The story is self-explanatory: hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) embarks on an unexpected journey with a herd of dwarfs and Gandalf the Gray. Peter Jackson's first installment of a three-part series is shot in 3D and with a frame rate that is double the standard 24 fps, creating a dazzling effect that has received mixed reviews among both audiences and critics. Personally, I found the technique moderately nauseating; it both stuns and overwhelms the corneas to a level of hypnosis that allows for a period of three hours to pass in what seems like a blink of a dragon's eye.
The effect is mystical, but with the landscapes of New Zealand already contributing a fairytale-land setting, I don't know if the added shooting technique was necessary. It did, however, add this strange animation-like element which illustrated the playful, child-like wonder in
The Hobbit and coupled appropriately with Peter Jackson's fresh and jaunty vision. For the viewer that can stomach a bit of over-stimulation, it's interesting.
 |
The Hobbit
Starring: Martin Freeman, Sir Ian McKellen,
Richard Armitage
Directed by Peter Jackson
My Opinion: I loved it! |
My opinion is much less definitive than that of other critics. For example, the film critic for the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips, states that he "hate[d]" the divergent shooting technique. He claims that the picture "looks like test footage, devoid of warmth and texture." I highly disagree with this and find his position a little stagnant. First of all, I'd say that if anything, the film looks over-processed. Furthermore, claiming that scenes such as the ones in Bilbo's home when all the dwarves arrive, are "devoid of warmth" is almost like claiming that Hobbiton is lacking in whimsy. The aforementioned scene is deeply set in a yellow-ish hue that envelopes the viewer with the feeling of participation in the joyful gathering. By contrast, Riverdale has the cool, magical appearance that only high-quality CGI can deliver, but Riverdale isn't Hobbiton. While the highly-disputed technique was not my favorite aspect of the film, it certainly did not make the film look like cloudy, flat test footage as Michael Phillips claimed.
The film is long, that is true, but the adventures are riveting and plentiful. There are trolls, gremlins, orcs, dragons, Gollum, and my personal favorite, the storm giants: masses of mountain in the shape of men, brawling with slow but mighty wallops as if they were gigantic Rock Em' Sock 'Em Robots. The scene will have you on the edge of your seat, as will many of the fierce battle scenes. It also left my head spinning, however.
If anything is a little off about this film, I think it's Thorin, the leader of the dwarves. He's a little too intense. His staid expression is repeated throughout the film with a level of exactness that I found impressive, but quite comical. He's not the dwarf that is supposed to be comical, however; that role is reserved mostly for the fat red-headed one who does a slamming job, might I add. Truth be told, I loved the characters. I loved the dwarves loyalty to Thorin, despite his goofiness. I loved Radagast, the brown. I loved the stoic, beautiful elves, as I always do. And Bilbo proves himself just as Frodo did. It's a wonderfully fun movie, and I don't think you need to take it as seriously as everyone took
The Lord of the Rings. Why? Because though visually similar,
The Hobbit is a fun-filled adventure that works for short attention spans: in short, it's a children's movie.
*Phillips, Michael. "Digitally Pumped up, The Hobbit is a So-So Trip." The Chicago Tribune. 12.13.12.
