Brief review: Unlike the "Lord of the Rings' films the first installment in the new "Hobbit" trilogy is way more light-weighted, brighter in tone, and definitely not as action-packed as its three predecessors, as it focuses more on explaining us everything we don’t know and need to know in a humorous and relaxed way, rather than providing us with non-stop spectacle. The first half is reasonably slow-moving and lacking in action and vigor, spending all of its time on setting up the following “unexpected journey”, but as soon as the journey starts, the pacing picks up quickly, and continues to flow smoothly throughout, injecting a dose of needed energy into the storytelling. Peter Jackson once again has chosen the most breathtaking filming locations in the beautiful New Zealand, and that combined with the first-class CGI work leads to a spectacular visual result, the majesty of which will leave you in awe. The use of 3D is spot on, if not the best, but on certain scenes it’s incredibly effective, and makes you feel part of what’s happening on screen. Aside from some pacing issues here and there, Jackson’s direction is hard to fault really. As expected, he displays a tasteful visual flair, and remarkable attention to detail. Bilbo Baggins is played wonderfully by Martin Freeman, the dwarves are fun to watch, Ian McKellen returns with a bang as Gandalf, but it’s Andy Serkis as Gollum, that absolutely steals the show.
Overall summary: Sure, it lacks the grim feel, and refined complexity that turned "The Lord of the Rings" into such a classic, but "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is still a truly entertaining, visually-sumptuous and masterfully-crafted prequel, that will leave you satisfied.
Click on the screen shot above or THIS LINK, and check out the extended version of my "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" review, written exclusively for White Cat Magazine. Comments are very much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
8 comments:
I really enjoyed the Hobbit, despite the fact that at the time, I suffered from a gout attack and was in excruciating pain.
Michael, I see where you're coming from. Small parts of it I hated, but overall I had a blast.
It had a comfortable and leisurely pace, and the things that were added I didn't mind.
Knew you'd enjoy it!
Alex, I wouldn't say it had a comfortable pace at all time, because it did drag a bit here and there, especially in the first half, but despite that, I really enjoyed it. :)
You know, I really liked this movie. I do have to agree about the pacing, but it was very enjoyable.
The thing that is getting to me are all the people complaining about how it isn't Lord of the Rings.
Well. Duh! Sorry, but The Hobbit wasn't as full of all the strife and war because it was a DIFFERENT story!!!! Gah!
Okay, I will end my rant here. ;) Sorry I've been MIA on the commenting, but I do still read your reviews. :D
Mel, I did too.
I didn't say that I was expecting another LOTR movie, let alone complaining about it, but I thought this one lacked the darkly magical feel of the trilogy, and I wish it was more action-packed. Well, I guess P.J. left that for the next entries.
Well, I'm glad to hear you read my reviews. That makes me a happy person. Thanks!:)
I loved this movie from start to finish. I didn't think any single second dragged at all. LOTR was better because the story was better, it was deeper and there was more at stake. This was perfection for what it was, dwarves getting back their kingdom simple A to B. To me there was absolutely nothing wrong with this movie at all. It was flawless in execution.
Mel, LOTR was perfection for sure, but The Hobbit was... not. They spent too much time on the set-up, but that's probably because at the end they decided to split the story into 3 parts instead of 2. The first half had issues both pacing-wise and entertainment value-wise, but the second half was, well, flawless. :)
Post a Comment