The Hobbit: The slimming of the waist

After being bored rigid by Peter Jackson's first Hobbit movie, I decided to give the second movie a miss on its original cinema run. I wasn't going to sit there again for almost three hours, wondering why I hadn't gone to see the indie movie showing on the other screen. Likely it would have been far more entertaining and made for less than the weekly wage of the average premiership footballer.

And so I didn't catch up with the second movie, The Desolation of Smaug until the DVD release. Once again I wish I hadn't bothered - I'll be selling my Hobbit DVD's and Peter Jackson can stick the third movie where the sun doesn't shine.

Yes the second installment is better than the first but it's still an overlong, often boring slice of self indulgent cinema - what's happened to Peter Jackson? Is it ego that provoked him into stretching out such a slim book into a torturous three movie marathon? Or was it the incentive to get three times the money out of fans? A bit of both I expect and it is obvious that some sequences in the movie, the barrel chase down the river for instance, were designed with the video game in mind. This film is vapid, it's like the celluloid equivalent of a

The original genius Peter Jackson

soulless mega-store - everything under one roof but nothing of any real substance. Watching this movie in the cinema the viewer may come to the conclusion that there is more substance, more nuance and less fat in the popcorn they are eating than what they are seeing on the screen.

Yes the special effects are stunning, the eye candy amazing but then with the money thrown into the movie that  is pretty much a given. What this film, and its immediate predecessor lacks is compelling storytelling which is strange given that its source material is so rich.

The new slim Peter Jackson may have stuffed all those pounds he lost into these bloody movies, which makes them far too much to digest. Jackson looks superb these days but  his creative muse must be missing all those calories - for the sake of movie making Peter Jackson needs to be force fed a few dozen donuts, a brace of burgers and several icky milk shakes on a daily basis. Maybe then we will see a return to the classic movies Jackson churned out on both small and big budgets. And it's not just the length of the movies - I've watched the extended versions of each of the original Lord of the Rings movies and not once did that seem like a hardship, and yet after only twenty minutes with The Hobbit I found myself scratching my ass and daydreaming. The original movies had a storyline that defined the scope of the movies, but the Hobbit, or at least Jackson's Hobbit has as much depth as the X Factor.

The new Peter 'George Lucus' Jackson

Jackson's original Middle Earth trilogy was a lovingly crafted masterpiece but his decision to stretch the Hobbit out to three films has been a creative disaster. Still the movies are bringing in money which is all that really matters in these shallow times. The plot is meandering, the dialogue often cheese flavored and there's a lot of shit to wade through to reach the good bits.

Martin Freeman though is excellent as Bilbo though he really did deserve a better movie than either of the two we've been presented with so far. Some have called Jackson's latter day Middle Earth films bad fan fiction, and I think I'd agree with that assessment - Peter Jackson has become the new George Lucus so prepare to be increasingly disappointed from this point in.

The Hobbit (DVD)

I found The Hobbit a better viewing experience on DVD than I did when I saw it in the cinema - it still felt bloated, and took an age to get going, but the fact that I could relax at home, allowing the movie to play out on my home cinema system meant that I didn't find it such a grind. 

 Of course my expectations were high when I originally went to see the movie on the big screen. I was expecting another Middle Earth masterpiece from Jackson, so  no wonder I was pissed off. The Hobbit is far less of a movie than any of the Jackson's other three Middle Earth movies.

With the Hobbit Jackson seems to have traded artistic integrity for the lure of big money, and the affects of stretching such a slim story into three epic length bank account bulging movies, is evident when sitting through the Hobbit - or rather An Unexpected Journey which is the first of the three movies Jackson has made based around Tolkein's novel. Of course I suppose the ultimate judgement will be passed when all three movies have been released, but judging on this first part there's going to be a lot of tedium involved. I remember when I first saw Fellowship of the Ring and I couldn't wait for the next movie, but as for the Hobbit I think I'll wait for the DVD next time.

Mind you Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo and the second 90 minutes of the movie is absolutely thrilling, but the problem is that overall the movie is just so damn boring. I consider Jackson's original Middle Earth trilogy to be cinematic masterpieces that will live forever, but the Hobbit is just a poor imitation. 

Maybe Jackson's lost it - after all his King Kong didn't exactly meet expectations, and his The Lovely Bones was not the artistic powerhouse he so obviously hoped for.

Ahh well, let's hope the next movie is better.

A jOURNEY TOO FAR

 I can't believe how boring Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is - I'm a huge fan of his Lord of the Rings trilogy but in stretching out Tolkein's Hobbit into three movies the lack of story is plainly evident. It takes almost half an hour to get out of Bilbo's home and too many lesser characters are given too much screen time - I really don't need twenty minutes spent on characters who have nothing much to do with the main storyline. There was also the problem with the 48 frames per second which makes the entire thing look like it was shot on videotape - I don't think this is the case of us having to get used to the new technology but rather that this is bad technology, and characters often seemed to be moving in speeded up motion.

There are good points - Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo and Ian McKellen really brings Gandalf to life, but in trying to no doubt bring in three times the profit by making three films instead of one, the integrity of the story's been ruined.

And I was so looking forward to this movie...ah well, maybe next time.

The Hobbit - early reviews suggest an over-stuffed turkey

As soon as I heard the Hobbit movie was going to be stretched into a trilogy warning bells went off - The Hobbit is a brilliant story but in scope it comes nowhere near The Lord of the Rings, and could easily be told in one two  hour movie. And sure enough the biggest number of complaints about the movie is that it is too long and the first hour or so drags by.

"While the clarity can be awe-inspiring, it has a tendency to make the sets look cheap, the armor chintzy, and the makeup barely worthy of an Asylum production. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY in high-frame-rate 3D is a deep, vicious pendulum swing between transporting and flat-out unwatchable - and it's impossible to fully adjust to the format because you never know when it's suddenly going to look like a demo reel.'' Ain't it Cool

The New Zealand Herald called the movie, drawn out and diluted and went on-to add - "It's also overstuffed with, well, stuff. Prologues and sidestepping backstory. Long, boring councils among dwarves, wizards and elves. A shallow blood feud extrapolated from sketchy appendices to J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings to give the film a bad guy."


There have also been many complaints about the new technology used to shoot the film - the movie plays at 48 frames per second, standard film is 24 frames per second, and whilst critics agree that it does add some clarity it also seems to make the sets looks cheap and tacky.

"At 48 frames, the film is more true to life, sometimes feeling so intimate it's like watching live theater. That close-up perspective also brings out the fakery of movies. Sets and props look like phony stage trappings at times, the crystal pictures bleaching away the painterly quality of traditional film." New Zealand Herald

"Though international B.O. success seems all but assured for a franchise that has already commanded nearly $3 billion in worldwide grosses, splitting the source material into multiple pics here mimics a frustrating trend among lucrative fantasy adaptations, from the two final "Harry Potter" films to the bifurcated "Twilight Saga" finale, stringing fans along with incomplete narratives. Whereas "The Lord of the Rings" naturally divided into the three books, "The Hobbit" contains scarcely enough story to support a single feature, as those who recall Rankin/Bass' 1977 animated made-for-TV version know all too well. " Variety

And even the positive reviews are remarking that the film is too long and lacks pace - one critic said it's as if The Wizard of Oz took an hour to get out of Kansas.

The Hobbit approaches

The Hobbit X 3

Originally the rumours that Peter Jackson would make a trilogy out of The Hobbit were rubbished, with the studio claiming the book would be split into two films. However the Hollywood Reporter is now saying the the film will indeed be a trilogy along the same lines of Peter Jackson's telling of Lord of the Rings.

The real surprise is that this seems to be Peter Jackson's idea and not the studio trying to get a bigger return from their investment. Still Jackson knows how to tell a story and if he feels that the story can be told over three movies, without stretching things then we could be in for another Middle Earth treat.

There and back again - trailer