Jackson aims too hard to please
As of 2012 and 2013, the initial reaction is to compare the fantasy journey among noble dwarfs and elves, and ignoble orcs and trolls, to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which technically occurs after this adventure.
Director Jackson did a supreme job on the trilogy, but no matter what you do, you can't please everyone, and he too unprovoked heat from both sides of the fence. Some purists insist on using everything from the book, including Bombadil and his overly blond Hitler idealism. While the dorks wanted less character and the sort of goofy arcade room look in special effects that make the crack heads happy.
Jackson goes out to appease the dorks in this one. Not a bad move, but certainly lacking in originality. Here, we get a bit more "formula" than what we would want.
The abuse of effects enhance the comic nature of this story. The three trolls act so much like the Three Stooges that it is obvious Jackson was alluding to them. One of Jackson's signature stamps is the way he alludes to classics, high brow and low brow.
The fellowship of nine from the trilogy includes Gandalf, Frodo, and seven others. This one includes Gandalf, Bilbo, and 13 others.
With 12 serving under the one, it's not as easy to keep tabs on the characters.
Since "The Hobbit" is done in trilogy format, Jackson appears to be comfortable to gradually let us learn about the 12 minor dwarfs. Here, 3 of them take center stage a lot, and 2 others a bit less. The other 7 are very anonymous.
Most of us won't hold that against Jackson, so long as he does more character development in the next film.
However, it's one thing to sacrifice the rapport for action, but quite another to sacrifice it for mindless drivel.
However, as it is part of a trilogy, one looks at this as a third of a film, or a third of a story. It is often the comedy that brings out the pathos of tragedy. Wen we live and laugh with a group of characters, we are filled with even more sadness when some die.
The accents are very thick, good for purists, but not for viewers. We rarely know what is being said, so while the big screen is great for the spectacle, it will be better with the closed captioning on a small TV screen.
Not all of the detriments are Jackson's fault. Remember that Tolkien wrote the Middle Earth saga with some inconsistencies. The orcs look bigger, more like the Uruk Hai, but perhaps that is because they are compared to dwarfs and hobbits. The contrasts in size don't appear to be correct at times. And the orcs look much more muscular than Tolkien intended.
Now, that was the problem with the film. Not much of a problem, is it? More like a nit pick.
My rating shows that it is indeed a nit pick. First of all, the film lasts well over two hours, but you come away from it thinking you spent less than an hour watching. That's the sign of a top director. It flows and moves effortlessly.
Next, Bilbo himself is a great character here. He is a throwback to old style films, of the golden age, the forties, fifties, and sixties.
Like the ring trilogy, the hobbit begins with the status quo, which changes. That's what makes this sort of story so magical. You begin in a shire, and wind up facing trolls, goblins, and dragons.
Jackson makes the climactic point of the saga, the point which fits into his entire Middle Earth legend, a point to remember. It is, of course, the point of Bilbo's mercy towards Gollum, which is done quite dramatically. This is the part of the film that is the classic moment, and Jackson knows this.
Not that there aren't other great moments. There are. When we do get to characters, Jackson shows us what a great director he is.
One of the great questions to be answered, since we know the Necromancer is Sauron, is whether Saruman is already duped by Sauron. It looks pretty evident that Saruman is already against the forces of good.
This takes us to the "breath of fresh air", the character that makes this film quite unique, and gives Jackson a stamp of originality. There has to be at least one "cool" character in a saga of this magnitude.
Enter RADAGAST THE BROWN, another wizard, like Gandalf. With him, Jackson has literary license, as Radagast is merely a name in the book, a name for a good wizard, but still mostly a name.
Radagast becomes the cool cat of this story. His presence is not of our era, but one for the past and for the future. As Gandalf puts it, one with a great heart, and of great power, although he scarcely looks the mighty wizard.
Radagast, Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarfs give us a great group of characters.
This looks like it shapes up to be part of a great trilogy, but is lacking on its own. It still needs the next two parts to justify it. I would rather the film stand on its own as a film, but it doesn't. It leaves you hanging, much like "The Empire Strikes Back" did. Many people like "Empire" films the best. To me, they are the least. In either case, they are necessary if you want to watch the entire trilogy.
Director Jackson did a supreme job on the trilogy, but no matter what you do, you can't please everyone, and he too unprovoked heat from both sides of the fence. Some purists insist on using everything from the book, including Bombadil and his overly blond Hitler idealism. While the dorks wanted less character and the sort of goofy arcade room look in special effects that make the crack heads happy.
Jackson goes out to appease the dorks in this one. Not a bad move, but certainly lacking in originality. Here, we get a bit more "formula" than what we would want.
The abuse of effects enhance the comic nature of this story. The three trolls act so much like the Three Stooges that it is obvious Jackson was alluding to them. One of Jackson's signature stamps is the way he alludes to classics, high brow and low brow.
The fellowship of nine from the trilogy includes Gandalf, Frodo, and seven others. This one includes Gandalf, Bilbo, and 13 others.
With 12 serving under the one, it's not as easy to keep tabs on the characters.
Since "The Hobbit" is done in trilogy format, Jackson appears to be comfortable to gradually let us learn about the 12 minor dwarfs. Here, 3 of them take center stage a lot, and 2 others a bit less. The other 7 are very anonymous.
Most of us won't hold that against Jackson, so long as he does more character development in the next film.
However, it's one thing to sacrifice the rapport for action, but quite another to sacrifice it for mindless drivel.
However, as it is part of a trilogy, one looks at this as a third of a film, or a third of a story. It is often the comedy that brings out the pathos of tragedy. Wen we live and laugh with a group of characters, we are filled with even more sadness when some die.
The accents are very thick, good for purists, but not for viewers. We rarely know what is being said, so while the big screen is great for the spectacle, it will be better with the closed captioning on a small TV screen.
Not all of the detriments are Jackson's fault. Remember that Tolkien wrote the Middle Earth saga with some inconsistencies. The orcs look bigger, more like the Uruk Hai, but perhaps that is because they are compared to dwarfs and hobbits. The contrasts in size don't appear to be correct at times. And the orcs look much more muscular than Tolkien intended.
Now, that was the problem with the film. Not much of a problem, is it? More like a nit pick.
My rating shows that it is indeed a nit pick. First of all, the film lasts well over two hours, but you come away from it thinking you spent less than an hour watching. That's the sign of a top director. It flows and moves effortlessly.
Next, Bilbo himself is a great character here. He is a throwback to old style films, of the golden age, the forties, fifties, and sixties.
Like the ring trilogy, the hobbit begins with the status quo, which changes. That's what makes this sort of story so magical. You begin in a shire, and wind up facing trolls, goblins, and dragons.
Jackson makes the climactic point of the saga, the point which fits into his entire Middle Earth legend, a point to remember. It is, of course, the point of Bilbo's mercy towards Gollum, which is done quite dramatically. This is the part of the film that is the classic moment, and Jackson knows this.
Not that there aren't other great moments. There are. When we do get to characters, Jackson shows us what a great director he is.
One of the great questions to be answered, since we know the Necromancer is Sauron, is whether Saruman is already duped by Sauron. It looks pretty evident that Saruman is already against the forces of good.
This takes us to the "breath of fresh air", the character that makes this film quite unique, and gives Jackson a stamp of originality. There has to be at least one "cool" character in a saga of this magnitude.
Enter RADAGAST THE BROWN, another wizard, like Gandalf. With him, Jackson has literary license, as Radagast is merely a name in the book, a name for a good wizard, but still mostly a name.
Radagast becomes the cool cat of this story. His presence is not of our era, but one for the past and for the future. As Gandalf puts it, one with a great heart, and of great power, although he scarcely looks the mighty wizard.
Radagast, Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarfs give us a great group of characters.
This looks like it shapes up to be part of a great trilogy, but is lacking on its own. It still needs the next two parts to justify it. I would rather the film stand on its own as a film, but it doesn't. It leaves you hanging, much like "The Empire Strikes Back" did. Many people like "Empire" films the best. To me, they are the least. In either case, they are necessary if you want to watch the entire trilogy.
- drystyx
- 21 dic 2012