Just seen it. Admittedly I thought it was something from a couple months back I’ve already seen. But this was all different. Good different…….? I’m not so sure. I’m a big Tolkien fan. Honestly it was the movies that got me into it. Realistically how many eight year olds dive into a book that big anyway. By big I mean The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is actually a pretty easy read. So when I saw the ad and decided that perhaps it was new and deserved two minutes of my time, it’s fair to say I was still somewhat excited (even if it was the old trailer). Afterwards I had mixed emotions. On the whole it looks more of the same from last year, which in general was “Well that is a fun,not-too-ridiculous adaption of a good Tolkien novel”. That being said the movie last year got away with a lot of stuff that fans were happy to brush over in favour of seeing big screen versions of their favourite books. But with the series already coming under heavy criticism for running into three monumental sized pieces, this time the producers could be less lucky.
Even from the first few seconds the massive excitement comes from hearing Martin Freeman coolly act out more of the lines of Bilbo Baggins. Playing the lead in the series, Freeman made much of the first movie better than it probably was. He’s got a certain connection to his character that makes Ian Mckellen seem to be in two places at once. But the excitement soon starts drowning in a couple of “really…..that?”. The first big thing the movie could flop in is TOO MUCH ELVES. My god, anybody who reads the book is like “why is Legolas here?” Granted the choice isn’t too farfetched with the storyline and serves to bring in more fans, but the fact that he features so much in even two minutes has me worried. There seems to be a lot of elves fighting orcs, elves discussing the plot, and elves in love interests with elves. I’m all for examining more of Tolkien’s favourite characters, but at the moment it looks like it could venture over the top. Evangeline Lily is a fairly talented actress. She was quite convincing as Kate in Lost. But having her in there as a token just seems like the movie is lowering its standards so the masses have something to jump in for. Some may say Arwen had a similar makeover for LOTR, moving up from her (I think) two lines in the book to having significant screen time. Even so, at least she was an original character, not just some idle flick of a film maker’s wand hoping to cast a female friendly aura over Tolkien’s work. An adaption shouldn’t have to dot hat. Take what’s there or go elsewhere.
The same applies for the evidence of a ridiculous amount of fight scenes. When this franchise stretched into three bits, I knew Peter Jackson was gonna have to invent a large amount of unscripted action just to keep us entertained. I was right. The whole thing seems to be full of orcs grappling with elves or dwarves escaping in arrow ridden barrels. Seriously, it takes from the plot to have it dumbed down to nothing more than a middle earth die hard.
The only extra that seems completely justifiable is the inclusion of the appendices reference to the necromancer. If Jackson wanted to help keep this tying up well to LOTR, he was right to throw this in. With like nine hours of film, why not? It happened and it’s a nice addition for real enthusiasts. Gandalf has delivered in all four films so far so having more of him may help move the whole thing along much smoother.
The section with the spiders looks like it could be well done, and the part at the lonely mountain seems worthwhile. I’ll be interested to see where they cut off and how Jackson delivers in his last installment. Until then, I’ll tell the purely fan side of me to shut up and enjoy the fact that a great story like this has come to light in such a way that a movie is there at all. An adaption can succeed in change if the change turns out good. In fact, without Jackson and all his little twitches of the tale, would I even be here at all as a massive fan?