The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
3/4
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Sylvester McCoy
Rated PG-13 for Extended Sequences of Intense Fantasy Action Violence, and Frightening Images
Without a doubt, anticipation for the first installment of "The Hobbit" franchise was very high, despite audience outrage that it was being split into two, then three movies. Still, despite being overlong, it's worth seeing.
When I watched and was absorbed by the first trilogy, I became curious about the dwarves. Apart from Gimli, we didn't see many of them (none that had any speaking lines). With "The Hobbit," the dwarves take center stage (apart from the hobbit Bilbo Baggins and the wizard Gandalf the Grey). It provides the film with an interesting flavor and eliminates redundancy.
The dwarves, as it happens, had a city in the Lonely Mountain. They were forced out when the dragon Smaug barged in and nestled himself in all their treasure. Now Thorin Oakenshield (Armitage) has rounded up 13 dwarves to go back to the Lonely Mountain and serve Smaug an eviction notice. To help them, Gandalf the Grey (McKellan) has enlisted the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) to tag along.
The acting is solid, except for the fact that apart from Bilbo and Gandalf, the only one who is developed at all is Thorin, and he's strictly two dimensional (and we only know Bilbo and Gandalf because of the previous movies). Most of the other dwarves are indistinguishable from each other except by their appearance.
Other than that, the problem with this movie is two-fold. First, not surprisingly, is the length. At 2.5 hours, this film is way too long, and the beginning drags substantially. Once the group gets to Rivendell, things pick up, but until then there were definitely times when I was looking at my phone. The character of Radagast (McCoy) is almost entirely superfluous.
The second is that there's no clear plotline. The film lacks a central villain and the film just ends. There's no closure. With "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers," each film had a beginning, middle and end while still tying itself to the other films. That doesn't happen here.
I'm going to wait until I see the other two films to decide on whether or not the decision to divide the story into three parts was creative or financially driven, but as it looks now, it seems like a cold hard slap in the face to make audiences pay three times to see one movie.
About the 3D...
Like all big budget movies, "The Hobbit" is being shown in 3D. I will say that the image is bright and detailed, and it's never obvious that it's 3D, so that part works well. What doesn't work is that there are times when the 3D doesn't track well, and it looks laggy.
About the 48 frames per second...
In another shameless attempt to bilk moviegoers out of their hard-earned money, Hollywood has used "The Hobbit" as a testing ground for showing movies at a higher frame rate. Theoretically, since there are faster frames, there's less time between them so it'll be more detailed.
That's the theory, anyway. As for what it's really like...
Avoid it. It's awful. You know those rough edits they show of movies they show on those "making of" documentaries? That's what this movie looks like. It's so unreal that it's unbearably distracting. I had to leave halfway through because it was so annoying (this, by the way, is why it took me so long to write a review...the second time I tried, my 3D glasses fogged up so I had to exchange them for a new pair and missed part of the movie).
In short, the best way to see this movie is in IMAX 3D. Or 2D.
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Sylvester McCoy
Rated PG-13 for Extended Sequences of Intense Fantasy Action Violence, and Frightening Images
Without a doubt, anticipation for the first installment of "The Hobbit" franchise was very high, despite audience outrage that it was being split into two, then three movies. Still, despite being overlong, it's worth seeing.
When I watched and was absorbed by the first trilogy, I became curious about the dwarves. Apart from Gimli, we didn't see many of them (none that had any speaking lines). With "The Hobbit," the dwarves take center stage (apart from the hobbit Bilbo Baggins and the wizard Gandalf the Grey). It provides the film with an interesting flavor and eliminates redundancy.
The dwarves, as it happens, had a city in the Lonely Mountain. They were forced out when the dragon Smaug barged in and nestled himself in all their treasure. Now Thorin Oakenshield (Armitage) has rounded up 13 dwarves to go back to the Lonely Mountain and serve Smaug an eviction notice. To help them, Gandalf the Grey (McKellan) has enlisted the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) to tag along.
The acting is solid, except for the fact that apart from Bilbo and Gandalf, the only one who is developed at all is Thorin, and he's strictly two dimensional (and we only know Bilbo and Gandalf because of the previous movies). Most of the other dwarves are indistinguishable from each other except by their appearance.
Other than that, the problem with this movie is two-fold. First, not surprisingly, is the length. At 2.5 hours, this film is way too long, and the beginning drags substantially. Once the group gets to Rivendell, things pick up, but until then there were definitely times when I was looking at my phone. The character of Radagast (McCoy) is almost entirely superfluous.
The second is that there's no clear plotline. The film lacks a central villain and the film just ends. There's no closure. With "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers," each film had a beginning, middle and end while still tying itself to the other films. That doesn't happen here.
I'm going to wait until I see the other two films to decide on whether or not the decision to divide the story into three parts was creative or financially driven, but as it looks now, it seems like a cold hard slap in the face to make audiences pay three times to see one movie.
About the 3D...
Like all big budget movies, "The Hobbit" is being shown in 3D. I will say that the image is bright and detailed, and it's never obvious that it's 3D, so that part works well. What doesn't work is that there are times when the 3D doesn't track well, and it looks laggy.
About the 48 frames per second...
In another shameless attempt to bilk moviegoers out of their hard-earned money, Hollywood has used "The Hobbit" as a testing ground for showing movies at a higher frame rate. Theoretically, since there are faster frames, there's less time between them so it'll be more detailed.
That's the theory, anyway. As for what it's really like...
Avoid it. It's awful. You know those rough edits they show of movies they show on those "making of" documentaries? That's what this movie looks like. It's so unreal that it's unbearably distracting. I had to leave halfway through because it was so annoying (this, by the way, is why it took me so long to write a review...the second time I tried, my 3D glasses fogged up so I had to exchange them for a new pair and missed part of the movie).
In short, the best way to see this movie is in IMAX 3D. Or 2D.
Comments
Post a Comment