Overview (no spoilers, don't worry!):
World-Building: Awesome
Characterization: Better than the novel!
Plot: Perfectly paced and fresh
I must begin this review by saying that Peter Jackson has, once again, proven that the best way to make a film adaptation of a book is to be a fan of the source material. He not only understands the awesomeness of the source material, remaining faithful to the storyline, he also understands its shortcomings and is able to build upon the existing material to iron those out. I mentioned in my "Guide to the Hobbit" that Jackson and co, or their marketing team, anyway, made the very clever decision to introduce all thirteen dwarves in the first trailer, therefore ensuring that people would be familiar with the characters before going in. They've made many more clever decisions in this film and the end result is something that is as exciting for fans as it is for newcomers.
I've read the book at least 7 times, probably more. This means that I went into it expecting certain scenes - or save points, if you will - and expecting them to come in a certain way. I don't think this save-point feel is an invention of my own brain as a reader, I feel it's a big part of the original book. The book has a very strong narrator voice which makes for funny linguistic turns and a "story by the fireside" feel, but it also means that there's a whole bunch of telling, telling, telling, with a few very bright moments of showing us exciting events on the company's journey through Middle-Earth. In this respect the movie was very different. The emphasis was on showing, on immersion in the world with very little telling and very few things happening off-screen. So instead of Gandalf mysteriously disappearing and then appearing unexpectedly at the perfectly convenient moment we knew what he was up to and his convenient appearance didn't seem as contrived. Even when a character is telling us something that happened at a different time or place we are taken there to see the events taking place. It's a vision or a memory, not a retelling/narration of a vision or memory.
I was actually surprised by the amount of difference between this film and the book. There are many things which were, unexpectedly for me, done in a way that is different from the way they were done in the book. This meant that, as a fan who had pretty much memorized the story, there were still moments when I had no idea how events were about to unfold! Instead of copying the first section of the book into film format Jackson and his crew are telling us a story in this movie, a complete story with it's own arc from the beginning of this movie to the end.
This is a story that hinges on characterization. While The Hobbit's narrator style made it a somewhat distant, less personal book, An Unexpected Journey is a very personal film. There were moments of near-cheesiness, but overall they struck a good balance which allowed us to get involved with the characters. I found myself hating Thorin much less than I did in the book. In fact, I didn't hate him at all in the movie. I also found myself knowing the rest of the dwarves much better than I did in the book. Not all 13, of course, not yet, but we still have two movies to go.
The last thing I need to mention is the 48fps Higher Frame Rate. I went to see this film in HFR 3D, which is the format that Jackson and his team made it in, the format they intended for it to be viewed in. I have no regrets. I was apprehensive going in, because I had read many reviews harping on about how terrible HFR was and how they felt physically sick and I don't know what other nonsense. It was natural, didn't hurt my eyes and made the world much more real for me than many so-called "cinematic" masterpieces.
For instance, let's compare it to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which I made the mistake of seeing in 3D. In Deathly Hallows it was completely pointless and I had many complaints about dark scenes that couldn't be seen properly and, as with many other movies with action scenes, incomprehensible laggy/grainy "exciting scenes". In The Hobbit, on the other hand, the fastest-paced battle scenes seemed realistic, I still felt like I was there, and if I was confused at all it was because there was so much going on, as there would be in a real battle, not because the lighting sucked or the "cinematic" format of presentation couldn't handle movement that was that quick.
No, in the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, we were never left in the dark.
The opening sequence was a little strange, I'm going to have to go back and re-watch this one many times before I figure it out, but there was something about it that made me feel many of the dwarves running around in that scene were completely CGI - except for Thorin who looked almost jarringly real compared to them. I suspect that this was because I was still adjusting to the frame rate, or it could be the weird jewelry one of the characters wore, or it could just be the quick transitions between epic scope and face-shots that we were presented with. When I figure it out, I'll let you know, but for now, do rest assured that these first few minutes were the only ones in the whole film that I felt a little bit distracted/not fully immersed. And as I said before, it didn't hurt my eyes at all. I sat through an entire 2 hours and 45 minutes of a fantasy movie without coming out reeling or disoriented!
After seeing it in HFR 3D I would highly recommend that you do the same. Jackson knew what he was doing and it was a beautiful experience. If I go see the film again it will be in HFR 3D without question.
Wow, that was a long "overview". Ah well, moving on...
THERE BE SPOILERS BELOW
GO WATCH THE MOVIE FIRST
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
In Depth, Spoiler-Filled Analysis:
Because the overview was so positive I feel the need to move on to some of the negatives before going back to praise the details I loved:
1) Radagast the Brown - he wasn't bad. I like that he was included. In fact, I was very pleased when I saw that he was going to be in the movies where he was only a name in the books, but... he's just not what I imagined. There's a little too much weirdness and overdone umm... jolliness about him for my liking. It was like they based him on Santa or something, but this meant that I just couldn't see him as a wizard who was overlooked by his peers because of his care for weaker living creatures. He just seemed slightly insane. And two dimensional. Mostly insane, though.
2) Bilbo taking some of Gandalf's spotlight - I get that they were trying to focus on him, but I felt that in the Troll scene at least, they should have left well enough alone and let Gandalf do his thing. Plus, that whole scene was too brief. There should have been much more time before the sun rose and a much more prolonged argument between the trolls. It still worked, but it was the one change I didn't fully agree with or see the need for.
3) Why didn't Gollum go back to his island to look for the Ring? I think he figured it out too quickly. And I also didn't like the fact that Bilbo saw it fall out of his pocket before taking it for himself. It just changed the whole dynamic of their interaction. Not that I had any complaints once Gollum started to talk! Any Serkis is amazing as ever.
The Awesome:
1) Characterization - this story was a story about Bilbo and Thorin and to a slightly lesser extent the rest of Thorin's company. The main arc here was really in the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin and it made for a much more interesting and contained movie than just "the first third of the Hobbit book" would have been. We also got to know Balin, Kili, and Bofur much more closely and I suspect many more will be well-characterized in the next movie. Even those dwarves who didn't get as much screen-time were given unique personalities that we just have to discover. In the book Balin's "closer" relationship with Bilbo came a little bit out of the blue and I honestly wasn't convinced that this was really the case because we were only told this, not shown it. In the movie this is made clear from the very beginning.
2) Azog - in the same vein I loved their use of Azog's (very fleshed out) character to create this movie's main conflict and create a sense of suspense. We weren't going to get Smaug yet in this movie so Jackson and co made the wise decision of giving us another smaller enemy to give this film its own story arc and its own sense of immediate danger.
3) Songs - As with Peter Jackson's decision to axe the tedious Tom Bombadil chapter of LOTR he knew exactly which pointless songs to cut out completely and which ones to keep in and use to great effect. The "chip the plates" song was, in my opinion, a necessity that they handled well and in a creative manner and the Misty Mountains song from the Trailer 1 was perfect. So perfect I know I will be listening to it many more times. I also love that there was an extra section of it we didn't hear in the trailer.
4) World-building - we got to see Thorin's lost kingdom and its beauty, we got to see Rivendell and the shire and some familiar sights, and we also got to see other, lovely, sets.
5) The ending. It ruled.
6) Acting - Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin were amazing, as of course was Andy Serkis as Gollum, but they weren't the only ones. There was none of the awkward acting that Elijah wood forced upon us in LOTR and no trying-to-sound-British American accents or any of that other jarring stuff that can ruin a fantasy movie. It was just awesome acting all the way through with excellent casting choices made for the roles.
That's all for now. I'm sure I'll think of more later, but I'll conclude by saying that the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was an excellent film that everyone should go see, whether you are fans of the book or not. Don't be put off by the HFR-bashing reviews or any of the other nonsense you hear or read and give Jackson a chance to tell you this epic story the way he envisioned it.
And please leave your thoughts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment