The
Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Review
A journey that is definitely worth
returning back to Middle Earth for
(Note: This review will be simply based
on the film, with minimal comparison to the content of the book)
On a cold, frosty Thursday
evening in Winchester, I was fortunate enough to go to an advance screening of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Although I
was not a tremendous fan of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, finding them a little too dark for my
taste (I was only 9-11 years old between the three films),
much preferring the Harry Potter franchise,
I thought they were brilliantly realised adaptations of the books and were a splendor to watch in terms of its cinematic scope.
The same can be said for this
prequel. The film follows the great style and structure of its predecessors and
does not falter at all in terms of narrative quality.
Although the storyline can be
considered to be a little bit slow at the beginning, the set up is done
brilliantly. The retrospection at the beginning made the narration more easily
cohesive and the slow progression, building up to the more elaborate, action
set-pieces later makes you pine for more. It was a shame when the film faded to
black after its 169 minute run time because the audience was so caught up in the
story.
The slight change in story layout of
the film, with additional scenes based on Tolkien's appendices worked
great and actually added to the film, creating a deeper more meaningful
storyline. There were a few noticeable signs of confusion in the
cinema from those who have clearly read the novel. But by the end of the film
and inquiring on their thoughts, they agreed that it made it more elaborate and
melded the realm of Middle Earth in line with The Lord
of the Rings trilogy clearly.
Moving on to the acting, it was
fantastic across the board. Martin Freeman fitted into the role of Bilbo
Baggins perfectly. Although his acting may seem somewhat similar to the
majority of his other roles, it conveniently worked as a typically twitchy,
somewhat selfish little hobbit and ultimately worked great.
As for the more prominent roles,
Richard Armitage's portrayal of Thorin was brilliant with his
authoritative presence, but also sometimes quiet,
mystical demeanour.
Ian Mckellen's role as Gandalf, was
pleasingly similar to his previous role in the LotR trilogy. I'm sure a comfort
to fans of the franchise. His calm, relaxed attitude contrasting with his quick
snap aggression, shows the true power of this wizard.
An honourable mention has to be made to
Andy Serkis as Gollum. He was brilliantly funny, yet creepy with his
schizophrenic behaviour. It was hard not to feel sorry for him, a testament as
to how well Serkis makes the character become incredibly real. The CGI and
facial animation has been greatly improved. Watching Gollum's reactions, which
were so incredibly detailed, was staggering to watch.
It was unfortunate though that most of
the other dwarf characters were overshadowed and became almost one collective
persona. Small aspects of each dwarf had their own little quirks to make them
seem a little bit unique, but it was not heavily emphasised. But to be honest,
there is no real need to expand on them as it would divert attention away from
the tale of Bilbo Baggins. Together these dwarfs provided a great amount of
comic relief with their typical lad-like behaviour.
 |
|
Great cast of actors! Shame that half are
quite forgettable
|
As for Peter Jackson's
directorial role, it was wonderful to see him bring the realm of Middle Earth
back to life. praise must be given to the set designers for the incredible
level of detail of its blissful region of Hobbiton and the shire, to the
outstanding buildings and architecture of Rivendell. Yes they are the same sets
from The Lord of the Rings, simply re-propped up, but they are still
fantastic.
The Hobbit is
most certainly on a smaller scale and Jackson's filming
definitely accommodates to this situation. He still films his expansive
panorama shots of the breathtaking landscapes and major battles to emphasise
the tremendous scope of this "unexpected journey", but most scenes
are kept in closer quarters. As a result it made the story much more personal
for Bilbo and the dwarves.
The picture quality was simply
outstanding with vibrant colours throughout and smooth motion. The cinema did
not state whether the film was shown at 24 or 48 frames per second, but I
honestly think it was the latter. The picture looked so phenomenally sharp and
smooth in comparison to Skyfall which
I saw at the same cinema screen. It was definitely a visual treat for the eyes.
As for the CGI, unfortunately it was
hit and miss. There were a few too many moments where the animation was low in
quality and seemed almost jumpy in motion. Whether or not this was a result of
the change in frame rate is unknown. Ultimately it was disappointing to see
that there was not a balance, particularly when there were moments of animated
excellence.
Additionally some might find the heavy
use of CGI detrimental to the film. All the enemies are animated and the sense
of realism and actual danger is lost because of this.
Regarding the 3D. it was satisfactory.
The main issue which arose was that it sometimes looked like flat layers, one
behind the other, which ironically made it look more two dimensional.
Overall it was a pretty
spectacular film. It was slightly more lighthearted than the LotR trilogy
and on a smaller scale, but honestly I preferred it this way. I felt more in
touch with the characters as the focus was not constantly shifting to different
areas.
It was a film with both style and
substance. Although the style faltered in places, luckily the substance made up
for it.
It was a good move to divide this
film. Whether or not a third part is needed will still be debatable until
we reach 2014 but I am definitely looking forward to part two, "The
Desolation of Smaug".
8.9/10
No comments:
Post a Comment