Gimli The Dwarf
Posts: 73446
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
|
I've posted this elsewhere. I'll stick it here as well. Less of a review, more of a ramble. I apologise in advance!
It's been 9 long years since Return of the King and during that time LOTR has, it's fair to say, become a very important part of my life. Exactly how I can't quite describe, I just know that I'm better for it. So a return to Middle Earth was always going to be something to look forward to. But with all the legal and production problems that have set the Hobbit back a considerable number of years, there was every chance that Jackson could have fumbled this second trip to Tolkien and Lucased the precursor story. I'm happy to say that he hasn't.
Here's the good stuff.
With LOTR, Jackson Walsh and Boyens did a rather nifty job of condensing the plot into just the story points that dealt with Frodo's quest. Diversions to Gondor, Rohan and Fangorn all dealt, indirectly or not, with the destruction of The One Ring. Possibly the only straying from this path was in the Aragorn and Arwen romance. With The Hobbit, a rather slender tome is now being turned into three epic films and this has been a cause for concern by many. What material exactly would be included? How much would the story be changed to accommodate this extra material? The story of Bilbo and his adventures is, based on An Unexpected Journey, not quite so focussed as Frodo's quest but it still is telling one concise story. It's not quite The Hobbit as we know, it's more The Hobbit and added extra bits of Middle Earth. And this works really well. The tone of the film is, as with the book, very much lighter than LOTR, but there's also a consistency with the earlier films, as new scenes such as the White Council or Radagast's discovery introduce story elements that become major factors 60 years later. And for a three hour film that covers a short segment of a smallish book, the film rattles along at an incredible pace. Others may disagree, but there's no filler here.
With bringing characters into the Hobbit film that never appeared in the books, Peter Jackson has provided himself with a number of problems. One is that An Unexpected Journey now has almost as many principal characters as the entire LOTR trilogy did. Trying to flesh them all out sounded like it would be an impossible task within the time constraints of the film and, as it happens it was an impossible task. With two films to go and even more characters to make their presence, it will be interesting to see if those that suffer in this first film will have their characterisation problems rectified. But even so, there's so much to enjoy from all the performers and the principal characters are given more than enough presence on screen.
It's the dwarves that suffer the most but a few do stand out. And for me greatest on screen is Balin. Oh, damn you Ken Stott for making Balin so likeable. You've just given me one more reason to cry when watching the Fellowship. It's a lovely performance and whether he's head-butting his brother in greeting or telling the group about Thorin's past, Stott is perfect in the role.
As the leader of the merry band of dwarves, Richard Armitage was not my first choice. I doubt he would have been in my top 100 candidates for the role. But he acquits himself well and was certainly better than in any of the TV shows I've seen him in. Thus far, Thorin as written for the screen shows some of the biggest changes of any Hobbit character from the book and Armitage does well in making the somewhat one-note book Thorin into a headstrong, proud, judgemental, noble and loyal heroic figure. These are great changes. When Balin recounts Thorin's battle with Azog and the loss suffered, it's obvious that this is a deeply personal mission about getting their homeland back, not just a quest for some gold. Comparisons with Aragorn are unfair on a specific level but perhaps justified overall. Jackson and the crew changed Aragorn to make him a flawed hero and a grand arc spanning three films, and it looks like Thorin is getting the same treatment. His desire to reclaim Erebor is as much a part of Thorin as the desire to overcome his troubled ancestry was a part of Aragorn.
Apart from the film itself, one of the things I was most looking forward to about the return to Middle Earth was Ian McKellen as Gandalf. As the wizard, both grey and white, McKellen in LOTR gives my second favourite performance of all time. He's superb in the role and I'm happy to say that a decade without his staff and robes has not lessened his performance. He still has that loveable twinkle in his eye, a slightly mischievous nature and an awe-inspiring command of the screen. I seriously wanted to stand up and cheer when he appeared at Bag End. 
And speaking of Bag End, what about its inhabitant? I loved Ian Holm as an elderly Bilbo so whoever was cast as Bilbo the younger had a lot to live up to and thankfully Martin Freeman lives up to it well. I've not see him in all that much besides Sherlock, in which he's admittedly great but I was still a bit worried. I needn't have been because he's another perfect casting choice and it's easy to see why the whole shooting schedule was changed to accommodate him. Superb comic timing, the ability to convey an everyman sense of wonder but also excellent during the serious moments. Witness the pivotal scene in which he struggles with whether or not to kill Gollum. It's a sequence that plays right into one of Fellowship’s most heartfelt moments and it had to be perfect and Freeman in on excellent form. Overall he manages to both make the role his own and also be believable when compared to Ian Holm's take. In LOTR, it's easy to believe that Holm and McKellen are playing very old friends. In the Hobbit, it's easy to see Freeman and McKellen as forming a long lasting friendship.
After Bilbo and Gandalf, the other Rings character that had to return was, of course, Gollum  An undeniable highlight of the LOTR trilogy, Gollum was a ground-breaking piece of CGI centred on a phenomenal performance from Andy Serkis. The return of both character and actor was always going to be good and the scene in which Gollum appears generally seems to be one of the most popular in this film. As well it should be. As you'd expect, Gollum looks even better than last time and Serkis is just as grand in the role. The stress and confusion in his face when he can't answer a riddle, or realises he's lost the rings is astounding. It's a better performance than most actors will ever give. There's humour; with Gollum answering his own question and telling himself to shut up, and horror; the evil grin as Gollum informs Bilbo how many teeth he has. It's a stunning scene, rivalling any moment with the character in LOTR.
A number of other character from the LOTR trilogy turn up in the Hobbit despite being absent from the book. There is justification for all to be there though and it's nice to see the subtle difference in performance from the actors. Hugo Weaving's Elrond is a noticeably more cheery person. His daughter isn't yet considering suicide, his kin aren't buggering off for parts unknown and Middle Earth isn't falling to wrack and ruin. It's nice to see him like this. Cate Blanchett  as Galadriel ends up being just as mystical, beguiling and mysterious as before, but there's a very slight playful side to her here, especially when she's silently communicating with Gandalf, and I love their finale scene together. 
It's rare to see Gandalf in awe, and she in return is treating him with the respect he deserves but doesn't seem to always get. Especially from Saruman. It's always good to see Christopher Lee, and I like how, much as in LOTR, it doesn't take him very long at all to start admonishing Gandalf. Lastly we have Elijah Wood as Frodo. Taking a break from seeing imaginary dogs, Wood's return adds very little but does help give is a nice second prologue to the film.
Of the rest of the cast it's McCoy's Radagast that makes the biggest impression. At one with nature, seemingly started at every turn and with amazing poo-filled bird's nest for hair, he's a jovial sort and a character I hope reappears in the next two films. Of the remaining dwarves, James Nesbitt as Bofur and Aidan Turner's Kili probably have the most to do and they do it quite well, with Nesbitt in particular sharing a lovely scene with Martin Freeman
What else. Ah, the music! Howard Shore's score for the LOTR trilogy is, for me, the finest film music of all time. It's close to being the best music of any kind of all time. So the news that he was returning as composer for The Hobbit was very much a cause for celebration. There was cake and hats and everything. And such levity was obviously deserved, because Shore has once again excelled. Now admittedly I have only heard the score once, in the film (compared to what must literally be months of time with the LOTR scores blasting into my ears) so as of yet I'm not fully aware of all the themes that are revisited from Rings and all the news ones that emerged for the first time but even so, it was an amazing listen. Genuine shiver down the spine moments occurred when we heard the theme for The Shire, nature, Rivendell; the One Ring etc. (though it could be argued there are a few too many moments that utilise music from LOTR. More on that later). The main new theme, that for the dwarves, is easily a rival to the big three themes from Rings and the integration of the choir into the score is second to none. I'm eagerly awaiting the soundtrack release, I can't wait to give it a proper listen.
Way back in 2001, Brian Sibley released a book about the making of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. He recently released a book about the Making of the first Hobbit film. One presumes that two other making of books will follow. Another recently released book is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Chronicles: Art and Design. Written by Daniel Falconer, A Weta man who worked on LOTR it’s the first in a series of books about the look and design of the films. And then of course we (hopefully) have the superb documentaries that will accompany the DVD release. What’s all this got to do with anything? Well, this means there’s going to an awful lot of behind the scenes information regarding the new trilogy and this this is most welcome news for folk (me!) who love the look and the character and the world LOTR and The Hobbit 1. Because the recreation of Middle Earth for the second time in a decade is just as stunning to behold as it was the first time. As before entire realms have been meticulously crafted with as much care and attention as an individual character’s costume. Not since Rings can I recall being placed so utterly within the world of the film by the detail of that world as presented. And whilst in the great scheme of story and character such an endeavour is perhaps lower down the scale, it’s still of vital importance. No matter how fleshed out the characters are, if the world they exist in doesn’t ring true, something will always be amiss. Even if you don’t pick up on 90% of the detail, it just feels right. When I wrote my LOTR thread a few years ago I said “I once read regarding LOTR that the films would provide the same impact had all the cast been dressed in jeans and it had been filmed Dogville-style” I doubted that that was true and I doubt the Hobbit would work as well in such a fashion either. Even after 10 years and close to 50 viewings of each film, I’m still picking up details in LOTR. I’d love to be able have the same scenario play out with An Unexpected Journey and I think that will happen.
A few years ago there was a poll on Empire to find the most visually impressive films of all time. All three LOTR films appeared near the top, FOTR deservedly reaching number one. I do believe that were a similar poll to run in the future then An Unexpected Journey would feature highly. Much has been made of the 3D and the decision to shoot at a higher frame rate and that both if these contribute to a poor visual experience. I honestly can't say what they looked like (although I can imagine what the 3D was like) but in glorious 2d, 24 fps the film was gorgeous to behold. Andrew Lesnie, back on duties as cinematographer, once again lights up the screen with the splendours of Middle Earth. Whether it be the lush greenery of Hobbiton, the sweeping beautiful vistas of Middle Earth/New Zealand, gigantic CGI rocks beating the crap out of one another or a return to the spectacular conglomeration of sets, models and CGI that make the ethereal Rivendell, no longer in the autumn of its life, the film is a visual treat. Add to this some of fantastic camera moves - the swirling, sweeping overhead shots motion during the battle with the goblins is spectacular - and you have a film that's every bit as astounding to watch as it's three predecessors.
There's lots of other good stuff and far too much to mention in any one review. The dwarves singing of the Misty Mountains, the fantastic prologue detailing the trials of Erebor, the little glimpses of Smaug, the gobsmacking beautiful costumes and jewellery, the discovery of the swords (I have a Sting, I almost had a Glamdring and I really want an Orcrist). the foreshadowing of the Nazgul's return etc. All very good.
It's not all great though. The film isn't perfect. As mentioned before a good few dwarves get short changed and barely register. After a good introduction, Dwalin is all but forgotten about. Does Bombur even speak? Some of the CGI is very shonky indeed. I loved the idea of sled bunnies, but they don't look great. The wargs still suffer. Indeed, one of my few hopes when Del Toro was in charge of these films was the promise of rebooted Wargs. The decision to go CGI for a great number of orcs and goblins is an odd choice when you consider the astounding work that the makeup and prosthetics department did in LOTR. Maybe they had too much work to do with 13 dwarves, who knows? And there's a spectacularly odd musical decision made near the end of the film when the music for the Nazgul, not present at all in the film, is used for pivotal heroic scene. For a casual listener it may not be a problem but for someone damn near obsessed with the music for LOTR it sticks out like a sore thumb. But these are all generally little, niggly cosmetic things, and not one of them really takes away from the bigger picture.
However, it's the big picture that works. Like I say, it' not perfect. I don't believe any film is, not even my beloved LOTR (well, actually The Wrong Trousers is perfect but I digress). But The Hobbit flew by in a massively entertaining, enthralling and, at times, emotional fashion. It's not the same as LOTR but it would seem churlish to criticise this film for that. At the same time it would feel wrong to criticise it for the way it tries to link itself to the previous films because it's done it so well, bridging the gap between the childhood novel of the Hobbit to the epic doom and gloom of Jackson's films. All the parts come together to create a magnificent whole, a whole that desperately leaves me wanting more in a way I haven't really felt since I saw The Two Towers 10 years ago. And I could never have really asked for anything more than that.
_____________________________
So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.
Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.
Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!
Much more better!
|
Printable Version
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 
), but first I have one question. In An Unexpected Journey, it is shown how the dwarves tried to take back Moria from the orcs and failed. But in Fellowship Of The Ring, Gimli seemed to genuinely expecting dwarf hospitality when they went to Moria and seemed genuinely shocked that it had been overrun by orcs. I'm assuming that at some point in the 60 years years between the stories, the dwarves did manage to take it back, only for the orcs to come back later? 
.
). The acting chemistry between Freeman (fantastic) and Armitage (wonderfully brooding/majestic) was top notch. I especially loved the 'Good Morning' scene and 'Radagast, is he a great wizard or more like you?' 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread