Skip to main content

Home is now behind you. The world is ahead.


The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
(2012)

Some “event” movies nurse expectation more than others, and The Hobbit has been near the top of the pack in that regard. As a result, this review is, in part, a response to negative hype that left me feeling underwhelmed and cynical.  It wasn’t just the loss of Guillermo Del Toro and the prospect of the return of a director who’d claimed he had enough of Middle Earth (and whose efforts since leaving it had been patchy at best). Or the commerce vs art choice to expand two films into a trilogy. Or the baffling decision to test the waters of 48 frames per second cinema with a huge blockbuster that surely ought to fit seamlessly with what had gone before (or would go after). It was the sight of trailers for the film that left me thinking it might be the equivalent of the Star Wars prequels in moving from a tangible, physical universe into a virtually rendered, plasticky nightmare. The opposite of what Jackson had so lovingly achieved first time around. Had he become George Lucas?


While some of my fears were confirmed (a unnecessarily bloated length, an excess of CGI), others appeared unfounded (in 2D, 24 fps, it looks absolutely fine, and the visual ambience is sufficiently of a piece with the first trilogy), and the pervading spirit and tone of Peter Jackson’s earlier films survive intact. Additionally, I expect some of my misgivings will be watered down by perennial home viewings, as An Unexpected Journey has the overpowering odour of a director who isn’t even trying to manage the material, but rather has his eye on its (extended edition) shelf life.


The prologues do indeed go on and on, and it takes an age for Bilbo to actually set out on his journey, but they still held my attention. The effect is something akin to settling into a comfy chair, but it needs to be your favourite comfy chair to really appreciate the experience. Even the unending Bag End dwarf fest, complete with not one but two songs, proved engaging. I didn’t have huge problems distinguishing between the dwarves either (but why James Nesbitt dwarf and Aidan Turner dwarf seem – relatively – prosthetic free escaped me).


I was more conscious of narrative fumbling at the point where we switch, with hardly a trudge across hill and vale in-between, from a why-Thorin-doesn’t-like-Orcs flashback to the antics of Radagast the Brown (cued, clumsily, by Gandalf talking about his fellow wizard). At this stage, it seemed all that was necessary to digress to an apparently random character was for a member of the company to mention their name.


That aside, the structure hearkens back to The Fellowship of the Ring, essentially an episodic travelogue, which is both nostalgic (for a film only 11 years old!) and ensures natural narrative progression. At times Jackson appeared to be joining the dots a tad too diligently (the Rivendell sequence) or musical and visual cues feel overly referential, but that’s to be expected in a series that has as its cornerstone the comforts of home.


The only major misstep is the extended sequence where the dwarves are captured by goblins. In terms of setting it recalls Fellowship’s Mines of Moria, but in every respect (other than Bilbo’s, and the book’s most famous, plot thread) it is vastly inferior. This is not only due to the overpowering predominance of CGI characters but also because the extended action is so hyperactively physics-defying and lacking in any real sense of peril; the viewer is left feeling uninvolved. Barry Humphries' vocal performance as the Goblin King is good fun but the visually the character, complete with testicular goiter, is distractingly unreal. And, whilst the Riddles in the Dark section is well-realised, for most of the time I couldn’t make out the content of Gollum’s riddles/responses (possibly a failing of the cinema’s sound system, but maybe down to Andy Serkis’ dentures).


The returning actors appear as if a day hasn’t passed, thanks to the nips and tucks both physical and computer-aided. A couple of them (Ian Holm and Cate Blanchett in particular) end up looking even younger than in Fellowship, although thankfully the result is far and away superior to the ham-fisted de-aging of McKellen and Patrick Stewart in X-Men: The Last Stand. A few of the cameos are unnecessarily Lucas-ian (Galadriel, Frodo, Saruman). Indeed, Saruman’s presence is somewhat distracting as it makes it all a little too “Senator Palpatine”. It’s nice to see Christopher Lee again, though. McKellen and Serkis make the most of their defining roles, the former so imbuing the spirit of the stories that it feels unnecessary to make him spoon-feed the audience a line-for-line reminder of what it’s all about. 



Of the additional cast, Martin Freeman is very winning but seems to veer from an approximation of Ian Holm RP to his own (Watson) delivery. Richard Armitage has rightly been labeled the Aragorn of this trilogy although he’ll never have the same heartthrob longevity, buried under prosthetics and a protruding fake nose. Of the other dwarves, Nesbitt makes the biggest impression.


As for Radagast (Sylvester McCoy), whom one early review compared to Jar Jar Binks, he is mostly fine. As expected, he blows it when he raises his voice and makes doom-laded pronouncements but there’s no one alive better suited to saying words that end in a rolled “r”. And his resuscitation techniques for poorly hedgehogs are very cute.


The end of the film, and the glimpse of Smaug, is enticing enough to ensure attendance of the next installment (like there was ever any doubt), but it is in no way as compelling as the climax to Fellowship. And there’s an issue, I feel, with featuring an all CGI recurring villain such as Azog. Don’t get me wrong, he’s well rendered (and was presumably played by Manu Bennett wearing a motion capture suit), but Thorin’s stakes with him never feel as personal as they should due to the virtual divide between them.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The guy practically lives in a Clue board.

Knives Out (2019)
(SPOILERS) “If Agatha Christie were writing today, she’d have a character who’s an Internet troll.” There’s a slew of ifs and buts in that assertion, but it tells you a lot about where Rian Johnson is coming from with Knives Out. As in, Christie might – I mean, who can really say? – but it’s fair to suggest she wouldn’t be angling her material the way Johnson does, who for all his pronouncement that “This isn’t a message movie” is very clearly making one. He probably warrants a hesitant pass on that statement, though, to the extent that Knives Out’s commentary doesn’t ultimately overpower the whodunnit side of the plot. On the other hand, when Daniel Craig’s eccentrically accented sleuth Benoit Blanc is asked “You’re not much of a detective, are you?” the only fair response is vigorous agreement.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

Do forgive me for butting in, but I have a bet with my daughter that you are Hercules Porridge, the famous French sleuth.

Death on the Nile (1978)
(SPOILERS) Peak movie Poirot, as the peerless Peter Ustinov takes over duties from Albert Finney, who variously was unavailable for Death on the Nile, didn’t want to repeat himself or didn’t fancy suffering through all that make up in the desert heat. Ustinov, like Rutherford, is never the professional Christie fan’s favourite incarnation, but he’s surely the most approachable and engaging. Because, well, he’s Peter Ustinov. And if some of his later appearances were of the budget-conscious, TV movie variety (or of the Michael Winner variety), here we get to luxuriate in a sumptuously cast, glossy extravaganza.

I am constantly surprised that women’s hats do not provoke more murders.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
(SPOILERS) Was Joe Eszterhas a big fan of Witness for the Prosecution? He was surely a big fan of any courtroom drama turning on a “Did the accused actually do it?” only for it to turn out they did, since he repeatedly used it as a template. Interviewed about his Agatha Christie adaptation (of the 1925 play), writer-director Billy Wilder said of the author that “She constructs like an angel, but her language is flat; no dialogue, no people”. It’s not an uncommon charge, one her devotees may take issue with, that her characters are mere pieces to be moved around a chess board, rather than offering any emotional or empathetic interest to the viewer. It’s curious then that, while Wilder is able to remedy the people and dialogue, doing so rather draws attention to a plot that, on this occasion, turns on a rather too daft ruse.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…