My expectations for the second part of "The Hobbit" were so low that I actually thought on and found an interesting alternative for this time of year (which I still hope it will get a blog entry), but I didn't manage to find the time to watch it. Therefore it seems I got stuck with Tolkien for this week's entry, and surprisingly for me it's not that bad in the end.
I still think that this is an apex of cinema industry cash-in opportunism which tries to squeeze three movies out of a book shorter than any of the volumes composing LotR. I have to admit though a significant improvement over the endless scenes of dwarfen-orcish kickboxing in the first part. I don't want to reveal much from the story in case it's not already known. The group of dwarfs+Bilbo+Gandalf continue their travel towards the Lonely Mountain, where they're supposed to face Smaug, the Dragon. Obviously, the path is still long, twisted and filled with dangers as it was up to the point where the first part left it. Following that, we keep getting some preposterous stunts, or cliche lines which are so "epic" that might cause you muscle strains due to eye-rolling. And still ... I think it's the first Peter Jackson movie since "Fellowship of the Ring" (= LotR 1) which .. how to put it shortly: doesn't drag. It's way less superficial than the previous part, and has fewer lengths than any of the last three movies set in the Tolkien universe. Probably the story helps a bit, because it gets on the closure path (a bit too much I would say = I'm afraid that the last part might get again overfilled with testing blacksmith products on the Middle-Earth inhabitants' skins). The script though is a good adaptation of the book (ignoring the cliche lines), sufficiently well done to give even more depth to a kids story than I remember it has in the original material. Unfortunately, for me at least, the directing brings down the production level ...
That's something that I noticed since quite a while on Peter Jackson, more precisely from "Return of the King" onward, confirmed in "King Kong", in the first part of "The Hobbit", etc. The parts in the script which have the max on the emotional impact are sort of handled no different from the rest, or, even worse, given excessive length. I don't know why. Probably considering that longer scenes make the feelings more intense .. Not true. The perfect example is the ending in LotR which lasts more than half an hour after the ring gets melted, enough that all the impression the movie built up on you until that point to suffer the same meltdown and vanishing faith. Well, sometimes he manages to get it right, and the current "Hobbit" is more or less the case. Ironically, probably because we don't have something of major impact in this part of the story. It's just a preparation for the ending, and it's decently built up in that sense. Only decently and not more than that since we still have enough exaggerations. It's been a long time since I've read "The Hobbit" and I needed a quick look on Wikipedia to remember some stuff. (light spoiler) For instance, in the book there's indeed an escape in barrels carried by a river. No problem with that, but I doubt we also have an elf there to try something close to Van Damme's Volvo split on two barrels, and simultaneously to shoot arrows into the orcish horde on the shore. And the examples can continue. However, some quite stupid perfect syncs, as in a start action sequence, let you know relatively early that you have to quickly adjust your tolerance standards.
As I said, the script (the same Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens as main authors) is ok though, with all the additions I was mocking not so long ago in a preview entry. Indeed, placing Legolas among the elfs in the story is quite unnecessary. Anyway, since he's coming as a composed elf package including also .. Tauriel (who I don't even know to be part of any Tolkien book), I won't complain anymore. And it's not because I prefer Evangeline Lilly to Liv Tyler (although .. :P), but it adds a sort of romance thread to the tale. No, I'm definitely not into love stories which I usually avoid. However, although the addition might look artificially to some, given the "complexity" of "The Hobbit" material, any extra decent subplot is actually helping. And even leaving apart what's extra, the original material is better treated than it was by now. Especially the character modelling in two cases(spoiler free): Thorin, the dwarf leader for whom we're given discrete signs of what's coming, and Bard, a human on which I can't tell much more but who's excellently introduced by the script through his friendly and then antagonistic relation with Thorin.
I don't want to get too long on the technical side which seems very good, as for the rest of the movies in the series. Especially the cinematography. I really liked for instance the traversing of Mirkwood (minor spoiler) despite my arachnophobia. We have a very nice alternation between cold filters on gray/blue with some very warm used for a sunset, alternation that implicitly connects to the "nuances" of the ongoing action.
I've been asking myself if I'm not overrating (again) the movie based on my low expectancy and the difference I encountered. But if I think again, I had the same low expectancy for the first part too, unfortunately confirmed, so I guess this time I'm relatively objective on it. I'll stubbornly stick to the opinion that "The Hobbit" can't get to the LotR level, but if the third part manages to be at least at the level of the current one, we have good chances for an excellent fantasy, and forget the first "Hobbit" as a sort of "Phantom Menace" accident (= worst Star Wars) in the Tolkienish world.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Posts
very funny review! :)
ReplyDelete