There are many parts of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey that are very well put together and very enjoyable. But there are a lot of parts to it. Tons. Ultimately, all the Lord of the Rings films have felt somewhat episodic in nature, but this new film feels like it might be several installments of some television show all stitched together in some kind of season box set. "Here's the episode where the dragon attacks." "Here's the episode with the flashback that introduces Thorin's nemesis." "Here's the episode about what Jar Jar Binks would have been like if he'd driven a bunny sled."
And perhaps more than anything: "Here are the episodes that needlessly wastes time just because we wanted to bring back characters from the first trilogy."
I don't think it's possible for anyone watching a Lord of the Rings movie to full understand the bond that must have been formed between the actors and crew making it. The film industry is a vagabond one, and many of the people drawn to it are mercurial in nature. They form an intense relationship with people that burns for a few months, and then everyone scatters their separate ways. The Lord of the Rings was different, filmed over the course of an entire year, with re-shoots that kept bringing them back together over several more. So I totally get it... Peter Jackson would want to gather as many of those actors again as possible, and they'd want to come do it.
The problem is, the story of The Hobbit is only tangentially related to that of The Lord of the Rings. So all these contrivances in the film to bring back the original actors feel like exactly what they are: grafted on bits that in no way advance the plot. At a nearly three hour run time, The Hobbit is far too long. And while the sentimental side of me enjoys the bits that call back a decade to the first trilogy, my objective mind, thinking about what's really needed to tell a driving story, would cut old Bilbo, Frodo, Galadriel, Saruman... all that needless fluff.
And most of the Radagast stuff. Dude, he's the worst.
I think another thing that hurt my enjoyment of The Hobbit was how slapstick most of the action was. The Lord of the Rings certainly had its lighter moments (Legolas surfing on oliphants; he and Gimli's "most kills" contest at the Battle of Helm's Deep), but by and large it was a fairly serious affair, and that seriousness brought a sense of danger and immediacy to the tale. The climactic battles of The Hobbit are rather silly. A big action moment of mountains literally fighting each other was so boring that that's the scene my boyfriend chose for a bathroom/snack break. The flight from the goblin kingdom is full of moments that ought to be accompanied by Three Stooges sound effects. And a finale that has all 15 heroes dangling from a tree (several of them from Gandalf's staff) in a literal cliffhanger feels cartoonish. (Just don't look down, boys, and maybe you won't actually fall.)
But as I said, The Hobbit is a very long movie, and so there are plenty of things about it that do work -- and work very well.
The performance capture tools for rendering CG characters have advanced so far in the last decade, it's truly stunning. New creations like the Goblin King are wonderful. I can't wait to see how Smaug (played in performance capture by Benedict Cumberbatch) turns out. And Gollum has been updated with enough fine points of detail and facial expression that he's now surely the most believable CG character ever created.
Of course, those performances are driven by actors. As Gollum, Andy Serkis is exceptional. The famous "riddle scene" between he and Martin Freeman is far and away the most compelling thing in the movie. The sense of danger is more palpable than in any other scene. There are moment of humor effortlessly woven throughout. You can see the mental gears turning for both characters. It's amazing.
Martin Freeman is a wonderful Bilbo. The story of The Hobbit simply doesn't offer as many scenes as The Lord of the Rings for the characters to really have a sentimental moment and express their feelings to one another... but when those moments do come, Martin Freeman absolutely nails them. He manages to keep the rather fussbudget nature of the character as a source of entertainment rather than annoyance, and his monologue which concludes the film is the most emotionally moving thing in the film.
So while I found things to like and be impressed by, I really found myself wishing I could just see the two-film version of The Hobbit instead. Maybe even the one-film version. I give The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a B-.
As a footnote, I did not see the "high frame rate" (48 frames per second) version of the film. And with several people I know reporting badly on that? (Everything from "awkward" to "headache-inducing.") Well, between that, and me not being that impressed by the movie, I have no plans to go back again and experience it for myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment