![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blatherskiteHaving now seen the movie, I have to say that on a dollars per hour basis, it's a more economical choice than most other films you're going to see. That sets the tone for the rest of my review.
First, the bad news: The film is self-indulgent to the point of suffering from narcissism disorder, even compared with the first film in the trilogy. There's a romantic subplot that suffers from a horrible case of Mary Sue-ism. There are at least two extended action sequences that would not be out of place in a video game, leading me to the recommendation that anyone who actually enjoys video games should be prohibited (by an international treaty) from making movies inspired by said video games. Legolas and his bow? Let's just say that there's no need for machine guns in Middle Earth, since a single elf archer could probably have broken the stalemate in the trenches during World War I. The film is surprisingly monochromatic, and although the New Zealand scenery is spectacular, there's not a lot of color going on here. The worst thing I can say about the film -- and this, speaking as someone who has happily wallowed in Middle Earth for more than 30 years now -- is that it felt long.
Oh, and one just downright stupid bit that I could not refrain from mentioning. I can accept the physics of Thorin surfing on a wave of molten gold. Gold is dense stuff and you're not going to sink. But did someone forget the part where it's ***molten*** (i.e., at least 2000 degrees F)? Sheesh.
That being said, there are some things that almost redeem the film. Martin Freeman does an excellent job of playing Bilbo, and is probably the best thing about the film. He's an excellent actor, and his role has surprising depth given the constraints of the original character. To give the devils their due, Jackson and Boyens managed to make Bilbo more interesting in some ways than in the book. Luke Evans does a decent (if somewhat Clark Gable-ish) job in the role of Bard, who's been given a decent backstory. Benedict Cumberbatch classes up the role of Smaug, as he classed up the role of Khan in the latest Trek film, but with the footnote that he's given very little free rein to do much more than (appropriately enough) chew the scenery. The animation of Smaug is excellent, and if you've got a good eye for faces, you'll recognize Benedict's face in the dragon.
Bottom line for me is that part 2 of the Hobbit trilogy could have been merged with part 1 and both fitted within 3 hours, with little or no loss of depth or entertainment value. Part 3 will be even more padded given how little of the story remains to be told. To me, Part 2 was a lost and wasted opportunity. There's an enormous depth of tragedy that could have been mined based on what we know lies 60 years down the road in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think that tone is probably the thing that sticks with me longest after each of my many re-readings of the trilogy, and what has kept it alive and thriving for nearly 60 years. Though some of that mood is there in Part 2, you have to work harder than necessary to experience it.
First, the bad news: The film is self-indulgent to the point of suffering from narcissism disorder, even compared with the first film in the trilogy. There's a romantic subplot that suffers from a horrible case of Mary Sue-ism. There are at least two extended action sequences that would not be out of place in a video game, leading me to the recommendation that anyone who actually enjoys video games should be prohibited (by an international treaty) from making movies inspired by said video games. Legolas and his bow? Let's just say that there's no need for machine guns in Middle Earth, since a single elf archer could probably have broken the stalemate in the trenches during World War I. The film is surprisingly monochromatic, and although the New Zealand scenery is spectacular, there's not a lot of color going on here. The worst thing I can say about the film -- and this, speaking as someone who has happily wallowed in Middle Earth for more than 30 years now -- is that it felt long.
Oh, and one just downright stupid bit that I could not refrain from mentioning. I can accept the physics of Thorin surfing on a wave of molten gold. Gold is dense stuff and you're not going to sink. But did someone forget the part where it's ***molten*** (i.e., at least 2000 degrees F)? Sheesh.
That being said, there are some things that almost redeem the film. Martin Freeman does an excellent job of playing Bilbo, and is probably the best thing about the film. He's an excellent actor, and his role has surprising depth given the constraints of the original character. To give the devils their due, Jackson and Boyens managed to make Bilbo more interesting in some ways than in the book. Luke Evans does a decent (if somewhat Clark Gable-ish) job in the role of Bard, who's been given a decent backstory. Benedict Cumberbatch classes up the role of Smaug, as he classed up the role of Khan in the latest Trek film, but with the footnote that he's given very little free rein to do much more than (appropriately enough) chew the scenery. The animation of Smaug is excellent, and if you've got a good eye for faces, you'll recognize Benedict's face in the dragon.
Bottom line for me is that part 2 of the Hobbit trilogy could have been merged with part 1 and both fitted within 3 hours, with little or no loss of depth or entertainment value. Part 3 will be even more padded given how little of the story remains to be told. To me, Part 2 was a lost and wasted opportunity. There's an enormous depth of tragedy that could have been mined based on what we know lies 60 years down the road in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think that tone is probably the thing that sticks with me longest after each of my many re-readings of the trilogy, and what has kept it alive and thriving for nearly 60 years. Though some of that mood is there in Part 2, you have to work harder than necessary to experience it.