Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Hobbit

We went to see the Hobbit tonight.  Would have gone opening night, I'm sure, but I had my foot surgery that day and this was my first big adventure out of the house in more than a week!  Whew!  Was it worth it?  Uhm....

First of all, we saw what I believe was meant to be the optimal viewing experience: XD, ReadD 3D, & the High Frame Rate.  Supposedly Peter Jackson thinks the 48 frames per second thing is the best way to view the film, but I thought it was really disconcerting and looked completely awful.  It distracted me through the entire movie.  It was like a shitty sitcom from the '80s.  I felt like I was watching fekking Fraggle Rock.  The other Lord of the Rings movies, which I grew to love, were fun to watch the first time around for a non-fangirl like myself because the films were so absolutely gorgeous!  Moody and rich - I mean, the first peak at Rivendell was so exciting, right?  But, honestly, it looks like utter shitballs in the Hobbit.  Like, in the previous movies, I really loved Bilboe's house?  But, it just looked like crap in this HFR nonsense.  So, if you haven't seen it yet, I beg you to not see it in this version.  Also, the 3D is worthless - there's just like one second where it kind of looks like a flaming pinecone gets tossed at your face, and that's it.  It's not even fun when the eagles fly around.

Otherwise, I hate to say, I didn't love it.  I think they're mostly Tolkien's fault... like, does every goddamn scene have to end with a deus ex machina with that guy?  It's like, Oh, Crap! We're surely done for now!  Nope, there's Gandolf coming over the fuckin' horizon with the rising sun!  Nope, there's a bunch of goddamn eagles to glide everybody carefully to a safe resting place!

I read the book, oh 20mumble years ago and don't remember it that well, but moi's husband is something of a Hobbit/LoTR expert.  His quibbles were based more on what Jackson added to the movie - surely to stretch it out to the eventual NINE HOUR TOTAL VIEWING TIME.  I mean, it's like a 200 page book, come on.  He did seem to like the songs, though.  Also, M spied one Bret McKenzie in a non-ironic Elf role.  I thought I spied Lee Pace as a non-speaking elf (wtf?) and was so busy noticing during the credits that it was indeed Lee Pace that I missed Benedict Cumberbatch's name!  I tell ya, the Pie Man shows up in the weirdest places.  So, we go to IMDB to find out who the heck B.C. played, and get this!  He played the "Necromancer" which is literally just like, no kidding, a SHADOW in the movie.  Like, a CGI ghost shadow that I don't even think said anything!  Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

so that's what he looks like without a beard...


d00dpwn1337 said...

There are spoilers here, be warned.

I liked the acting in this movie, the costumes, the effects and the sets. And the singing, actually, since it plays such an important part in the book as well. I liked the movie actually, though just barely. What I hated was the story, which was a major disappointment and nearly wrecked it. Jackson removes Tom Bombadil from LOTR because of 'time constraints', then he adds unneeded Orks into the Hobbit? Hogwash! I can see already that the battle of five armies is not even going to include goblins. Then there is the matter of the opening. Here we are blessed with one of the, if not the _most_, famous opening lines in a fantasy novel, "In a hole in a ground there lived a hobbit...", and we don't get to hear it until 20 minutes into the movie, almost as an afterthought, and it immediately veers away from the hobbit again as soon as it can afterwards. Instead the movie opens with a long intro into the dwarves backstory. I don't see why this couldn't have been done as flashbacks during the 'unexpected party', if needed at all. The movie is called 'The Hobbit' after all, not 'The Dwarves'. Great Heaving Sigh. And why the flashforward to LOTR? Totally superfluous. It just seems like the whole movie was 'stuffed' full of useless detours (like Radagast and the necromancer business as well, which are barely mentioned in the original) to puff up the time to make it into a trilogy. It would have been so much better as just 2 movies at most without all the extra nonsense.

I didn't particularly like the high frame rate, I feel like everything looked so realistic that it makes the unreal aspects stand out even more, but I thought it was an interesting experiment, and I was curious to see it. I'm still wondering how much it changed the look of the final product and whether or not there was a different filming style in play as well, I'm not enough of a film-buff to know.

Carrie said...

K you are so funny.