Predicted rating: 4 stars
Directed by Peter Jackson (Braindead, Bad Taste). Staring Martin Freeman (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), Sir Ian McKellen (X- Men) and Hugo Weaving (The Matrix, Captain America).
The first installment in a new trilogy is the prequel to the highly successful Lord of the Rings trilogy. The once mighty dwarven city of Erebor is destroyed by a dragon named Smaug, forcing the dwarves to flee. The film tells the story of Thorin, his band of dwarves, Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf in their quest to reclaim the city and return the pride back to the dwarven race.
*sniff *sniff, what's that smell. Oh, it's money, something Peter Jackson will be smelling a lot of when he is strolling all the way to the bank. Essentially all this film is, is a money grab. I am not saying that a Hobbit movie shouldn't have been made, it is a good idea. However I am going to put an emphasis on the A, A Hobbit movie, not three. It is highly likely, with the current cinematic environment, that these movies will go into make a billion plus dollars each. Peter Jackson knows this and all he is aiming to do is make three low risk films that will everyone will go see. Playing it safe means Jackson makes the money. If he tries to hard to make a good film and it backfires and it turns out to be terrible, he will be in the shits, something that has happened before (*cough John Carter *cough). Although, as with all theories, it has an exception, i.e. Transformers, terrible movies but made a truck load of money. Mmmm nostalgia effect.
I am going to use an American analogy here because it is easier, the older brother (The Lord of the Rings) is the quarterback of the football team and the school captain. He is the king of the school, all the girls want him and all the guys want to be him. It is now the first day of the year, his younger brother (The Hobbit) rocks up expecting to ride on his brother's successes. He is clearly the inferior sibling but some fall for this ploy, others are smarter and know what's going on. It is pretty clear that The Hobbit is riding on the successes of The Lord of the Rings. Something I think is going to work here because lots of people will go and see it.
The pacing of this movie is less than desirable. It is not awful but it is no Wrath of Khan. That's to be expected when you try to make three movies from a 300 page kids book. Well one of these movies is from the appendices. Wait, appendices. That is like me publishing a scientific paper and trying to make as much money off a few tables of data and a photo of me next to the equipment with my thumbs up. Anyway, the pacing just seems way to deliberate. There is a lot of padding going on to ensure that it ends on a climax, i.e. having them sit around for 45 minutes at the start discussing their plans. this is to be expected however when you split an original story into two, something that has happened a lot lately, as in the final chapters of Harry Potter and Twilight. Harry Potter did it ok but, not that I have seen it, I heard Twilight stunk it up big time with part 2 featuring a 45 minute montage of every character that has appeared in the series. One montage even intertwines a character that has been played by two different actors. There is a reasonable climax at the end, I am just going to harp on this point, it should have been one movie!
Whilst there are some elements of the next installment I am looking forward to like Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug/The Necromancer, I am not really hanging out to see it. I don't think it will even make my list of top 10 movies I am looking forward to next year (keep your eyes peeled). I will still see it, I just won't be having any sleepless nights over it. By the way, old Benny is going to be a hated man in the nerd community playing both Smaug and the villain in the new Star Trek movie (yes one review, two Star Trek references, winning!).
I have had a read through my review and it all seems pretty scathing. I think I have been a bit harsh because it is a reasonably good film. I am just frustrated due to the money grab factor. There are some good elements, like it is visually stunning and it is a solid story. The money grab factor was really consolidated when there were 30 minutes of adverts before it started!
Overall: I am not saying a film that I have given four stars, like say 21 Jump Street, is a better movie than The Hobbit, it is just not as good as it could be. 21 Jump Street got a good rating because I was expecting it to be bad and it was awesome, I was expecting the Hobbit to be much better. 3.5 stars
Next time: So many films to chose from, Les Miserables, Wreck it Ralph, Jack Reacher. It all depends when I get back to the movies.
No comments:
Post a Comment