A quick report for those interested. Our youngest really, really wanted to see The Hobbit, so we went last night on the spur on the moment when I went online and found, a little to my surprise, that tickets were still available for the mid-evening showing at the theatre nearest us. I am not a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (the movies, not the book, let me stress), as well done as it in many ways was, because in so many places it’s so clearly the product of a shallow and very modern understanding — too Hollywood, to put it another way.
But the new Hobbit . . . I really liked. As did my two youngest. The trick was in going to see it as a movie and not as a movie of the book, and therefore being able to enjoy the parts of the book the director used (the riddle games were particularly well done, for example).
But my first reaction to the movie as we talked about it walking home was that though the script added a great deal to the book, like a particularly malevolent Orc named Azog (taken from one of the appendices to the Lord of the Rings, if I remember right), the movie stayed closer to the spirit and feel of the book than had the Lord of the Rings movies. Azog intensified the adventure but didn’t change it. Maybe that’s because it’s an adventure story and therefore an easier story to stay close to than the more subtle Lord of the Rings.
Though some things I thought a little off, like Gandalf not being quite as distant and dignified as he should have been, and his “small things” speech (invented by the scriptwriters) being less thoughtful and subtle than it would have been, the movie didn’t seem to me to have any major or substantial missteps. It was an acceptable treatment of The Hobbit. In any case, we all enjoyed it a great deal, on the terms I already mentioned.
The one major criticism I’d make is that, like so many movies of this sort—I’m not sure what you’d call the wide genre, maybe “teen action movies”—the action could get oppressive. The dwarves’ escape from the goblins was too long and tediously bang/pow/slash/crash/boom. It went on at least twice if not three times too long, to the point my mind wandered and I began wondering about things like “How would a Orc fortress in the mountains find food for all these orcs?”, and the director should not give peoples’ minds a chance to wander like that. But that, alas, is part of what Peter Jackson does and maybe what the target audience wants.
But, as I say, we enjoyed it a great deal.
December 15th, 2012 | 1:40 pm
Interestingly most of the reviewers on NPR of all places _only_ liked the action sequence. Both that I heard said it was too long by half. I’m happy you liked it and you’ve encouraged me to go see it.
December 15th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
I just got back home from seeing the film with my family, and I agree with your comments. I’m not sure what I made of the introduction of Radagast the Brown, though, which seemed almost to have the purpose of “wizards can be crazy, too.” Also, in LOTR Thrain killed Azog at the Battle of Nanduhirion, in revenge for his killing Thror.
But I thought the film generally great fun.
December 15th, 2012 | 3:04 pm
Just curious, what are examples of a “shallow and very modern understanding” found in the LOTR movies? And, are you addressing just the movies, or the books as well?
December 15th, 2012 | 6:39 pm
Kevin Davis: Gack, was unclear. I meant the movies. I love the book (singular). About the interpretation I may write later, but now am called to supper.
December 15th, 2012 | 10:39 pm
Just saw the movie with my wife, Diane. We found the action sequences too readily broke our suspension of disbelief. The protagonists seemed incredibly capable of falling long distances without any injuries. And Gandalf was tasked too often with calling “Run!” The collapse of the orc?/goblin? wooden pathways was like watching our son play a video game and that just may be reason for the sequence. Still, most of the positive elements were there. It is after all, a story Tolkien wrote for his children.
December 16th, 2012 | 9:23 am
Saw it this weekend with my son and a friend (both 16, loved it) and my husband (50, liked it). I thought it was a waste of time and I have no desire to either see it again or see the other two. Not a bad movie, exactly… just forgettable and way way way too long. Bilbo is boring; Thorin is brooding but kind of a jerk — not a proud king without a country jerk, just a jerk — Gandalf seems to be expecting to be ambushed at any moment, no matter where he is or what is happening; Radagast is just plain stupid; the first 45 minutes go on WAY too long; the action sequences are endless and cartoonish (especially the one mentioned above in the mine, which must have been at least 20 minutes long and consisted mostly of them running across bridges over chasms, or falling into chasms with no ill effects at all)… I could go on but won’t. It would have been entertaining at about an hour shorter; as it was I just couldn’t wait for a lot of it to be over. The Gollum scene, though, was fantastic. Some of the other scenes, particularly the flashback to the dwarf stuff when Smaug the dragon came, were really good too. Seems to me that they couldn’t decide what kind of movie they wanted it to be. It’s way too violent for a kids’ movie, but way too kiddish (in a bad way — fart jokes, belching jokes, gee-aren’t-those-dwarves-disgusting-when-they-eat jokes, snot jokes — all stuff people think kids like when they have no idea what kids really like). Oh, and Galadriel really cracked me up. She walks around in a circle incredibly slowly while thinking to Gandalf, and at least twice I think they had her on a lazy susan so she turned motionlessly! Plus, apparently only about 8 people live in Rivendell. Sigh… so much wasted potential. But the dwarves look great.
December 16th, 2012 | 9:24 am
The dwarves’ escape from the goblins was too long and tediously bang/pow/slash/crash/boom. It went on at least twice if not three times too long, to the point my mind wandered and I began wondering about things like “How would a Orc fortress in the mountains find food for all these orcs?”, and the director should not give peoples’ minds a chance to wander like that. But that, alas, is part of what Peter Jackson does and maybe what the target audience wants.
Yes. I would only add that Jackson is probably compelled to do that to ‘keep up’ with, the expectations of teenagers immersed in gaming, where such ‘action’ is central (indeed everything).
December 16th, 2012 | 11:22 am
John I’d submit that your knowledge of gaming is pretty paltry. I play many games, none require falling from great distances and one rewards you with a grisly death if you fall from more than six feet or so. What you’re referring to is know sometimes as the “Micheal Bay Effect”. For the funny version see here (http://www.collegehumor.com/picture/5882907). “The Effect” where movies currently push over the top action sequences to show off technical abilities that TV can’t match in the hope that people go to theaters rather than stay home. It’s sad, but has nothing much to do with games (though some games suffer from the same effect).
December 16th, 2012 | 11:27 am
I saw it with my family last night and share David Mills’ overall assessment. Don’t view it from the lens of how true it is to the book, just view as a movie. One of the few Tolkien commentators I consider worth reading, Prof. Tom Shippey, argues in his book The Road to Middle-earth that the LOTR movies should be seen as Jackson’s interpretation of the story. In that sense they can be enjoyed for their own sake. Kind of like how many old folk tales and myths have multiple versions. The same applies to the Hobbit movies.
I don’t want to turn this into an eyes-rolling inducing Tolkien-nerd* chat room, but I should clarify that in the books Azog was killed by Dain, not Thrain. I don’t know why Jackson would change that detail, because it potentially weakens the heroic credentials of Dain who comes in near the end of the story.
* A term I apply to myself, no implications for others intended.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact