[Films] The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
After "The Dark Knight Rises”, I think that “the Hobbit” was the film that I was looking forward to
the most this year. I loved the book as a child the first time I read it, and
have a beautifully illustrated version, as well as the Radio 4 audio play from
many years ago that I’ve listened too many times. I also really enjoyed Peter
Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy (LotR), and was when I found out that he
was directing the Hobbit I was very excited. Sadly, my excitement was tempered
this year when I found out that,
rather than the two films that were planned (already a stretch), it would be a
trilogy. The book is only 300 pages long, around 20% of the length of the Lord
of the Rings, so how on middle Earth was he going to get 9 hours of film out of it?
Even with the fleshing out of the side-stories that was going to happen?
Martin Freeman is Bilbo Baggins. (Credit: theweek.com)
The film is brilliant. If you
loved LotR, then this is more of the same kind of thing, and well worth going
to see even if, like me, you hold reservations about the trilogy format.
However I’ll say right now that if you didn’t enjoy the Lord of the Rings, then
you probably won’t get much out of the Hobbit. The film features the same
beautiful cinematography, with sweeping landscape shots, lots of walking
through scenery to stirring music., and a couple of songs. It is, however, much
funnier than LotR, and there are some design elements which have undergone
substantial change.
All 13 dwarves have a distinct look to them, that makes telling them apart fairly easy. (Credit: collider.com)
The dwarfs, for example, are very
different to those from LotR, and their architecture is very distinct. In fact
it reminded my very strongly of the Games Workshop Dwarf aesthetic. The elves though
are pretty much the same, but Moria looks different, and its Goblin residents
are almost unrecognisable as the same creatures from LotR. In fact on the
whole, I would say that whereas LotR seemed to make an effort to be fairly
realistic, the Hobbit takes a more exaggerated approach, particularly to its
antagonists. It only once descends into the cartoon-like though, and that’s
with the Goblin King who I thought was poorly realised. Sadly we don’t get a
proper look at Smaug, although we do get enough of a glimpse to whet the
appetite.
Goblin King aside, from a
character point of view Peter Jackson has done a very good job. There was a
danger of the dwarves all blending together, but they all have a distinct look
and character too them. Putting names to all of them is still hard, but only
because there are so many of them with similar names, and not all get proper
introductions or character development.
Those that do are excellent though, with Thorin in particular getting
much more of a story arc and background than he was allowed in the book, which
was all about Bilbo Baggins. Martin Freeman knocks his performance as the
titular hobbit our of the park, and is note perfect throughout. He is Bilbo, much as Ian McKellen is Gandalf and Andy Serkis, again showing himself to be
a brilliant actor, is Gollum.
Andy Serkis again puts in a brilliant, and truly creepy performance. (Credit: geekscape.net)
The film doesn’t seem overly
long, and the extra sections added by Jackson fit well, although for this film
he has kept close to the first half of the book for the most part. The major
additions seem to be an extended role for Radagast and some plot foreshadowing
for the Necromancer storyline, which was basically an excuse to get Saruman,
Elrond, and Galadriel some screen time. It is part two where the integration of
the side-story will really be tested, and I can’t wait to see it. Particularly if it means more Sylvester
McCoy as Radagast!
Comments
Post a Comment