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

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?