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

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Look out the window. Eden’s not burning, it’s burnt.

Reign of Fire (2002) (SPOILERS) There was good reason to believe Rob Bowman would make a successful transition from top-notch TV director to top-notch film one. He had, after all, attracted attention and plaudits for Star Trek: The Next Generation and become such an integral part of The X-File s that he was trusted with the 1998 leap to the big screen. That movie wasn’t the hit it might have been – I suspect because, such was Chris Carter’s inability to hone a coherent arc, it continued to hedge its bets – but Bowman showed he had the goods. And then came Reign of Fire . And then Elektra . And that was it. Reign of Fire is entirely competently directed, but that doesn’t prevent it from being entirely lousy.