The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey

[cinemabon]

“The Hobbit – an unexpected journey” Directed by Peter Jackson

When you go see “The Hobbit,” and there is no reason that comes to mind not to, you will find the same generosity of spirit and wealth of imagery present in every frame, every second of soundtrack – from its emotional appeal to the level of skilled craftsmanship throughout. This is an event, give such broad scale that the word epic will be forever measured against the scope of this project.

“The Hobbit” begins small in scale, as did “Lord of the Rings.” We are in a hobbit’s hole, filled with soft wooden colors, rich textures, and complexity in the form of details – so numerous in their application that several viewings would not give the set designers and decorators justice. Through this strange new world Jackson’s camera weaves, poking into nooks, storage rooms, under desks to find more treasure to fill the eye. One cannot drink it all in with a single sitting. It washes over you like moonlight on a restless sea. Into this realm comes the story of one small man (hobbit) who is enticed to leave his comfortable home and set out for the great unknown. A baker’s dozen of dwarves long to reclaim their lost heritage, and they need a “burglar” to help them get it back.

The journey along the way has the same kinds of trappings that Jackson gave us in “Lord of the Rings” and yet, this world is very different – new enemies, new vistas, new friends. The story centers around Bilbo Baggins, our lonely hobbit, who eventually earns his place among the dwarf men; but not before he is trampled by trolls and grabbed by goblins. Old familiar faces appear – Ian McKellen is back as Gandalf, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and Hugo Weaving as Elrond. One familiar face is really only a voice – Andy Serkis – the man behind perhaps one of the greatest animated characters of all time, Gollum. This slimy trickster blends in so well with his environment that it becomes impossible to separate him from the reality of the set, making Gollum more believable that any CGI creature ever envisioned for the big screen. It isn’t just his detail – the bloodshot blue eyes whose irises change on cue – it’s the fact that like a live character, Gollum is able to give us emotion and even comedic delivery. His performance is just as real as any actors and that says a lot coming from an actor.

“The Hobbit” is a pleasure to watch from start to finish. I couldn’t find a weakness in its construction if I tried. The only drawback I can see for non-Tolkien fans would be the similarity between this film and “The Fellowship of the Ring.” And while the method of construction is similar, “The Hobbit” is a different film with a different feel and flow. One of the most horrific parts comes in the goblin battle, the pacing, the music, and the stunt work are outstanding beyond compare. Kudos to Jackson and company for delivering the goods once more. Slightly darker than “The fellowship of the Ring,” “The Hobbit” is a holiday treat, wrapped in gold foil, and topped with a pretty red bow. Highly recommended. Oscar worthy.

[cinemabon]

Review based on midnight show in 3D with new sound system that put voices and sound effects "around" the audience

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for the early notice. You scooped me this time.
The only drawback I can see for non-Tolkien fans would be the similarity between this film and “The Fellowship of the Ring.” I should think that's a pretty big drawback if you snoozed through THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING to begin with. But no doubt that I will see it and I'm curious to sample the new different frames-per-second and new sound system used. Reviews so far are good but not great (Metacritic rating: 62). Coulld be fun though: "Bilbo sets out with the wizard Gandalf and a posse of dwarfs to battle a fearsome dragon."

Oops now actually the Metacritic rating has dropped to a not-so-good 58 since the number of reviews "aggragated" went up from 7 to 36.

[cinemabon]

Top critics has also lowered its rating to 43%, which is understandable from a critical point of view. I commiserate with anyone who has to write a professional level criticism of this movie. But to fans of Tolkien, this is a return to that happy place (sounds sinister, like nut house feel to it). Ironic that Jackson truncated the trilogy and then takes what really was a slim novel and has expanded it into three films (obviously a commercial decision). Like Lucas, he is out to establish a marketable franchise. As I fan, I will admit my bias.

[Chris Knipp]

On second thought I don't think I will review or even watch it. I watched all the Ring movies but didn't review them. Anthony Lane did a quite elaborate review of HOBBIT for The New Yorker. One can't exactly tell what he thinks but Metacritic rates his review as a 60.


Top critics has also lowered its rating to 43%, which is understandable from a critical point of view.

I don't know what this means. What is "top critics"? On Metacritic the rating from 40 reviews remains a 58. 43 would be awfully low for a filmmaker with Jackson's polish.

[cinemabon]

Raw-ton Tom-ah-toes

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2012/12/17/121217crci_cinema_lane

[Chris Knipp]

Rotton Tomatoes scores are usually higher than Metacritic's and in fact this time for Hobbit it's 62%.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7318/imgresyme.jpg

I've seen it now (Sun., Dec. 16, '12). I intended to sample the 48FPS aka HFR3D, but because I went to an iMax3D version, it turned out not to be 48FPS, and in fact that makes for some blurring, as noted in an online article (http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/hfr3d-uncertain-future/)on the site We've Got This Covered. The writer notes that "'normal' 24FPS screenings of the film are actually getting 'dumbed' down, with added motion blur, to help make them look like an average film." The 3D glasses provided for the "normal" iMax version did not work in the HFR3D screenings, for which different glasses were provided, so my sneaking into a 48FPR screening yielded me nothing. . But it's said that the desired 48FPS merely mimics the over-clear unrealness of Hi-Def TV, and that article argues that this was a bad time for Jackson to introduce a format that hasn't got its kinks ironed out. So all in all I may not have missed much anyway, and 3D is 3D. The best I can do is forget about it, as I did during the visually glorious LIFE OF PI.

I still don't like "3D," which, no matter how much they tinker with it, still looks more like several awkwardly overlapping layers of 2D, and thus more tinny and unreal than normal 2D, apart from whcih if you tilt your face it goes out of focus, and the tinted glasses make all the images look darker than they should.

I won't write a review; I didn't review any of the LOTR trilogy. I note that the 72-year-old McKellan is still in good voice, though he has admitted being tired of the Gandalf role. Images and various production values were excellent. The "loutish trolls" Anthony Lane speaks (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2012/12/17/121217crci_cinema_lane)of were certainly loud, but that episode is trumped by the one in André Øvredal's amusing and original TOLLHUNTER, which I reviewed (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1804) last year. I was impressed by the acting, and some of the CGI effects, notably a sequence of giant mountain men made of rock battling it out. I could have done without the noisy pitched battles every ten minutes. Obviously the story, focused on dwarfs, is well calculated to appeal to children. But why were two auditoriums packed largely with adults? Because LOTR has its great fan base of, well, "fans." And Americans who just like to hear English accents. I feel like I've seen an awful lot of this kind of stuff before, but I haven't seen it done any better than it is here. I got the contrast between Bilbo's cosy hobbit house and the cold mountainous regions he forces himself to explore with the dwarf gang as their "burglar." And, though not underlined, the oddity of Bilbo's merely helping out a clan of greedy dwarves eager for gold when his own values are simple goodness, kindness, humanity, and quiet life in the Shire. Funny how sweetly Gandalf plays up to the elves that the dwarves hate (for not helping them in their hour of need). Why use the word "elfish" when there is the word "elfin"? I guess because "elfin" has come to means something else.

The most vivid sequence is a prolonged and more subtly menacing encounter between Bilbo and Gollum (voiced again by Andy Sarkis), skinny and slithery as ever, a bratty, unhappy, angry little critter, somehow at once needy, sweet, and nasty, a critter you would not want to be trapped and lost in a cave with, and their "famous riddle game," a battle built of sheer dialogue, comes closest to what you'd expect the work of a good writer to sound like, tranferred to film. Gollum is a nasty bit of business who, as seen here, I'm not likely to forget for a while anyway. I'm impressed by Cate Blanchett as the elf queen (if that's what she was), not in the book at all Lane says, but on the other hand I've seen enough of Ms Blanchett already to last a lifetime and she made a similar appearance when it was all newer and fresher in LOTR. All in all though, this is a damned good show. cinemabon is right, "you will find the same generosity of spirit and wealth of imagery present in every frame, every second of soundtrack – from its emotional appeal to the level of skilled craftsmanship throughout. " It's just not one of the best movies of the year, because there are others that are better.

[oscar jubis]

This excerpt from Variety's review addresses the format issues:

"Speaking of 3D, the technique adds a level of dynamism to Andrew Lesnie's swooping camerawork, which once again cuts from the closest of closeups to the widest of wide shots, in addition to plunging down and around elaborate enemy encampments, such as the underground Goblin-town, where spindly rope bridges teeter over gaping chasms. But 3D also complicates the forced-perspective tricks Jackson used in the earlier films, making for odd, eye-boggling moments, especially in the crowded Bag End scene, where Gandalf somewhat unconvincingly towers among characters half his size.

More disconcerting is the introduction of the film's 48-frames-per-second digital cinematography, which solves the inherent stuttering effect of celluloid that occurs whenever a camera pans or horizontal movement crosses the frame -- but at too great a cost. Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end homemovie. (A standard 24fps projection seems to correct this effect in the alternate version of the film being offered to some theaters, but sacrifices the smoother motion seen in action scenes and flyover landscape shots.)"

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, or as I said an HDTV look. But otherwise Debruge's complicated visual analysis eludes me. I liked the shot where Gandalf towered over the other figures. [48FPS] "solves the inherent stuttering effect of celluloid that occurs whenever a camera pans or horizontal movement crosses the frame" means in 3D, because you get a lot of blurring in 3D when the camera pans. He's cut down on that, but "at a cost," at the cost of moving to a chintzily hyperreal look, some think. I didn't get to see it, so can't quite say. But as I can and did say, I still don't like 3D, no matter how you tart it up. The " phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious"? Not in the version I saw, so 48FPS3D must really ba a caution. 3D, he (Debruge) might have mentioned, sort of becomes confusing in intense battle scenes when bodies are flying into each other. 3D has the effect of making it harder for the eye to take in a whole scene, and this is one place where so-called "2D" remains and will remain superior. Ask yourself if you would want to watch Bergman's SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE or WINTER LIGHT in 3D. It's a novelty, designed to draw in the younger audience, whose members have not seen many great films.

All this said, I don't think that THE HOBBIT is visually a much better or worse version of 3D than previous ones. But wait: the LOTR wasn't in 3D. And wasn't it visually glorious? The 3D fad came since. It's a bandwagon blockbuster filmmakers are reluctant NOT to jump onto.

[cinemabon]

We can hardly say LOTR isn't in 3D... yet... when "Jurrasic Park in 3D" trailer was shown just before "The Hobbit" opened... so you can assume that will follow (making the entire six film series in 3D, the same direction Lucas is taking "Star Wars").

The HD perception of 48 fps may be a generational observation. Young people find the clarity refreshing in feedback observations, while us older cinephiles whine about "too much clarity." I don't see the planar reflection of 3D that you see, Chris. I will admit that certain kinds of 3D animation (drawn) suffers this malady (3D version of "Beauty and the Beast," for example). However, computer degredation has introduced qualities that eliminate that effect to the most part, even when animated films are computer generation in their entirety.

I would agree, "The Hobbit" is not the best film of the year. But it is certainly one of sufficient quality that it deserves technical recognition. I find the criticism that Jackson and company have dished out the same old product is not true. While the look is definitely similar, the film is congruous with the telling of the tale. Keeping the appearance similar is part of the hard work WETA and others do to maintain that high level of craftsmanship we've come to take for granted.

[Chris Knipp]

Do you really want LOTR post-release crammed into bad 3D? That is even more of a disaster than films originally shot for 3D formatting. It's obvious the format has been grafted on later. It's on a level with tinting black and white films.

Your "young people" sounds to me like a myth to foist techno-crap on the public, claiming we would just love it if we were only young enough. Kids say the darndest things. That doesn't mean we have to listen to them.

I have no idea what you mean by saying that THE HOBBIT 1 though "not the best film of the year" is worthy of "technical recognition." Strange phrase. Please remember that I have nowhere said it is bad; I mostly wasn't even assessing its merits, just describing it. Is your phrase meant to mean "recognition" that is only "technically" so? Or does it mean "recognition" that there were "techniques" used in the film? Either it's a good movie or it ain't. Or do you want to give it a Sorta Oscar, for just being there?

I gave the film its due: I didn't review it. That is when something is not really worthy of full attention but I don't want to tread on anybody's toes. Clearly if we disregard the disaster that was THE LOVELY BONES, Peter Jackson has his enthusiastic fans, and this throws them a (fortunately not lovely) bone. If it doesn't have any new meat on it, they may not mind. I think I persuaded you to pull back on some of your praise of SKYFALL and LINCOLN. But those are both very good movies, even if they're not going in my personal top 2012 lists. On the other hand, you are more dramatically overpraising HOBBIT 1. I understand its giving you pleasure. But it is not worthy of that company. By the way, when you say the Gollum is "more believable [than] any CGI creature ever envisioned for the big screen," consider Richard Parker in LIFE OF PI. The Gollum is humanoid, and uniquely irritating and cool, but we know he's a fake critter. When you look at the Bengal tiger on the lifeboat, you simple see a Bengal tiger. The year's greatest CGI innovations are the ones in LIFE OF PI.

[cinemabon]

That's probably one of the best lines I've ever heard.

"Kids say the darndest things. That doesn't mean we have to listen!"

Priceless

Yeah, I was thinking Oscars for technical merit... on scale alone, let alone quality. Never saw "Bones." After I read your review, I nixed it.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks! I thought that was kind of funny myself.

I still want you to rethink your praises of this, for you, very enjoyable film. How exactly is "scale alone" a version of "technical merit"? I'm still holding out for the CGI and also the use of the tank in LIFE OF PI.

Possibly HOBBIT1 might have benefitted from being pulled back a bit from its sheer "scale." Lane's NYer review, which is not a pan -- he is as hard on the book as the film -- suggests that the moral and emotional arcs of both formats are missing and I felt that HOBBIT's story needed to be heading somewhere we could identify with better.

You were wise to avoid THE LOVELY BONES. You see I suffer to save you from having to do so.

[cinemabon]

I suppose I'd settle for a nomination as recognition in a year that "Pi" distinguished itself pictorial-wise, along with another film that had tremendous scope in its vision, "Cloud Atlas." Neither film is expected to recoop its expenditures, guaranteeing for the interim that films on this level of scope will be sidelined, temporarily at least. I intend to buy the DVD of both films as they stand up to repeated viewings on my part as having multiple levels of interest in storytelling.

I did not see "Amour" but you did and I was wondering what you thought about its chances as Best Foreign film of the year.

[Chris Knipp]

[For preferred foreign films, go back over to the BEST MOVIES OF 2012 SO FAR thread where it is now (http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.php?3304-Best-movies-of-2012-so-far&p=29003#post29003), with the Times critics' lists and the Film Comment critics poll. AMOUR or HOLY MOTORS (the latter unlikely for elderly Academy voters, thr former a little more real than they may like) seem to be currently the best foreign films in the view of many critics. The two arty but long slog films ONCE UPON A TIME IN ANATOLIA and THE TURIN HORSE (both included in the 2011 NYFF) are the next highest ranked foreign films in the Film Comment poll. But there are more bland choices that are popping up in US critics' best lists, like the good (but not great) A ROYAL AFFAIR.]

HOBBIT VS. CLOUD ATLAS VS. LIFE OF PI.
CLOUD ATLAS -- with it's sliced-and-diced plotline and its yellow face and black people made up to look white -- is an albatros and I would not be surprised if it didn't make back its cost. It is still showing though. I wish LIFE OF PI would make back its greater cost (it cost $120 million and CLOUD ATLAS $102 million) but I guess Fox can afford it. Both seem like tough sells, arguably CLOUD ATLAS more so, but nobody in the youth audience or great unwashed category has actually heard of LIFE OF PI the book, which is a bad start. Why would they? It's not made from a "young adult novel" or a comic book or a TV show. At present LIFE OF PI has made $69.5 million. CLOUD ATLAS has made only $26.6 million. Let's not forget that CLOUD ATLAS had to be produced without studio support, and was the most expensive independent film yet made. But both will be special effects contenders for the Oscars and will be remembered as unusual films. Meanwhile HOBBIT 1 is gobbling up box office receipts with a domestic total of $84.6 million and foreign of $138 million for the first weekend.