I went to see this more as a 'dutiful' viewing rather than with great enthusiasm. Not that I dislike the books, far from it, but I don't belong to the hordes of avid fans of the characters as portrayed in both the four novels and on screen. Also, not being quite as familiar with the source material of this particular film than I was for the 'Rings' trilogy, it probably helped in that I hadn't a ready recollection of what was going to happen next - notwithstanding the fact that this film and its two forthcoming companions greatly expand the tale as written.
There was obvious padding out, unusually and needlessly, towards the start of the film. Of course the link with its sequels-in-time had to be done, but for some time after that the scene-setting did go on more than I needed to see. But, when that was over, I found the film getting progressively more interesting. The scenery throughout is absolutely ravishing, I'd claim even more so than it looked in the 'Rings'. Perhaps C.G.I. was used for part of it, particularly in superimposing figures onto a particular landscape, but most of it looked authentic - and quite breathtaking too.
The high point for me was, as it was in the previous films, the appearance of Gollum. What a magnificent job Andy Serkis and the computer chaps have done in creating one of the most memorable characters ever to appear on the cinema screen. His appearances alone (not very long in the totality of the film), were worth the price of the ticket. Compulsive viewing indeed.
I liked Martin Freeman as the young Bilbo Baggins (one can imagine easily him ageing into Ian Holm) - and just about all the other characters were well up to the demands. Particularly pleasing to see Christopher Lee back, even for just a very few minutes, after cruelly being excised out of 'Rings 3'.
I'm quite looking forward to the next part - something I wasn't expecting to be saying. Meantime my own rating for 'An Unexpected Journey' is a fine...............7/10
Ha! Glad you liked it - normally when I like a film you are rather less than enthusiastic!
ReplyDeleteAnd now a blatent plug for my own review: http://oneexwidow.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=the+hobbit
I know we disagree on films from time to time, Andrew, but it's generally on a matter of degree rather than being about two distinctly opposed opinions.
DeleteI'm glad you put your plug in above because I had actually intended to refer to your blog in the body of my posting above but, for some reason, my temperamental computer wouldn't allow me to go to your own page (or any other) to get your blog reference. I did, in fact, read your review before I went to see the film this morning - and I hope that anyone reading this comment now will have a look at what you say for a more specific appraisal on detailed points which you are better at doing than I am.
I listened to Mark Kermode's review this afternoon and though I recognised his general drift I wouldn't go anything like against the film as he did, though he didn't exactly trounce it.
I'm wondering whether you also score films on IMDb and, if so, what you gave this one.
Anyway, whether I'll be in as receptive a mood for 'The Hobbit' Parts 2 & 3 remains to be seen.
I don't typically score films, but guess I'd go for 8 or 9 out of ten...
DeleteWell that's much more measured and believable than a 'perfect 10', Andrew. I've yet to see ANY film to which I'd give a totally faultless maximum score - but I suppose I'm defining a '10' in a different way from those who feel able to give that rating so readily.
Delete2012 has mostly been a satisfying year for film and I'm sorry that I have to conclude it with this film. But I promised a friend, who is very enthusiastic about seeing this, that I'd go with him. So what can you do? I'm amazed at how some like it, others hate it. The critic who reviews for my newswpaper gave it a rating between 'fair and poor' and called it: "Bloated, overlong, "Hobbit'shows risks of trying to make an epic out of a small story." For me, it looks like 169 minutes of boredom.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's certainly an opinion-divider, Paul. 'Overlong' is a totally fair comment, considering that the original 278 pages (in my edition) of source material have been expanded to take up more than 3 X 2.5 hour films. And the motivation for that is crystal clear - to get more bucks!
DeleteI can just about take that some might think this first hobbit film is only 'fair' - but the claim that it is actually 'poor' I find harder to accept. I can only assume that the writer of that description has never been captivated to any extent with the characters in the books - and the films are a pretty good representation of them. Even I, far less of a fanatic than some, recognise that the four Jackson films seen to date are quite remarkable achievements.
When you do see it I'll be interested to know if your pre-viewing sinking feeling turned out to be a just one.
I was only thinking yesterday how 2012 has turned out a year of having a high proportion of good or very good films - moreso than in any recent year I can recall. Having now determined my Top 10, I'm holding back on posting it just in case in these last 2 weeks there's a quality release that might need to be slotted in, though that seems unlikely. (We don't get 'Les Mis' till next month, and I fervently hope it'll end up in my 'Best of 2013' list - as may be, possibly, 'Lincoln'.) But in my definitive 'cream of 2012' I regret that there are quite a number which are failing to make the top notches, by the merest hair's breadth.
Thank you for the great review, Ray. I cannot wait to see this one.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who's is actually LOOKING FORWARD to seeing this one, Cubby, I'll be surprised if they really dislike it. Keen anticipation is, in this case, a helpful frame of mind in which to see it.
Delete"Les Mis" opens here on December 25 and will be the first film I see in 2013. Even this one got mixed reviews - one critic giving it a C. But reviews are inherently subjective and usually based on personal opinions. I'm confident that "Lincoln" will make your list. Day-Lewis and Fields give outstanding performances and will, no doubt, take home an Oscar, as well they should. As an added bonus, you have a screenplay by Tony Kushner.
ReplyDeleteLucky you! (re 'Les Mis') I can hardly wait - but there's also nervousness at discovering which songs they are going to truncate or, far worse (if that is possible), cut out altogether. Your saying that it's got mixed reviews is the first reaction from anywhere which I've heard about it. But I'm not too surprised - especially considering the dreadful notices when it first appeared on stage some 25 years ago. I wonder if that critic(s) was already unfavourably disposed towards it.
DeleteThe cast list looks almost entirely a good one - apart from Helena B.C. doing her unconvincing slattern turn yet again. Let me know what you think as it sounds like you'll be seeing it before I will.
I'm pleased that you've got a high opinion of 'Lincoln'. Spielberg has become almost a lost cause for me in recent years - though 'Munich' was pretty good. As long as he holds off from wallowing in sentiment then I'm willing to let him take me along - on a subject which one might have thought would have been filmed more often than it has.
If ever Daniel D-L gives less than a convincing Oscar-worthy performance, well, that will be the day! I don't think he's capable of it. Yes, I'd heard about Tony Kushner's screenplay too.
So, let's hope that 2013 continues with the bang it should start on - and be at least as good as this year has been.
Ha! H B-C is one of the things I looking forward to Les Mis most for!
ReplyDeleteActually, despite what may be thought, I CAN tolerate her, Andrew. It's just that for me she's eternally stuck in that Edwardian, well-cultured, upper class, young lady appearance (in the same way that, as I say, Julie Andrews was caught in her own groove) - and it may be just me, but no matter how she tries to act outside that box which I've got her in, she never convinces me. But as a person (or at least as far as I can judge her) I DO, in fact like her.
DeleteI hear tell the damn movie isn't the whole book???
ReplyDeleteBoo hiss and curses to the dragon Smaug.
It's just the first few chapters of the book, Dr Spo - plus more (if you follow). It's become something like the reverse of when John Huston started off wanting to film the complete Bible, and finished the film by having covered only Genesis, and even then leaving parts of it out.
DeleteJust wait until Peter Jackson gets to filming 'The Silmarillion'. Perhaps he'll make TWENTY films out of that!
i suspect The Silmarillion is not too far behind.
DeleteYeah, I think you're right - unless box-office takings for the Hobbit are flagging by the time the third part comes out - and I won't be too surprised if that happens. (Tolkien overload?)
Delete