Alright, so here comes the novel! Review from me. Loads of spoilers, don't read if you don't want to. Also, this is in response to a few reviews from LOTR Plaza. I just copied over here for you guys
I find many of the reviews in here quite odd, especially the ones that say the tone is not light enough (too much like LOTR), but yet they don't like the cartoony scenes, or the unbelievable battle ratios, or the fall down Goblin Town then living is a miracle. It seems like an oxymoron to me.
I saw the movie opening night in IMAX 3D HFR. I hated it. I went in e xp ecting MORE LOTR. I was utterly disappointed and I practically started crying because I wanted to love it and I didn't. That night I came out feeling the entire movie was a joke and I was going to hate PJ forever. I felt the dialog was corny. I felt the battle scenes were too fake (being outnumbered ect). I felt it looked fake. I hated it.
Then between Friday and yesterday I re-read chapters 1-6 of the book. It was only then that I realized how true they actually stayed to the book compared to the last movies. And then I realized the tone is actually a million times more goofy in the movie because that is how it is in the book! So I can't understand the people complaining about it being too serious, but then complaining about the goofiness.
So I saw it again last night. Regular 2D 24FPS. I came out laughing in tears, jumping for joy, and loving almost every moment of it. Below is my detailed review. I am not going to recap seeing that others have done so, but I am going to make my specific compliments and issues with the scenes.
The Meta Story:
I really like that older Bilbo is narrating this part of the story. I always wondered how they would add in that narrator from the book and using Bilbo's conscience while writing his book definitely fit nicely. What I wasn't too keen on was the performances of both Ian Holm and Elijah Wood in their scene together. I felt it was slightly forced and didn't fit perfectly in with FOTR, but then again that was a decade ago, so I give them props for getting into it as much as they did. The lightness of the movie hits you in the face as early as this first scene when Frodo picks up an old sketch of young Bilbo and Bilbo smacks his hand and says, "Get your sticky paws off that!" Even to further the tie in with FOTR and adding more comic relief is Frodo telling Bilbo that he is "unsocial" and then Bilbo says, "No I am not" and then hands Frodo the "No Admittance" sign to hang on the front gate.
I absolutely love the take on Erebor and Dale. The cities were constructed to give a clearly different "culture" from anything we have seen in LOTR. I would like to quote a review above: "A strange choice is however made, in depicting Thrór (son of Dáin I) as becoming a bit mad. In his narration Bilbo even links this with the coming of the dragon, as some sort of evil attracting evil device. Although not a terrible change in itself, I simply do not see why the need was felt to come up with such an odd story. Probably it comes from the fact that in the book it is stated that the wealth was probably what attracted the dragon, and the makers inferred from this some denunciation of greed, but on the whole it just seems odd." I feel this is exactly what was said in the movie. Yes, they throw in the overtone that greed is bad, but the movie specifically shows that it was his vast gold hording and boasting of his wealth that caused Smaug to come and take a look. I liked that Thorin was in the mountain when Smaug came in. I always felt him just watching from afar was a bit anti-dramatic, but then again Tolkien is known for that (AKA Bilbo just sinking away in the BOFA).
I quite like the addition of the Elves here. Why? Because even though I have read all of Tolkien's works multiple times, I still don't feel like there is sufficient reason for ALL dwarves to hate elves as described in his later works. I like that they are straight up showing Thran's utter snooty little prissness. When I read the Hobbit, this is exactly how I envisioned him. A snooty king who thinks he is better than everyone else for no apparent reason. He locks everyone up for no real reason other than to hinder them. So yes, this is an addition. Not a fully necessary one, but since there is NEVER going to be a chance to e xp lain Tolkien's reasons for that racism in another film, this finally helps put to rest why in most movie goers minds. Who cares if he is riding a giant stag? Is it written in the book? No. Is it written in the book another way clearly? No. He is kingly. He has powers. He really is the Elf King of the Woods so why not have him riding one of the most majestic creatures in nature?
An Une xp ected Party:
Re-re-reading this part of the book today, I particularly liked how spot on they were with the dialog from the book. Is it perfect? NO. Should it be? Debatable, but I say no. Why? How many decades has it been since the book was written? How many people talk exactly like that besides old, grumpy professors at Cambridge or Oxford? I felt the dialog was a perfect mix of staying literally spot on with the book, while updating a few and I really mean only a few lines to speed up that part of the book. It is an interesting note on what Tolkien actually spent his time writing about in the Hobbit. That dialog takes a large part of the book just over 2 pages, considering that most other dialog is only a few lines. Should Bilbo have invited Gandalf to tea the next day? I don't really see why they didn't do that like the book, but then again they are redefining Bilbo, and I think for the better. Redefining? Yes, Bilbo in the movie is more of a humble, une xp ected hero; and not a squirrely little person, running around without a cause like the book describes him. Now, why was that change made? Why did Tolkien write him that way? We all know the Hobbit was written as a story, a bedtime story for Tolkien's children. Bilbo was short, polite, non-violent (most the time), and usually scared. In the books, he embodies a child. When you read, or are read the Hobbit, children will become Bilbo and go on this amazing journey seeing scary things, sad things, happy things, all while keeping their manners. In the movie, they have given Bilbo more purpose, more courage and I think it makes him a stronger deeper character, but at all times his is still a humble Baggins.
Introduction of the dwarves. I like that the first four dwarves arrive in the order that is given in the book. I still feel the same the second time around as I did the first time that I think the dwarves were made out to be too rude. Barging in une xp ected is fine, but it was too much for me when Kili walks in and starts cleaning his boots on one of Bilbo's drawers. I know these are "wilderness" living people for the most part with rough edges, but I don't think they would say, "At your service" and then go around intentionally ruining things. Again, on the note that they are redefining Bilbo, they have made him less of a little bee-atch and he stands up for himself (and his pantry), but I felt the balance was struck when he never yelled, but always simply asked in a low voice. After the first four dwarves are let in, the other eight all fall through the door with Gandalf behind and they wait for Thorin. Okay, many people including "purists" complained that it took too long to leave the Shire. Do we really need to see the dwarves come in 2-3 at a time? We got the vibe from the first four, I don't feel the need to do it EXACTLY like the book from there. Doing it this way also helps a movie audience get introduced to only a few characters at a time deeply. Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, and Thorin are the main five dwarves who get dialog in the movie. Bofur gets a few lines as well and he is more specifically introduced later. See following the book to the "T" in this case could make audiences nervous that they somehow have to remember all the introductions and all the names. I liked that Thorin came in after the main party, giving him a darker, more serious dwarfness. The other dwarves are partiers and more set on adventure and gold. Though Thorin's love for gold is not unknown, we can all agree that it is sheer pride of his people and what he thinks is "rightfully" theirs that drives him. Having Thorin introduced away from the other bumbling (in movie and book) dwarves is better for this reason. The absolute best part about the scene is the "Blunt the Knives" and "Far Over" songs. Do I hate PJ? Yes! Those songs just were NOT long enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On the note that other reviewers made about why Thorin went to see Dain ect: I feel like this is a nice addition. The first time I read the Hobbit, I was like "Woah, who the heck is this Dain guy, and where did he come from?" Having Thorin inform Dain of his plans before the quest makes it more believable that the dwarf army would be at their beck and call later when Erebor is reclaimed.
Continuing on with the contract and Bilbo running out his door. I felt the contract as well as the way it was handled was perfect. Another great example of how this story is so much more "light" than LOTR. You have Bofur specifically introduced and he picks on Bilbo about the different ways to die on the quest and so Bilbo faints. Classic. When Bilbo feels better we have a nice talk between Gandalf and him where a specific line in the movie is KEY to understanding why I now love this movie. Gandalf tells the story of Bullroarer practically word for word from the narrator in the book and Bilbo replies with, "I think you made some of that up." Gandalf replies, "All good stories deserve a little embellishment." WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT?!?!? PJ said that the Hobbit was easier to make specifically because there was such vague text and little dialog. These movies are specifically Bilbo's account of the situation. It is not third person omniscient, all-seeing, divine, god seeing everything as reality. This is a bedtime story, a "Jack and the Beanstock" over-the-top story. The story where you caught a fish this________________________big when it was really only this________big. So keep in mind a "huge monsterous Goblin King" is really as much of that description as you can imagine. Same thing with the trolls. And the scariest (IMO) would be the wargs, monstrous beasts that just tear everything apart. The most imagined images of those characters are what is shown in the movie.
I also like Bilbo's departure better. It not only speeds up the process of going from Bag End to the pub, then on the journey, but it also again re-defines Bilbo to make his own decisions. Bilbo is a grown adult (a little sheepish), but a grown adult, not a child.
Interlude: the War of Dwarves and Orcs:
As they make camp for the night we have Balin tell the story of the battle of Azanulbizar. The battle was all in all good. As a swordsman, I was quite disappointed about not actually "seeing" sword/axe play. The battle was more of a mosh-pit of characters tackling each other it seemed, but I am going to focus on that the third time I see it. I really like how Thorin gets his Oakenshield. It really makes the term much more epic rather than just having a shield made of oak. The major change of keeping Azog as the antagonist rather than his son Bolg again is done for theatrical reasons. Having the orc that kills Thorin's grandfather right in front of him and capturing his father gives a much more dramatic plot based on vendetta rather than chance. I guess it changes the dynamic a bit because the vendetta was more so Bolg against Thorin in the books, where the movie is a vendetta from Thorin to Azog. You either love it or you hate it. I personally am fairly indifferent with a slight lean to liking it because I do feel it adds another layer to the complex onion Thorin is. I like Thrór being killed right in front of Thorin and I am glad the film makers didn't shy away from the decapitation being shown. What do I think about having Azog as fire at the companies heels? The book reads similar to Homer's Odyssey, where the company just randomly steps into a bunch of completely different, unrelated bad situations. Having Azog on their heels tightens the story to have a more linear plot line. Is it simpler? Yes and no. Yes because it ties everything together. No, because you do have more battle ect. Yes, there is added battle. Yes, this is Hollywood. Do I think it is overly done? Honestly, not really. For those who are absolute set on Tolkien's work, it is probably too much, but I have seen much more be done in much less time in other movies when speaking of "action" and "battle."
Roast Mutton:
I like the reason why Bilbo has to even be around the trolls in the movie. In the book, I felt like the actions taken were just careless and again, being a children's story, is a lesson teacher (don't go meddling or pick pocketing). In the movie, Bilbo HAS to go around the trolls to save the ponies from being eaten. I felt that the trolls themselves were just as dumb and I imagined. Their entire dialog was great. As Bilbo pick-pockets, he is grabbed and sneezed on. Yes, I could have done without a booger covered Bilbo, but the fact that so many people are complaining how gross it was means that it served its purpose. I also liked the short battle with the trolls/dwarves. Every battle sequence shows (if you have a quick eye) how much of "brotherhood" these dwarves share. They work off each other and use their strengths together. The one thing that should be changed is the trolls grab Bilbo and threaten to tear him apart, the dwarves drop their weapons and then are bagged. I think one of the trolls should have just started bagging them during the fight. I feel that choice shows the trolls are smarter than they should be to threaten/negotiate a surrender from Thorin's company. That is the only change I do not care for in this sequence. I did like that they gave the buying time until daylight dialog to Bilbo. Again, this gives him more worth than just a bystander. Also, it was great when Gandalf cracks the rock open to shine sunlight on the trolls rather than the sun just rising because that leaves the question, "What level of sunlight will turn them to stone?" This way, BOOM! direct sunlight=dead. The trolls' hoard was a great scene. Finding of Orcrist, Glamdring, and sting perfect. The only thing not well done was that the swords are magically all clean 3 seconds after Gandalf finds Sting and then walks out of the cave. Oh, well. Hopefully the EE will add just a few moments in their that could at least allow the time for the cleaning of the swords.
Interlude- Radagast:
I freaking love Radagast in this movie. Maybe because I am an environmental, electrical engineer. Maybe because I love animals. Maybe I am biased because I relate. I love the acting, the dialog, the hedgehog sequence. It shows his power, his love, his awesomeness. The five wizards are all different in their own ways (except for the blue which not even Tolkien knew about
Radagast is the cat lady down the street. Middle Earth needed a cat lady. Everyone has one in their neighborhood so why not in Middle Earth? In comes the infamous bunny sled. So many people are hating on the bunny sled. Is it scientifically implausible? Yes, but so are fire breathing dragons and magical wizards.
Interlude- Dol Guldor:
Okay so Radagast going to Dol Guldor. Hmm, not really anything from Tolkien. But we have to keep in mind the amount of material written to e xp lain Sauron. We have Sauron really in all three time periods written by Tolkien. His history goes back millenniums. So how do we do this in movie form? In only a few minutes? I really do think this was the BEST way to do it. Is it perfect? Is it my first choice? No and no, but there I really do think this is the optimal way to do it. People complain about how Radagast can see the Witchking in twilight form. I personally like it because he hasn't taken "physical" form cloaked in black. Some hate the Morgul blade. Again, it is about symbolism. Tolkien, a genius, used an older way to tell stories. Written as a history or bedtime story, it was always "what you read is what you get." The blade is a SYMBOL. Symbolism used much more in modern writing and story telling to specifically engage reader thought and logic connection rather than just straight out telling them as a history. This is where I feel the blade is okay within this story. So here is where something is interesting. Many were complaining about how they would fit Gandalf going to Dol Guldor as seen in the trailers. Although he may go there later, it looks like Radagast took that place. What is the main plot of this story? Thorin & Co., Bilbo, and Gandalf go to take back Erebor. So to take Gandalf out of that plot, make him go all the way to Mirkwood and back was pretty ridiculous. Solution: Let Radagast do it and then take his fast bunny sled to Gandalf. It works.
A Short Rest:
"Although I titled this part after the chapter in the book, it does not provide the same e xp erience at all." I disagree with this statement. Why? Because in the movie, it really was a SHORT rest. One night after getting chased from Orcs and Wargs. So, is this faster paced than the book and does it work? I feel that it does. Why? It gives them a feel of urgency. Maybe I am a product of my generation, but I like the idea of them being chased into a place that Thorin simply doesn't want to go (because he hates elves) rather than just walking in. I like seeing Elrond not only in armor like the warrior he is but also much less doom and gloom than LOTR. I believe he actually smiles! I absolutely love the diet choices of the elves. It seems to me that they are vegetarian or vegan (my personal life choice) and this not only further proves why they are immortal ;p but also how different their culture is from the dwarves. The history of Glamdring and Orcrist is just like the book and the little moment between Balin and Bilbo is touching as well as funny. It was awesome to see Rivendell again. We get some more humor with rowdy dwarves trying to fire roast swiss chard and Bombur's fat self breaking a table. More humor that I hated the first time, but felt the tone of the Hobbit the second and loved.
I actually quite enjoyed the reading of the Moon Letters on the map. I was skeptical of the magic crystal table that allows the letters to be seen from the trailers, but I feel (scientifically) that a more concentrated dose of moonlight can only help reading not necessarily be dependent on the table. It was also another scene to show Thorin's distrust of elves as well as a bit more history. Elrond then introduces the "some who would not deem it wise" which leads us the the White Council.
The White Council, or at least of Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and Gandalf. "What is nicely done here is the portrayal of Saruman as trying to discourage the council from action, showing the dynamics that were at play here already." Absolutely agree with this other reviewer. Chris Lee is a true Tolkien Purist. He played that fine line between going evil and good perfectly. Genius is all I can say about that!
"A bit odd is that Gandalf already makes a face to Elrond when he hears that Saruman is there, which doesn't make sense since here he should still be on good terms with him." See I quite love this. Why? Yes, Gandalf and Saruman are still on good terms, but the look was not of fear for life, but more like "Ugh, I can't stand being around this guy who constantly lectures me." It was almost as if Gandalf was the son who had done something wrong and Saruman was the scolding father. I love it! It further puts into perspective that Gandalf is NOT the head of the council (yet) and he does have to listen to his "elders." I agree that Gandalf needing "permission" from the council for the quest is a little outside the box, but I don't feel like this is a driving theme so I can let it slide. The Morgul Blade makes another entrance, and a made up part of the Witchking's tomb comes in. Alright, not Tolkien agreed. But Tolkien did call Sauron the "Necromancer" so why not make a specific reference to him bringing the most powerful human ring bearer from the grave? It works for me. I don't find it distracting.
I quite like the scene between Gandalf and Galadriel alone. It is touching, tender, and really shows thousands of years of friendship between these two immortals. Both Cate and Ian's performances were astounding, but were any of us e xp ecting less?
Over Hill and Under Hill:
Stone Giants: In the book, described for a couple lines. In the movie, a fun way to throw our characters into more danger. Was this section overdone? Yes, I admit. I was fine until the company was actually on the legs of one of the giants. Some complain about the complete unbelievableness of half the company being not squished as the giant fell, but again this is "embellished." I just felt that it seemed like a ride at a theme park rather than a scene in Middle Earth, but compared to the whole movie, this sequence is short (thank Eru).
When they hide in the cave, I like that they tried to make Bilbo leave. Why? His dialog with Bofur sets up later actions and dialog. Also, I feel that it is NOT too unbelievable that Bilbo would want to leave because Rivendell is only right behind them. Thorin being an arrogant meany-head of course upsets Bilbo and his purpose on the quest so I see no problem with this sequence. Sting glowing was a nice touch to start the Goblin Town sequence. I liked the idea about the ground opening beneath them, but I think the stones looked fake, clearly a trap door (maybe that was the goal?) Goblin Town as a whole was beautifully ugly. The design of the Goblin Town goblins threw me off the first time I saw them, but I realized that just as dwarf/elf/man looks are different per region so can goblins. I liked everything about the Great Goblin in terms of design. The only thing that bothered me about him was the octave (highness) of his voice. For such a large creature, I felt as if he should have been more ominous and typical bad guy in tall tales like the Hobbit. I quite like that Azog put a price on Thorin’s head. It gives some more suspense to the story. The one dialog I felt was too “staged” was when the Great Goblin speaks about Orcrist and Glamdring. I believe he should have just called them “biter” and “beater” not by their elvish names. Why? I still hold to the idea that “biter” and “beater” were the “slang” names given to those swords by goblins, so that should be the ONLY thing they call the swords. Other that the scene was funny and light.
Gandalf jumps in and saves the day with a giant booooommaaaawooooohhaaaa light flash and the fighting starts. I complained the first time I saw the movie about how the battle looked fake, but I now attribute that to IMAX 3D 48FPS. Of course, as mentioned before the entire sequence is “embellished.” Thirteen dwarves and a wizard against thousands of goblins… As Han Solo would say, “Never tell me the odds.” The entire sequence felt “Hobbity” and not nearly as doom and gloom scary as Moria. We have more embellishment with the distance the company falls, then is crushed by the dead Great Goblin, and survives to get up and dust themselves off (moral: what do we do when we fall? Pick ourselves up.) Very Hobbity indeed.
Riddles in the Dark:
I would have to say that this is probably my favorite scene. I agree with many others on this and the fact that they stayed 99% accurate makes me happy as well. The only changes to the story were three subtractions and two additions. The three subtractions were directly cut from two more rounds of the riddles game. This is understandable. We don’t need to see a ten minute game of riddles. I would have liked them to use the Sunlight on Daisies riddle instead of that last one, but that is just personal preference. We may see more in the EE. The first of the two additions is Gollum’s schizophrenia. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, Gollum was just a creature in the dark, tormented and mostly evil. Of course, as Tolkien e xp anded his universe as well as Gollum, he wrote about his slight mental condition. Given that this condition wouldn’t just be something he grew in 60 years after hundreds of years living, PJ added in some dialog between Gollum and well… himself. It fit perfectly in both tone and plot. The other addition is the goblin that falls down the shaft with Bilbo and Gollum drags the goblin away to eat it. It makes the audience see how truly pathetic Gollum is, forced to eat goblin. But yet, you see his cruelty as he whacks the head of it in with a rock. Of course, during this beating, the Ring “jumps” from Gollum’s pocket and falls to the ground. The one thing I would have liked better is if the Ring would have bounced off the rock into the sand, just like it did in the flash back of FOTR. I think they should have recreated that scene to the “T” just for continuity. For all we know though PJ may pull a George Lucas and re-release LOTR with Martin Freeman as young Bilbo!
I am assuming you have all seen it, so I can easily say that Bilbo’s escape is spot on with the book other than him losing his buttons in Gollum’s cave rather than at the exit of Goblin Town. I liked the creative liberty they took with Bilbo staying his hand with his sword at Gollum’s neck. "True courage is not about knowing when to take a life... but when to spare one."
After Bilbo escapes he catches up the company and here is one of the results of redefining Bilbo: his statement as to why he wishes to help reclaim Erebor. I think it is a change for the better. Again, this Bilbo is not a lost puppy. Humble he may be, but purpose is within him. I like his character arc better because of it.
Out of the Frying-Pan Into the Fire:
No, there are NOT talking wolves in the movie. I personally think for the better. This is that fine line of semi-serious and fairy tale story telling. They leaned toward the semi-serious route for the wargs. I like the warg design better than the Rohan wargs in TTT. So here the addition of Azog and his cronies make up the lack of dialog from the wolves and I like it better. Gandalf’s fireballs were more realistic with him flaming on pine cones rather than just conjuring fireballs.
The addition of the standoff between Azog and Thorin is an interesting mixture of ridiculous but also very Tolkien. One of the forum members pointed out that Tolkien didn’t always write the most dramatic or e xp ected situations (I.E. Gollum literally just falling off the edge of Mount Doom.) This sequence in the movie felt like that. We see this great Dwarf King running to meet his arch enemy in battle and he straight up gets his butt kicked to the curb immediately. Then the last moment added to the story all stems from that new definition we now have of Bilbo. Right before Thorin gets his head cut off, Bilbo goes bat-crap crazy and stabs an orc like Arya from Game of Thrones did to the Tickler, saving Thorin. Then we have a tiny (maybe 1-2 minute) battle with a few of the dwarves that could get off the tree and who are the first two in battle? None other than Thorin’s own kin, Fili and Kili were there to help Bilbo.
I know many purists do not like the Gandalf to Eagle telephone system (moths), but it is more believable to say that Gandalf summoned them rather than them just showing up at exactly the right moment.
Of course this Bilbo saving the day changes Thorin and Bilbo’s relationship earlier than in the book, but come on, you all know that will make that rift in the third movie so much harder for us to watch!
Conclusion:
I loved being back in Middle Earth (who wouldn’t?) The overall plot was there, it was clear, and I didn’t mind that it was linearly driven by an added orc character. Unlike some, I feel the movie is very “Hobbity.” We have moments of unbelievable actions, hilarious situations in the forms of small chuckles to literally laughing out loud. I felt brotherhood through the entire film. Many have mentioned they don’t feel brotherhood and that “we can get through anything together” tone. Maybe that was because there were very few mushy Band of Brothers group talks? I felt the brotherhood spilling out throughout the action sequences. And ask most who has seen battle and they will tell you that is when you need it most. I like the fact that there is a more clear reason why the dwarves hate the elves so much. I don’t see a problem at all with how much of a D-Bag Thranduil is being portrayed, maybe because that is how I read him in the book. I feel many are getting defensive about Thran because there is just something about elves that people love, but man was he a jerk in the book and I am certainly not sad they are capitalizing on that.
The casting as a whole would be the strongest part of the entire film. I won’t say anything about returning veterans because we all know how awesome they are. Martin Freeman is the embodiment of Hobbit. He is Bilbo. Just as strongly as Ian Holm was Bilbo, I am now blurring Freeman and Holm together as the same person: Bilbo. There is no way to fully e xp lain how well it fits, but you know as soon as he gets hit in the face with Gandalf’s smoke butterfly. Armitage brought not only the clearly book described cockiness of Thorin perfectly to the table, but he dug deep into his emotional pantry and served us a good side of sadness and despair that focuses the audience on how important this quest is to the dwarves. I think Balin may be my favorite dwarf (as of now). Both in writing and in acting that character is beautifully executed. Dwalin is the new baddy on the streets. You know playing him on a video game would be awesome! Kili and Fili are written immature to further the idea of their “youth.” Bofur was a pleasant surprise in dialog as well. Not many other characters were focused on so we shall have to wait to make a decision on those.
Now, comes the long dark period of hustling for extra cash to buy all the awesome Hobbit replicas ect. Darn it (for my wallet) that I loved it so much my second time around!
P.S. Sorry if there are any grammar errors. I couldn’t convince my English teaching wife to proof read a 9 page review on the Hobbit!
:th