I was quite
excited to see this film. I loved the Lord of the Rings films, and always
thought that they should make a film of the Hobbit too. On a recent trip to
Alnwick I decided that re-familiarising myself with the book would be a good
idea, and I remembered how much I loved that too. So I was expecting quite a
lot from the movie.
I wasn’t
disappointed. The first instalment of the Hobbit series was entertaining,
exciting, fast-paced and enjoyable. I was a bit sceptical at first about
splitting it into three parts, but having seen the first part, I think it could
work. It was a faithful translation of the book, with some bits added from
Tolkien’s other works. The first part of the film tells of how Bilbo got
involved with the Dwarf plans, and the first part of their journey, up to the
point where the eagles save them from the goblin attacks.
There are several
appearances from other Lord of the Rings characters. Ian Holm makes a welcome
appearance as the old Bilbo, with Elijah Wood popping up as Frodo. Obviously,
Gandalf and Elrond are involved in the story and so must re-appear, but both
Galadriel and Saruman show in the movie. I really liked the way that the
beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring ties in with the storytelling nature of
The Hobbit, and was very pleased to see Frodo appear again. However, when I
first saw Saruman and Galadriel I was convinced that they were there to boost
the cast a bit. However, after watching the scenes involving Gandalf, Elrond,
Galadriel, and Saruman I thought they had the potential to be really useful in
providing a bit more background to the Lord of the Rings films.
Martin Freeman
plays Bilbo Baggins in this film, and I loved him in this role. I thought he
was brilliant, and perfectly managed to portray Bilbo’s lack of enthusiasm for
the adventure. I especially liked the scene where the dwarves take over his
house. His bustling captured Bilbo’s homeliness delightfully in my opinion. I
am very much looking forward to seeing more of Martin Freeman as the films
progress. I think it’s quite clear that Peter Jackson has an eye for casting,
as Freeman is excellent in this role, and in an interview with NME magazine (http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/peter-jackson-martin-freeman-was-the-only-person/292825) Peter Jackson says that “Martin was the only person that we wanted
for that role...before we met Martin”. I think he made a good choice.
In my blogs on
Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King I think), I talk about how Andy
Serkis surpassed himself in playing Gollum. Just when I thought he couldn’t get
any better in the role The Hobbit comes out and just blows me away. Here we see
a Gollum who is not driven to madness at having lost the Ring, but is happy and
content knowing he is the only one who knows about it. Andy Serkis is supreme
at conveying a more sociable Gollum, and once again, excels at performing the
conflicts between his two personalities.
The way that the
dwarves come across in The Hobbit is exactly how I pictured them as well.
Richard Armitage is majestic as Thorin Oakenshield, and I predict big things
for him in the future. He is able to convey passion, ferocity, drive and
emotion with seeming ease. It was also good to see the dwarves Gloin and Balin,
who are mentioned in the Lord of the Rings films. Gloin is the father of Gimli,
and I liked the strong resemblance that they bear to each other. Balin is the
dwarf who is buried in Moria, and it is easy to see from this film (and the
book) why he is given such a special burial. His character is wonderfully
played by Ken Stott, and I look forward to seeing more of him in the next
films. A tip of the hat must also go to James Nesbitt, who pops up as Bofur.
Now before The
Hobbit was released there was a lot of talk about the way Peter Jackson had
filmed it. It used a higher frame rate than other films have used, and this was
meant to affect the way it was perceived. I’m not sure whether it was because I
saw the film in 3D but there were aspects of it that seemed really graphically
poor. Fire, for example, always seemed really contrived, and there were parts
of the motion sequences that seemed unnaturally sped up or like they were
lifted from a PlayStation game (thanks to Tom Newbold for that little analogy).
Overall, The
Hobbit is a good film. It has nothing on the Lord of the Rings movies, but it
is still an enjoyable film. However, whereas the Lord of the Rings films can be
seen by everyone, I’d say that The Hobbit should probably be watched by people
who liked the original movies or books, because otherwise a lot of the
intricacies of the plot might pass you by.
No comments:
Post a Comment