The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

120px-Film-strip

The entire world will have seen this one by now, so I’ll probably keep the review quite brief. Following on from the epic Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson returns with the “prequel”.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

“I’m looking for someone to share in an adventure.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: the beginnings of the LotR story, with lashings of dwarf-related humour

See it if you like: deep, expansive, spectacular fantasy

I read The Hobbit when I was about 11 years old, so don’t expect any comparisons to the original text. For the record, I’m now 39 (my birthday was the UK release date for the film!) and my memory rarely stretches past last week, let alone nearly three decades. Reading up on the trivia via IMDB, it’s clear that Jackons has been slightly free with the adaptation as he was with the first trilogy. Some characters are in the film that weren’t in the book, some don’t appear, some bits are jiggled around slightly… In fairness, he did a good job before and the changes – which may have upset purists – helped the story spread more evenly across the films.

Indeed, one of the first tweaks appears at the very beginning where Frodo is seen pestering his uncle Bilbo. Frodo isn’t in The Hobbit at all, but this scene is purely to link the previous trilogy with this precursor.

But what of the rest of the film?

Well, my overall opinion was that it was like a kiddie-friendly version of its big brother. Which, in fairness, is how the books work out. The violence is far less bloody, the plot a little simpler and – dare I risk the wrath? – the effects not as good as the LotR trilogy.

Yes, there are scary monsters and there are a few be-headings here and there… but there’s little (if any) blood. Swords slash and stab, yet come out clean every time. Things move forward more quickly from action scene to action scene with less (though some) time spent in serious conversation. In fairness, the actual start of the film is slow.

As for those effects… well, maybe it’s just the scale of them but they look that bit more cartoony than what we’re used to. They’re still damn impressive, but the slapstick humour dial has been turned up a notch as well making it all a little more child-friendly.

The acting is superb, right across the board. Martin Freeman is a great younger Bilbo, but as ever it’s the older actors who steal every scene they’re in. Christopher Lee (yes, I know, Saruman wasn’t in the book but he’s in the film briefly) and Ian McKellen as Gandalf are both utterly superb. Andy Serkis returns for Gollum‘s “first” appearance (and then went on to become second unit director for the rest of the filming), and in this instance I would say that the effects have been pushed to their absolute limits. Gollum’s facial expressions are mesmerising.

The dwarves are a hearty bunch with a wide array of acting talent thrown about to make up the motley crew, though in honesty when looking down the cast the only name I recognise immediately is James Nesbitt. Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett complete the links to the “big brother” trilogy with their appearances as Elrond and Galadriel – neither of whom, again, are in the book.

Sylvester McCoy, however, turns the tables by playing Radagast the Brown. This time a character who appeared in the LotR books, but didn’t make it into the films. He’s been transplanted to play a part in this one instead, as a slightly bonkers hermit.

All are great performances, including those who – like Serkis – are portrayed almost completely as CGI characters. It may amuse some to realise that one of the the Goblin King’s alter-egos is a flamboyant cross-dresser who calls her fans “possums”…

In short (ha! short! *ahem*), is it as good or as impressive as, say, The Fellowship of the Ring? No.

Is it worth seeing? Yes.

The simple fact is that Jackson’s LotR films will stand pretty much untouched in their stature for many, many years to come. They were something incredible, something impressive. Something people thought was impossible. The technology used for the effects floored you. But in the years that have come since, such digital trickery has become commonplace and – sadly – that takes a shine off The Hobbit. Good though it is – and it’s bloody good – it’s just not as jaw-dropping or impressive.

Oh, and I saw the film in regular 2D. No eye-aching, headache-inducing 3D. No migraine-causing 48fps. Just proper, 24fps flat images. And it was fine.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Lovely Bones, Crazies and Crazy Heart

Cover of "The Crazies"
The Crazies - 1973 version

Bringing me up to seven films for the weekend (it’s a wonder I get any coursework done), I added The Lovely Bones, The Crazies and Crazy Heart to the “watched” list today.

The Lovely Bones

“As usual, Grandma Lynn was wrong.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: A young girl is murdered but tries to help her friends and family find her killer.

The reviews I’ve seen of this to date seem to be “it’s rubbish” from those who’ve read the book and “it’s good” from those who haven’t. I’ve not and it’s OK. Don’t expect me to be able to compare against something I’ve not read.

There are some good performances, but top of the list has to be Stanley Tucci as the child killer. He’s suitably creepy without being over the top. Mark Wahlberg as the father puts on a good show and Saoirse Ronan is impressive as Susie Salmon, the central character. Nods to Susan Sarandon as the drunken chain-smoking grandmother.

Once Susie is killed an enters into a fantasy purgatory, it doesn’t take long for Peter Jackson‘s influence to show. Anyone who’s seen his superb (and frankly, superior) Heavenly Creatures will recognise the way fantasy elements have been mixed in with real life.

The problem is that the story doesn’t need all of this and especially towards the end, everything starts to seem so drawn out. It’s art for art’s sake in places and the running length could be fifteen minutes less if the waffle was cut out.

Simply put, an enjoyable film but very self-involved.

The Crazies

“We’re in trouble.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Plane crash releases a chemical weapon that sends people kill-crazy. Cue gore.

This is a remake of the 1973 original with the same title. That one was directed by George A. Romero who has stepped back to production duties on this effort. I didn’t realise either of these facts until after I’d seen the film but it is very similar to his zombie movies so it doesn’t surprise me to find out he’s involved.

I’ve not heard of any of the cast before which does help in that I had less of an idea of who was going to get killed. Of course, given the roles they play it doesn’t take long until you narrow it down and know who’s going to make it through to the end.

The gore is fairly plentiful and the corpses pile up quickly. There’s a whiff of government/army intrigue making the film some kind of cross between Dawn of the Dead and 1995’s Outbreak. It is rather by-the-numbers, but the jumps and “eeeeew” moments are plentiful which is what you pay for when you go and see a film like this.

Don’t expect too much and you won’t be disappointed. And I did like the ending!

Crazy Heart

“Ain’t rememberin’ wonderful?”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: A couple of years in the life of a downtrodden, drunk, chain-smoking, divorced (of course) country & western singer.

Jeff Bridges has been winning plaudits for his performance of Bad Blake, the central character in this run-of-the-mill drama. He deserves them, playing the part well, but doesn’t raise the film up above the average.

My main problem with Crazy Heart was that there weren’t any real surprises. “Bad” is a stereotype. The events that occur come as little or no surprise. The ending is as predictable as it comes.

Still, it’s a nice enough ride to get there and the dialogue is sharp in places. There are also some lovely lines in there. It’s a shame that such good wordplay and impressive performances are hanging off a story that twists and turns like the edge of a ruler.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]