Wow. There is no colour in your cheeks at all. Get some rest, 7 (or is it Seven?)!
Also, we should talk a bit about your Hobbit review. I think our judgements are reversed on the good parts; IMHO, the best part of the movie was the first hour. After it decided it wanted to be a Peter Jackson movie, it went further south.
Filius: Resting away. Batman and Catwoman are keeping me company.
As for the Hobbit. What makes you feel the first hour was better than the rest? I'm always curious about another viewpoint. I liked the first hour initially, but then it just seemed to drag on. The "party" bit was funny and entertaining. What makes you say that Peter Jackson movies are bad? Curious kitty.
Nicely done.... Get the chainsaw and sawed off shotgun ready....maybe a machete or two! Its 28 Days Later meets Quarantine Sorry you're so sick... :( Hope you get better soon!!
Owing to bloody length limits, I'm going to post this in two parts.
This is one of those things that should always be prefaced by “keep in mind, it's been a few weeks since I've seen the movie and read the book, and a lot happened in those few weeks.” Also, I would not say Peter Jackson movies are bad, at least not the ones I've seen, that is to say, all of his extant Lord of the Rings adaptations. Those are fine adaptations that get enough of Tolkien's story on the screen. I think, though, that Jackson sometimes tried to make the movies more action-packed or dramatic than the books. Even in The Return of the King, the battle sequences did seem to go on for quite some time. (And really, wasn't it enough that Gollum fell into the fires of Mt. Doom without almost taking Frodo with him?) That is what I meant by the movie deciding it wanted to be a Peter Jackson movie—placing a lot of emphasis on technique and action, even if it meant fudging around with the story. I also didn't see it in 3D, nor did I wish to. If a movie thinks it's going to make itself more “real” by adding another dimension, it should keep in mind that most of my best entertainment has come from plain 2D pages.
The first hour gets the balance between technique and story just right. The depiction of Erebor may be Jackson's most daring work yet in this series. The sheer artifice that went into the dwellings beneath the Lonely Mountain is staggering, and the use of light and color is gorgeous. Jackson makes it possible to envision just how majestic, wealthy, and technologically developed the kingdom of the dwarves under the Mountain really was.
Really, I think once everyone got on the road it started getting a little worse, because the story felt more rushed. The resolution to the troll scene was underwhelming. Instead of using his talent for impersonation to keep the trolls bickering until sunup, Gandalf appears, smashes a rock to let the sunlight through the crevice, and petrifies them. More a use of brute force than cleverness on his part.
The scenes in Rivendell were a bit better, and I didn't mind that they showed the White Council either, but still...too long, especially when they had to get through a lot more of the book in less time. Ditto the Radagast subplot, though I imagine, given Who plays him, you found that less objectionable.
The scenes with the goblins were the low point. The Great Goblin wasn't terrifying, but merely repulsive. It was hard to take him seriously with my roommate observing, “He looks like Jabba the Hutt!” The encounter between the dwarves and goblins had much more fighting than in the book. And when the dwarves essentially rode the bridge (or whatever it was) down the face of the cliff and only emerged slightly banged-up...well, quoth my sage roommate, “I don't know what the physics are like in Middle-Earth, but they're not like ours,” something that I don't think Tolkien was aiming for. Don't get me wrong; I love action scenes, even implausible ones, but The Hobbit isn't Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The real pity is that by the time Bilbo's riddle exchange with Gollum came along, the movie had to end fairly quickly, just from sheer length. I like what they kept in that scene, but there were more riddles they left out, and the scene felt more rushed than in the book because it was sandwiched in between all of the escapades. To keep that scene fully intact, I would willingly sacrifice a few orc fights and all the material with Azog (who, if I've got my chronology straight, should have been dead by then anyway. Feel free to set me right). And then to go from the halls of the goblins to the Warg attack certainly makes for exciting adventure, but why couldn't they have started the second movie with that instead of making us sit through 20 minutes of yet another narrow scrape? What would have been the problem with watching more of Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis verbally dueling each other?
The first hour, by contrast, may have taken a lot of time, but it did not feel rushed, nor did it feel that Jackson was merely killing time. He got us accustomed both to the Shire and the habits of dwarves. We also got to see different aspects of what it means to be a dwarf: clannish, earthy, loud, weighed down by the past, and exiled. The Misty Mountains song was particularly effective for this—a sort of Super flumina Babylonis moment. Also, the first hour gave us a chance to see Martin Freeman acting, which has never been a bad thing in my experience. To me, the first hour of the film felt much more...realistic, as in it makes sense that events would probably happen this way, and at this duration of time. Actually, that's it: the sense of time in the first hour synchs up with the book's sense of time and my average sense of time. The rest of the movie tries to speed up the process.
Still, not such an overwhelming disappointment that I regret seeing it in the theatre. The sheer spectacle is astounding. Freeman more than holds his own against the veteran characters, including Andy Serkis, which is an accomplishment in itself. It's a shame that we probably won't see much, if any, of Smaug in the second installment, because I've been looking forward to hearing Benedict Cumberbatch's voice as the worm from day one.
Wow. There is no colour in your cheeks at all. Get some rest, 7 (or is it Seven?)!
ReplyDeleteAlso, we should talk a bit about your Hobbit review. I think our judgements are reversed on the good parts; IMHO, the best part of the movie was the first hour. After it decided it wanted to be a Peter Jackson movie, it went further south.
Filius: Resting away. Batman and Catwoman are keeping me company.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Hobbit. What makes you feel the first hour was better than the rest? I'm always curious about another viewpoint. I liked the first hour initially, but then it just seemed to drag on. The "party" bit was funny and entertaining. What makes you say that Peter Jackson movies are bad? Curious kitty.
~7
Nicely done....
ReplyDeleteGet the chainsaw and sawed off shotgun ready....maybe a machete or two!
Its 28 Days Later meets Quarantine
Sorry you're so sick... :(
Hope you get better soon!!
- KC
Dear vii,
ReplyDeleteOwing to bloody length limits, I'm going to post this in two parts.
This is one of those things that should always be prefaced by “keep in mind, it's been a few weeks since I've seen the movie and read the book, and a lot happened in those few weeks.” Also, I would not say Peter Jackson movies are bad, at least not the ones I've seen, that is to say, all of his extant Lord of the Rings adaptations. Those are fine adaptations that get enough of Tolkien's story on the screen. I think, though, that Jackson sometimes tried to make the movies more action-packed or dramatic than the books. Even in The Return of the King, the battle sequences did seem to go on for quite some time. (And really, wasn't it enough that Gollum fell into the fires of Mt. Doom without almost taking Frodo with him?) That is what I meant by the movie deciding it wanted to be a Peter Jackson movie—placing a lot of emphasis on technique and action, even if it meant fudging around with the story. I also didn't see it in 3D, nor did I wish to. If a movie thinks it's going to make itself more “real” by adding another dimension, it should keep in mind that most of my best entertainment has come from plain 2D pages.
The first hour gets the balance between technique and story just right. The depiction of Erebor may be Jackson's most daring work yet in this series. The sheer artifice that went into the dwellings beneath the Lonely Mountain is staggering, and the use of light and color is gorgeous. Jackson makes it possible to envision just how majestic, wealthy, and technologically developed the kingdom of the dwarves under the Mountain really was.
Really, I think once everyone got on the road it started getting a little worse, because the story felt more rushed. The resolution to the troll scene was underwhelming. Instead of using his talent for impersonation to keep the trolls bickering until sunup, Gandalf appears, smashes a rock to let the sunlight through the crevice, and petrifies them. More a use of brute force than cleverness on his part.
The scenes in Rivendell were a bit better, and I didn't mind that they showed the White Council either, but still...too long, especially when they had to get through a lot more of the book in less time. Ditto the Radagast subplot, though I imagine, given Who plays him, you found that less objectionable.
The scenes with the goblins were the low point. The Great Goblin wasn't terrifying, but merely repulsive. It was hard to take him seriously with my roommate observing, “He looks like Jabba the Hutt!” The encounter between the dwarves and goblins had much more fighting than in the book. And when the dwarves essentially rode the bridge (or whatever it was) down the face of the cliff and only emerged slightly banged-up...well, quoth my sage roommate, “I don't know what the physics are like in Middle-Earth, but they're not like ours,” something that I don't think Tolkien was aiming for. Don't get me wrong; I love action scenes, even implausible ones, but The Hobbit isn't Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The real pity is that by the time Bilbo's riddle exchange with Gollum came along, the movie had to end fairly quickly, just from sheer length. I like what they kept in that scene, but there were more riddles they left out, and the scene felt more rushed than in the book because it was sandwiched in between all of the escapades. To keep that scene fully intact, I would willingly sacrifice a few orc fights and all the material with Azog (who, if I've got my chronology straight, should have been dead by then anyway. Feel free to set me right). And then to go from the halls of the goblins to the Warg attack certainly makes for exciting adventure, but why couldn't they have started the second movie with that instead of making us sit through 20 minutes of yet another narrow scrape? What would have been the problem with watching more of Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis verbally dueling each other?
ReplyDeleteThe first hour, by contrast, may have taken a lot of time, but it did not feel rushed, nor did it feel that Jackson was merely killing time. He got us accustomed both to the Shire and the habits of dwarves. We also got to see different aspects of what it means to be a dwarf: clannish, earthy, loud, weighed down by the past, and exiled. The Misty Mountains song was particularly effective for this—a sort of Super flumina Babylonis moment. Also, the first hour gave us a chance to see Martin Freeman acting, which has never been a bad thing in my experience. To me, the first hour of the film felt much more...realistic, as in it makes sense that events would probably happen this way, and at this duration of time. Actually, that's it: the sense of time in the first hour synchs up with the book's sense of time and my average sense of time. The rest of the movie tries to speed up the process.
Still, not such an overwhelming disappointment that I regret seeing it in the theatre. The sheer spectacle is astounding. Freeman more than holds his own against the veteran characters, including Andy Serkis, which is an accomplishment in itself. It's a shame that we probably won't see much, if any, of Smaug in the second installment, because I've been looking forward to hearing Benedict Cumberbatch's voice as the worm from day one.
Yrs. affect.,
FPN