I'd heard mixed views about
the first of The Hobbit films, and the fact it was being stretched out
into a trilogy gave me misgivings, but I found myself loving the film. I saw it in 3D, which I generally enjoy, and
it seemed to enhance the experience, without becoming all about the 3D.
It's apparently filmed in a
new format, and the technical film buffs argue about whether that works or
not. I know very little about these
issues, so all I can say is I didn't notice anything different, good or bad. It just looked great.
Of course, like its predecessors,
the film largely starred the New Zealand landscape, but there was plenty else
to enjoy. Martin Freeman was perfectly
cast as Bilbo, approaching his adventures with a dazed determination. I could completely believe he was dreaming
all the time about Bag End, but also that he chose not to turn back.
There were several returns
from Lord of the Rings ― some a little out of context ― Ian McKellan,
Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm and Elijah Wood all
picked up as if they'd finished the previous films mere weeks before, and Andy
Serkis (or at least his CGI version) made Gollum's one scene unforgettable, as
well as doubling as 2nd Unit Director.
Still, much of the film
focuses on the dwarves. I've seen
criticism that most of them don't come over sufficiently as individuals, and
certainly some of them fade a little into the background, but it would be
difficult to avoid that in a group of thirteen characters. Seven of them have enough to do that they're
memorable: Balin, Dwalin, Dori, Bofur, Fili, Kili, and of course Thorin, their
king. As played by Richard Armitage,
he's an arresting, complex character, and has enough charisma that it's
believable he can persuade the others to follow him, and his relationship with
Bilbo was a welcome extra dimension.
The film has considerably
more action than the equivalent part of the book. In fact, very little happens in the book until the party reach
the Misty Mountains; but, by making the conflict between dwarves and orcs more
personal, Jackson has set up the possibility for chases and fights at more
regular intervals, and those in the book ― the fight with the goblins in the
mountains and the stand-off when the party take refuge in the tree ― have been
turned up to eleven.
On the whole, the additions
to the story make sense. The film
starts with the older Bilbo writing his book, in between preparing with Frodo
for the Party, morphing into a flashback to Erebor, Dale and the coming of the
dragon. It's a different approach from
the book, where we gradually learn with Bilbo how much the quest means to the
dwarves, but I think having that up front works better in the context of a
film.
As mentioned above, an extra
strand has been added between the dwarves and orcs. This takes the form of the orc-chieftain Azog, who in the book
was killed long before, having been maimed by Thorin and being out for
revenge. Azog, portrayed in CGI by Manu
Bennett, is a chilling figure and provides a contrast with Barry Humphries'
Great Goblin, a gross, disgusting figure.
The biggest strand of
additions, though, concern the events leading up to the White Council and its
confrontation with Sauron, which here is treated as a parallel plot, rather
than as background. The party's stay at
Rivendell is complicated by Saruman and Galadriel's presence and discussions
with Gandalf and Elrond about the presence in Dol Guldur, which here is
presented as a new development.
The best part of this
strand, though, revolves around Radagast the Brown. Ironically, Radagast's appearance in Lord of the Rings
was cut from the films, whereas he's added here where he was only mentioned in
passing in the book. He's splendidly
and eccentrically portrayed by Sylvester McCoy, who has the advantage of a
character where there's no such thing as being too over the top, but who still
manages to balance the insanity perfectly.
Not everything works
perfectly. As in Lord of the Rings,
the history behind the story is simplified, and not always for the better. For instance, the reference to the Witch
King of Angmar having been killed and buried makes nonsense of the whole
"no living man can kill him" that's so important in The Return of
the King.
On the whole, though, I
thoroughly enjoyed the film, and I look forward to the next two, although I'd
still be intrigued to see how they manage to stretch it out into three long
films. Some of what's to be come has
been foreshadowed ― glimpses of the halls within the Lonely Mountain and the
elven king Thranduil, for instance ― but we still haven't had a good look at
Smaug the dragon, who's going to be voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. I can't wait.
I enjoyed it too :)
ReplyDeleteSome people have stated that the feel of (or voice of) the book was lost more than in LoTR, but I think it would have been hard to keep that intact, given that the Hobbit was a kids' book with a very strong narrative presence. Unless PJ wanted to take the Princess Bride approach and have cut aways with the character of JRR Tolkien telling the story to his kids (which would be a big break from the style viewers who already saw LoTR would expect), I'm not sure there's a way to get that strong author voice across in the movie.
I do think the escape from the Goblin King's halls reminded me a bit of some of the battles and "dungeons" in the computer game WoW, and aren't really how I imagined their underground realm, but I guess that's artistic license.