I wrote this review almost a month ago but never published it. Since my views are still applicable and there are going to be people who have not seen the film I will share my thoughts and observations. There will be SPOILERS.
Several weeks after the release of The Hobbit I've now had the opportunity to view the film in 3-D with 48 frames per second and also in the 24 FPS movie standard and thought I would share a few thoughts on the film. I won't be writing in any amount of depth on the overall plot but there may contain some *spoilers* though I don't feel I should be worried about spoiling the story for an nearly 80 year old book.
I saw The Hobbit for the first time in 3-D 48 FPS the Monday following the release of the film. I'm sure that I will spend more time going over what I didn't like about the film, so don't get me wrong as I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The framing device for the film, using the original cast of Ian Holme and Elijah Woods of played Bilbo and Frodo respectively in The Lord of The Rings was a great way t back story and depth to some characters simply by them being present. The audience knows what is going to happen with Bilbo and his eventual fate far across the sea in the west with the elves.
The Hobbit was originally intended to be a two part movie but sometime during filming it was decided to split the movie into three films and many saw this as a money grab. I am not one who would be able to disagree with that point entirely. There a points of the film that seem to drag on a little longer than might be necessary. This was a common complaint I've heard from people when discussing The Lord of the Rings trilogy with people over the last ten years, especially the long ending of Return of the King. In the case of the LotR trilogy I've personally felt some of those scenes were necessary for exposition and the overall development of the plot. In the case of the dinner scene when the dwarves arrive at Bag End the scene dragged on without any real character development.
The lack of character development is by far the biggest issue I have with the film. Now granted there wasn't much to go on from the source material for many of the characters and I do understand that most of the dwarves were never given a personality in book. By end of the film only a few of the characters stuck out in my mind as individuals. Outside of Thorin and Balin many of the dwarves do little but take up space in the background. Some of the dwarves get more moments to shine than others but these moments were few and far between. Most films have smaller casts of a few characters so they have ample screen time to become developed by the end of a film. The reason I bring this up is because of the film version The Fellowship of the Ring. By the end of Fellowship each on the nine members of the fellowship were developed enough as characters that each individual character had a distinct personality and motivations that were understandable to the audience. By the end of The Hobbit, and I've seen it twice now, I barely can remember any of the dwarves names so the chances of anyone being able to describe their personalities and motivations is remote. I hope that this is rectified in the future films and the likely extended cuts that The Lord of the Rings did so well.
The technical aspects of the film are simply amazing. The costumes and sets are just as good as anything that the Weta Workshop has created. The costumes and sets look and feel authentic and work to further create the cultures of Middle Earth in ways you don't see in other films. The CGI this time around is stupendous and lacks the rubbery quality that we see to often I films. The scene with Gollum are done so well I don't even think of him as a computer generated character but instead as an actor. Andy Serkis did just as good of a job as he ever has with his voice work and motion capture. I love the redesign of the worgs though I don't care for the look of the Goblin King and which the design of the goblins was more in line with the LotR trilogy.
As for the two versions of the film I found that I enjoyed the 3-D version with the 48 FPS much more than the standard 24 FPS that I viewed last night (12-18). This is a big statement by myself as I don't normally like 3-D in films. The 3-D generally doesn't warrant the extra price of a ticket and is often barely more than a gimmick that makes objects appear to fly at the audience. I left the 3-D in The Hobbit was much more like the 3-D in Avatar. It was less a gimmick though gimmicks are certainly present. The 3-D was used mostly in a way to add depth to the scenes. Combined with the high frame rate it made for a much more engrossing viewing experience. The frame rate gave a level of detail that I have never experience before in a film. During the tremendous battle scenes for example you could pick out a minor character in the background and see a high level of detail in the shot. The 24 FPS version while still a great movie did not have nearly the level of clarity of the 48 FPS version. Howard Shore's music score felt as if it was coming from the same world. All the songs were original as far as I can recall and there were some nice thematic nods to songs from the first trilogy. Bilbo's theme was reminiscent of Frodo's though it wasn't quite as memorable. Using Sarumans them slightly during his brief was a nice touch and the score is full of great moments like that.
Overall The Hobbit is a great film and should please fans of The Lord of Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is a much more lighthearted tale than its predecessor and doesn't have quite the level of epic-ness or urgency of the quest that the Fellowship undetook and runs a little long in parts but should satisfy anyone who is a long time fan of Tolkien or The Lord of the Rings nook or film trilogy and is a great jumping on point for newcomers to middle earth who are looking to experience The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the first time.
No comments:
Post a Comment