I think I like this movie more than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Having not read any of the books, I can't say why for sure but I can speculate.
I guess that when you spread one book over three movies (instead of three books over three movies), the material is allowed to "breath". You can handle things more slowly and naturally. The beginning of the first Lord of the Rings movie feels jarring - they setup multiple characters, races, histories all at once and then things move seemingly very fast (and perhaps seemingly at random). The beginning of this movie only needs to setup a few characters and a few flashbacks to history to get going. It's much easier to get into. As a fantasy movie, it feels less of a "list of scenes that we need to cover" and edges closer to "Alice in Wonderland" or "The Wizard of Oz".
I also think that Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is easier to like than Elijah Wood. The group of dwarves that he accompanies are also much more fun than "the fellowship". It follows, then, that the action sequences work more because you care about the characters involved.
It also helps that this movie can start at the beginning. The LOTR trilogy didn't have that. It, again, feels simpler and easier to follow. Perhaps if this movie had been released first, I would have enjoyed LOTR more.
I've spoken before in my review of "Harry Potter and the Something Something" about how dangerous magic is in movies. I'll repeat myself slightly here because it most definitely applies. The magic in this movie has no logic. Perhaps it's explained in the books, I don't know. But I do know that one scene begins with Gandalf creating a huge explosion of white light and knocking out hundreds of enemies in all directions and then a few minutes later, he's trying to fight off a single attacker with a sword. How does that work? If you can use magic in one instance, what happened in the next? In fact, when ever ANYTHING bad happens in the movie, I'm wondering why magic isn't used. Seems pretty straightforward. Similarly, if a character has just been pushed off a giant cliff and is hurtling toward the ground and a giant eagle appears from nowhere to pick him up, what does that mean for all future "whatever will they do" predicaments? It's extremely hard to worry about the outcome of any dramatic situation when you've already seen how magic can just swoop in out of nowhere and save the day.
Given that we know everything will always turn out fine thanks to magic, I can only guess that it'll be very hard to really be worried by anything in the series to come. But this is enjoyable, imaginative and colorful entertainment. I enjoyed it.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 371.
As someone who has religiously read the LotR books, the Hobbit, the bible-esque Silmarillian, Lost Tales, and so on... I find myself in the opposite camp. The Hobbit barely resembles the source material save for a few scenes which seem almost out of place, where as the Lord of the Rings seems much more on spec.
ReplyDeleteThat said, without going into a fanboy rant about the many reasons Gandalf doesn't just kamehameha fireball everyone in sight all the time, there are reasons. It's not something you can easily cook into a 2 or 3 hour movie and do justice, so instead though I think they just have him be more sparing in his use of magic.