I rewatched the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in preparation of the first Hobbit movie. I forced Danielle to do it with me because she had never seen them before. She typically hates fantasy movies, but she loved LOTR. In fact, she told me that Return of the King is one of her favorite movies. Danielle and I saw the first Hobbit movie on opening night. She was so excited. She didn't even bother seeing this one in theaters. That should tell you how she felt The Hobbit compares to LOTR. I tend to agree. There are two factors working against The Hobbit:
1. There is only one Hobbit book, yet they chose to stretch it into three movies. There is far less content so there is a lot more action filler. Whereas in LOTR all the action served a purpose, in this movie it feels like window dressing.
2. There is far more CGI in The Hobbit. I'm not sure why there isn't more practical effects (LOTR felt real because they used the right amount of practical effects). I find myself constantly pulled out of The Hobbit movies because it looks so sterile and lifeless.
Anyway, if you look past that, you have a very fun movie. It's just not one that lives up to the lofty expectations. This movie was over 2.5 hours, but the real meat of it is the interactions between Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug. I think it made up like 45 minutes of the movie and it was clearly the highlight for me.
This movie ends on a great cliffhanger and I can't wait to see the third one in theaters (that's really the only way to experience these movies). Still, I'll go in knowing that it won't measure up to LOTR.
I also haven't seen this one yet and have no real desire to do so. Is that bad? The Hobbit wasn't even a bad movie!
ReplyDeleteYou could definitely skip this movie and just watch the third one and be mostly fine. For how long the movie lasts, it doesn't accomplish much. Still, I figure everyone that liked LOTR should at least see each of these once.
ReplyDelete