of the King" was the last visit we took, and to this day, all of us still remember the trilogy with fond thoughts of sweeping landscapes, epic battles, out-of-this-world effects, and most of all amazing storytelling. I'm happy to say this "return" feels very welcome.
To address the elephant in the room, I initially saw this movie at Hi-Def IMAX 3D at 48 FPS. For me, it sucked. It made the make up look hokey and obvious and the CG look like a PS3 version of Skyrim. To the movie (and Peter Jackson's) credit, it didn't kill the story for me as it did for more obsessed critics. However, it did prove to be distracting, rendering everything as if it were a PBS documentary (terrible). Nevertheless I enjoyed the movie overall--in spite of 48FPS. So much so that I felt the need to see it again in regular blurry 3D at 24 FPS. Much better. Some things still looked less convincing than they did with the original trilogy, but overall, it was much less obvious than when I saw the movie at 48FPS. Therefore, moral of that rant (at least my humble opinion): save your money, see it the way you saw the original trilogy.
Now that that's out of the way, let's get to the fun part: the actual movie.
Jackson does what he does best--brings the world of Middle Earth to life. These settings and the feel of it all is familiar, but again, welcome. Visually, this is the same world we saw 9 years ago (albeit on perhaps a slightly smaller scale since this admittedly is a smaller story than the original), so we essentially keep consistent with the world we already know. This is very comforting since that's exactly what we expected when these movies were announced. It's a universe we love, one we're comfortable with, and one we always wanted to revisit since the credits rolled on the final film.
Now the story. There's hardly enough material in the actual source material to fill 2 movies (at least as far as the 100+ page version I read in middle school goes), much less 3, as Jackson is intending to do. So naturally he padded it. Of course we get the "Dwarfs take back the Mountain from Smaug" central storyline from the book (complete with fun scenes like the troll BBQ, goblin battles, etc), but we also get a few new plotlines, such as the introduction of a Necromancer that ties heavily and cleverly into the original trilogy, and the less interesting introduction of an albino orc and his grudge-match with Thorin Oakenshield. These additions are actually good enough to watch, and never seemed forced in the context of their integration to the overall story established in the novel, even if the albino orc one is still a bit unnecessary and not as well established as the Necromancer plot. Additionally, the film takes its time getting to the better scenes, but it rarely ever feels dull or draggy. The overall romp still feels exciting enough--sweeping, and fun, with entertaining battles, action sequences, and Jackson's ability to immerse viewers into the story. Ironically enough, the 2 standout scenes for me were non-action sequences: The Necromancer council scene featuring old favorites, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman that establishes the potential connection to the original trilogy (one which I can't wait to see how it pans out in future movies), and, of course, the tense, funny, and fascinating Riddles in the Dark sequence (Andy Serkis is truly such a gem. Welcome back Smeagol). I think fans will get as much of a kick out of those scenes as I did. Granted the movie's not without flaws. More times than necessary we've had to follow the pattern of "new location, dwarfs battle random creatures, get captured, get saved in a deus-ex-machina fashion by Gandalf." It gets a bit repetitive and groan-inducing at times. I suppose that's more or less the flaw of The Hobbit as a story rather than the movie, considering that this is basically the pattern the book follows.
Now for performances. The movie hands down belongs to Martin Freeman. He is funny and charming as Bilbo. He gives us a lead that we easily have no problems rooting for. And that's difficult to do considering Ian Holmes' original performance was actually pretty creepy. Bilbo is adventurous, clumsy, self-conscious, unsure of himself, and determined to prove he belongs with this company. And Freeman pulls all of this off with complete ease. Next to that, of course, Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf. It's a performance we know, and one that's endearing to us. It's especially nice to see him reprise the humble charm of Gandalf the Grey, considering we really only had 1 movie with Gandalf the Grey prior to this (Remember, he becomes Gandalf the White for the remaining 2 movies in the LOTR trilogy--a character we can argue is completely different--almost godlike-- as he's been instilled with so much more power). McKellen probably gets the best and most quotable lines in the film--in an Obi-Wan/Yoda sort of way. Richard Armitage gives a good performance as Thorin Oakenshield, but it's really a difficult character to like overall, considering we only see the embittered side of Thorin. As a character, at least in this first part of The Hobbit trilogy, all Armitage is really allowed to do is act bossy and spit insults. It's a difficult, one-note character to like so far, especially considering he spends most of the movie resentful and rude to all races and Bilbo. And you get why he's this way, and you try to sympathize with the character, but at the end of it all, you're not much closer to warming up to him, which is a bit of a pity, because he's the man driving this quest.The pity of it all however is that out of a company of 13 dwarfs, Gandalf, and Bilbo, we really only get to know Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin. We barely get to know the other dwarfs, much less learn anyone's names. They're essentially accessories to the 3 leads--unlike the original Fellowship, where all 9 members were known, had specific roles, and were appreciated for their own merits. Such a waste. However, on a more positive note, of course, the notable who's who of familiar faces is fantastic. It's good to see Hugo Weaving back as Elrond, in a happier mode than in the original trilogy (given that this is peace time). Blanchett is radient in all her 10 minutes as Galadriel. And of course, as I stated before, Andy Serkis is a gem. As Gollum, he's funnier, scarrier, and still every bit as sympathetic as he was in the original trilogy. His 20 minute performance on screen is better than the entirety of Armitage's complete 3 hours as Thorin, honestly.
On a technical level, sadly the make up and VFX jobs are slightly underwhelming. On a lower budget and older tech, the original trilogy wipes the floor with the hokier FX we're seeing in Unexpected Journey. It sort of makes me question the technical decisions Jackson and team made for this project. We can see bald-cap makeup, contact lenses, and Hobbit feet prosthetics a lot more obviously this time around. And some of the CG orcs looked a lot worse than the big guys in full body makeup from the first trilogy. It really made things less intimidating sadly.
Switching gears, the screenplay, at least, is fantastic--filled with lines that serve as a loving kiss to Tolkein's written text, and quotable words of wisdom at every scene. And again, the ties that Jackson forms with the original trilogy are pretty clever. The only downside is this one can be a bit sillier at times than the original (it's a children's story after all).
The sweeping score by Howard Shore uses familiar themes but introduces several new ones to add to the LOTR music cannon. My only gripes were some of the silly songs they had to include--yes they are in the text, and reveal how playful or reverent our dwarf-company can be, but from a filmmaking standpoint, it wouldn't have killed them to cut them out of the movie and save us some time. They honestly didn't serve any purpose to the story.
Overall, again, it feels good to be back in Middle Earth, even if this quest isn't as thrilling as the first 3 visits. This is a movie that by all means could have pulled a "Phantom Menace" but didn't, because Jackson (and Tolkein of course) is arguably a better storyteller than George Lucas. It's lighter in tone, yes, simply because the novel itself is for children, but we still get a poignant, heartwarming, and fun story out of it all, even if it's not as deep or intense. For my money, I'm hoping for more pleasant surprises in the final 2 visits to Middle Earth with The Desolation of Smaug next year, and There and Back Again in 2014.
Overall Rating: B
No comments:
Post a Comment