Now don't get me wrong from the summary, I did enjoy The Hobbit. I enjoyed it in fact more than I expected to especially since I delayed watching them because of certain fears and frustrations I had regarding it.
The Hobbit was the very first book I read back in the mid 80's and I adored it. I simply couldn't figure out how it could be turned into a trilogy! I feared it was being done so to milk the franchise and let's be honest that's exactly why it was done.
The Hobbit has most of the charm of LOTR and all of its beauty. Top that off with a stellar cast and it was destined to do well at the box office (Which it did) However something was different, something was.....off.
Though the film contains the same level of violence as LOTR its overflowing with comedy and goofiness. I expected some, but not to this extent. At one point it felt like I was watching Labyrinth (1986) again, not like that's a bad thing but I didn't expect it here.
It looks great, its scored near perfectly and as mentioned the cast do a great performance and it was nice to see the likes of James Nesbitt and Sylvester McCoy up on the big screen.
Inevitably there was going to be comparison with LOTR, that was inescapable and the comparison just doesn't help it at all. It pales in comparison and with all the silliness I found myself underwhelmed.
The Hobbit is a passable effort but is more like the Mythica series than Lord Of The Rings.
The Good:
Beautiful
Excellent score
Brilliant cast
The Bad:
Some parts go beyond comedic into the realms of silly
Martin Freeman just isn't leading man material
Goblin town song, really?
Stock scream was totally unnecessary
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Someone should never use the term "Mothers glory box" again
The distance Bilbo's sword needs to detect orcs/goblins changes between scenes, any particular reason?
The Hobbit was the very first book I read back in the mid 80's and I adored it. I simply couldn't figure out how it could be turned into a trilogy! I feared it was being done so to milk the franchise and let's be honest that's exactly why it was done.
The Hobbit has most of the charm of LOTR and all of its beauty. Top that off with a stellar cast and it was destined to do well at the box office (Which it did) However something was different, something was.....off.
Though the film contains the same level of violence as LOTR its overflowing with comedy and goofiness. I expected some, but not to this extent. At one point it felt like I was watching Labyrinth (1986) again, not like that's a bad thing but I didn't expect it here.
It looks great, its scored near perfectly and as mentioned the cast do a great performance and it was nice to see the likes of James Nesbitt and Sylvester McCoy up on the big screen.
Inevitably there was going to be comparison with LOTR, that was inescapable and the comparison just doesn't help it at all. It pales in comparison and with all the silliness I found myself underwhelmed.
The Hobbit is a passable effort but is more like the Mythica series than Lord Of The Rings.
The Good:
Beautiful
Excellent score
Brilliant cast
The Bad:
Some parts go beyond comedic into the realms of silly
Martin Freeman just isn't leading man material
Goblin town song, really?
Stock scream was totally unnecessary
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Someone should never use the term "Mothers glory box" again
The distance Bilbo's sword needs to detect orcs/goblins changes between scenes, any particular reason?