You must be registered for see images
Movie Title: The Hobbit
Genre: Action, Fantasy, Adventure
Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (novel), Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo Del Torro
Directed by: Peter Jackson, Andy Serkis
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, Richard Armitage, Andy Serkis, Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Ken Stott, Benedict Cumberbatch
Distributed by: New Line Cinema, Metro Goldwyn Mayer, WingNut Films
Release Date: 14 December 2012 (An Unexpected Journey), 13 December 2013 (Desolation of Smaug)
Running Time: 169/182 min (An Unexpected Journey), 161 min (Desolation of Smaug)
Country: New Zealand, USA, UK
Language(s): English
Budget: $180m (An Unexpected Journey)
Summary:
Bilbo and the dwarves go on a quest to reclaim Erebor which was taken from the dwarves by the Dragon Smaug.
Critical Review:
The Hobbit was supposed to be the epic prequel to the LoTR trilogy.
The two movies released atm are enjoyable and compared to the average pish posh that comes out of Hollywood today the are quite good. Some of the acting i fantastic, especially by Andy Serkis, Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman.
The Gollum scene was one of the greatest I have ever seen in a movie, the acting between Freeman and Serkis was absolutely enthralling and the mood it set was a perfect depiction of the scene from the book. It is by far the best part of the two movies.
It is not an adventure movie or an epic, it is an action movie, and it's good at being an action movie. But The Hobbit is NOT an action story so on to the negatives:
What was for me the most anticipated movie since the LOTR trilogy has 2 years ago shown to be a massive let down. I have since figured it out what bothered me so much: Peter Jackson filmed the LoTR movies as a huge Tolkien fan and with only that in mind, LoTR brought out the best of everyone working on it and nothing was good enough until it was perfect. Back then, PJ made a trilogy that would make professor Tolkien proud.
With the Hobbit PJ is still a fan of Tolkien but either he or the ones higher up are still bigger fans of money. Instead of amazing storytelling, epic scenes and battles, sensational acting and tear-jerking speeches the new PJ movies are deeply corrupted by todays movie formulas. With the first movie there were a few good things but it did't feel as an adventure it was just one "dangerous situation" after another and almost no story at all. The second movie was even worse, instead of what is supposed to be a story based adventure it became a clusterf??? of whirling and twisting battles that were supposed to "look good" (by todays hollywood standards) but just end up making only half a sense. Only a very small percentage of the movie is actually based on the books and the stories added from the appendices are spinned out of control. With the LOTR movies PJ stayed true to Tolkiens story but in the new Hobbit he butchered his work to implement the, today already, cliche aspects of hollywood movies, most notable of which is a romance story between an original character elf and a dwarf (those who know Tolkiens works know that that is enough to make the professor roll around in his grave). The amount of filler that contradicts Tolkien is, frankly, sad.
If you look the LOTR and Hobbit movies and compare them you can see how thw statement "just because you can use CG it does not mean you should use it" is true, Laketown looks completely fake and unrealistic as opposed to Edoras who was built and shot on location (and that was now a13 years ago). The orcs look like they were painted on paper and had oils spilled over them. Dol Guldur looks like it had been done by a child and, once again, Gandalf was made to look like a weakling he is not. The battles made no sense and were way to exaggerated and whirly, not to mention they took way too much of the time and ended up shoving out the story completely. I would list the comedy as a plus as it was actually funnier than most mainstream comedies at times (although that amounts to the abysmal quality of todays comedy standards rather than quality of the Hobbit) but it has no place in a movie based on a Tolkien work. Another positive could have been the brilliant acting of the cast but they simply have not enough screen time to shine, which is because of the overlong battles. The only redeeming qualities were the references to previous films and the brilliant acting of sir Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman.
Lord Of The Rings looks like it was filmed in the real world, The Hobbit looks like it was filmed in a small box with the set drawn onto the walls.
I feel sorry that PJ sold out. The Hobbit is definitely an enjoyable movie but in no way, shape or form is it worthy to be called the prequel tot he Lord Of The Rings. In that aspect it is the most disappointing movie I have ever seen.
I had expected The Hobbit movies to be to the LoTR movies what the Hobbit book is to the LoTR book. But it failed. Qnd please do not come at me with the "you cant make a film completely after a book" because its useless, a movie can be different than the book and yet stay true to the spirit of the story. PJ proved that with LoTR but than destroyed it and turned it to a mess equivalent of an icecream truck being hit with a bullet train (compared to LOTR).
Rating: 6/10
★★★★★★☆☆☆☆
, but hey a love triangle is a money grab right, screw the story
