darth_ender said:
See, considering the many lukewarm reviews, I was feeling a bit depressed. But it seems the real fans like you guys enjoy the movie. Thanks for the spoiler-free reviews, and for keeping my spirits high. I'll probably end up seeing it this coming weekend.
I haven't had time to write a review of The Hobbit yet, but I guess this is as good a time as any.
I'm a long-time Tolkien fan and am also extremely fond of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy; although I have a few major gripes with The Two Towers and Return of the King (namely, the handling of Faramir's character, the reticence of the Ents to go to war, and Frodo and Sam's "breakup"), overall they are among my favorite movies of all time. For that matter, The Hobbit the book is among my favorite novels of all time. So when the mixed reviews of this film started hitting the internet, I was a bit taken aback.
Turns out I needn't have been. While it's true that The Hobbit has a slightly different "feel" than the LOTR trilogy and it alters/adds to the source material at several points, I don't feel that these detract from the film in any way. Sure, if you go in expecting a straight-to-screen adaptation of the book or a film with the scope and gravitas of the LOTR trilogy you may be disappointed. But such expectations are unrealistic, not to mention inappropriate in this case. The Hobbit has never been in the same category as the Lord of the Rings. It's a fun, light-hearted adventure, not an epic quest to decide the fate of the world. Furthermore, to those ultra-purists who are mad about Jackson's additions and alterations, I suggest you go back and re-read The Hobbit and imagine what it would look like if ported directly to the silver screen. My guess: not that great. While the story (which mostly comprises a series of the party getting captured and then being rescued, getting captured and then being rescued again, getting captured again and then...) works great in print, I don't think it would have worked very well as a film. And for the most part, I felt that Jackson's adaptive choices were very respectful to the spirit of the book while permitting the story to thrive in a cinematic environment. And furthermore, even with the additions and alterations, I'm impressed by how faithful to the book (for the vast majority of the running time) the adaptation remained. It's not as though Jackson re-wrote the plot (a la The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) or replaced any of the characters (a la any of the recent David Suchet Poirot adaptations). The majority of Jackson's changes fall into the "expansion" category, not the "alteration" one. In short, if you're willing to appreciate this film for what it is rather than criticizing it for not being something that it was never meant to be, I suspect you'll find it thoroughly entertaining and more than acceptable.
Now there were one or two things that bugged me. Specifically (and I'll try to keep this mostly spoiler-free), I felt that the characterization of the dwarves was too crude (no surprise; the same was true in the LOTR trilogy) and the relationship between Thorin and the Elves was inappropriately handled. But these misgivings in no way wrecked the film for me.
Also, I'm a bit flummoxed by the frequent castigation of this movie's pacing. That's one aspect of The Hobbit that I feel was handled perfectly. If I want a mindless, non-stop action-fest, I'll go see a Michael Bay movie. Jackson's Middle Earth films are so strong, in large part, because of the balance between great action scenes on the one hand and plenty of characterization and dramatic scenes that give you time to "warm up" to the characters and allow the films to breathe. The Hobbit is no exception. (I think it's become trendy to bash Jackson's films just because he's a thoughtful, successful filmmaker; witness a similar trend with Christopher Noland's movies.)
Rating: 9 out of 10 flaming pinecones.