Ok, here goes.
I'll do an amalgam of how reviews here have gone so far, basically reviewing the movie as a whole, as well as its many components. I'll do it chronologically as it happens in the story, but I may jump around a bit so bear with me. I will reference some of what you guys have said because, well... you said it first and because it will echo my sentiment in many places, it's easier to just point out my agreement or disagreement with previous words. So, if it sounds like you heard it before, you probably read it or wrote it yourself.
The techonology: against my better judgment, I opted to watch the movie for the first time in UltraAVX 3D 48fps. Why? It seems pointless to criticize PJ's decision without taking a look at it first, and I have a confession to make on top of that: for over a year now, I've had my HDTV set to TruMotion anyway, basically watching shows and Blurays with higher clarity than most, in what is called by some the "soap opera effect." To be honest, it took some getting used to, but after a while, I've never gone back and my tv remains set that way. Why did we embrace these tvs and media formats anyway if not for increased sharpness and reality? Oh, I know there are arguments made for how film 'should' look, and that grain is sometimes needed in an image, but as we move forward and filmmakers learn to adjust their techniques to keep pace with technology, things just keep looking better and better, and I don't see that as a bad thing.
Now onto the Hobbit. Because I was already mostly immune to how it would look, it didn't bother me in the least. The new frame rate was fine, what can I say? I hesitate to say that some setting must've been off in other people's viewings when they mentioned that people or things moved too fast, but far too many have complained of that for it to not actually be normal for this movie. However, and to be perfectly honest, I never noticed. The speed was just fine. In fact, it was more than fine, it was normal. The clarity and sharpness was also perfectly ok, the only downside being that it made the CGI, of which there is an overabundance (more on that later,) become all too obvious and fake. As for the 3D, someone said it added almost nothing to this movie, and there I must agree. They could have easily dispensed with it altogether. I've always considered it an unnecessary gimmick, and The Hobbit in 3D more than proved that. Were there some scenes were it proved a boon and it really enhanced things, like the eagles' flight and the vast panoramas of Middle-earth? Certainly. Was it needed or did it add anything to the other 99% of the movie. Not really.
The CGI: We're back in Middle-earth, and it seems to have been taken over by a whole new race: the CGIsters. Let's start off by saying that I completely understand why it is necessary. You can't realize a movie with that kind of vision and scope without reliance on pulling off with computers what is simply impossible or cost-prohibitive to do in real life. Having said that, not only could more judicious use of CGI have been used, it seems to be one piece of tech that isn't quite able to fool the viewer's eye yet. If we're going to have to accept movies in 48fps as the future norm, then the CGI either needs to improve to the point where it becomes seamless with the settings and actors, or the director needs to cut back a little and not ruin the e xp erience by pulling us out of it so often. A perfect example of this was Azog and his white warg. While his other orcs and wargs were more than passable in the action scenes they were in, there was simply too much focus and screentime given to Azog and his pet for him to look the way he did. In LOTR, Lurtz was perfectly and believably played by an actor in a mask and suit. Why couldn't that have been done this time? You can't give that much time and importance to an onscreen character that isn't part of a cartoon movie and then e xp ect the audience to accept it as much as the live actors because he just looked too fake. I suppose there was no help for the warg; it and the others looked as convincing as they could, but Azog was a bit too much to take.
For examples of where the CGI worked and was pretty much flawless, we have Gollum, and the stone trolls. Even the Great Goblin, difficult to portray as described without some form of CGI, was acceptable. However, this overreliance on computers is becoming too easy of a way out for filmmakers, and there is a real danger is disconnecting your audience from what they are seeing when it is painfully obvious (and clear at 48fps) that the hand is NOT faster than the eye.
Old Bilbo and Frodo: I gotta say it was great to see these two onscreen again. If the feeling of nostalgia is already large coming into this movie, seeing these scenes and their obvious connection to the start of FOTR really brings those feelings home. You're back in Middle-earth, and it feels darn good, like you never left. The minor quibble here is, and I believe it i was unavoidable until better can be done, but Olorin got it right when he said that old Bilbo looked too waxy and the computer effect used to make Ian Holm look younger delivered us a hobbit that was definitely not the same as we saw in the original movies. I'm positive he had way less wrinkles this time around.
Dale, Erebor, and Smaug: Loved the look of most it. The Lonely Mountain was suitably majestic, and the dwarven kingdom within exceeded my imagination in how it was portrayed. Dale was not so overwhelming for me because I still feel it should have had more of a 'northern' feel to it than the particular cultural type they went for. It was supposed to be different than Gondor, but it still reminded me too much of it, and the people could have easily passed for those of the far-off southern kingdom. Tolkien was very specific about the differing looks of the peoples and cultures of Middle-earth, and the Dalesmen and Lakemen of the north were as separate in racial stock from the men of Gondor as the Rohirrim from the latter. Minor nitpick, however. It has been mentioned also that Thror's depiction is not altogether worthy of redemption. I had to e xp lain to my wife that what caused Thror's greed to grow out of control was the fact that he was wearing one of the Seven Dwarven Rings of Power. Unlike the Nine, they did not have the effect that Sauron intended, only serving to increase tenfold the natural avaricious tendencies already present within dwarves. Thror succumbed to its power, and that reckless accumulation of wealth eventually brought the dragon down upon his head. I don't think it would have hurt the story any, only enhanced it, if this fact had been mentioned, but it was left out for some mysterious reason. Perhaps PJ did not want to overcomplicate things, but this would have been a nice nod to LOTR's prologue, and a bonus for the knowing fans. The end result was that Thror came out looking like an unsympathetic character that evokes little pity when Azog finishes him off.
War of the Dwarves and Orcs: This pretty much sets up the story to come for the uninitiated, and for the most part, it is fine. The timeline is severely compressed and I rue the omission of Dain at the battle because, although he is introduced verbally a litte later on, seeing him make a cameo now would have better served his intervention in the final set of events in this tale. Another divisive issue has been the setup of Azog as the recurring villain and mastermind that hounds Thorin for the better part of his life. I wasn't sure how to feel about this as the movie unfolded, but when it was over, I have to agree with most in that I saw little logic to it, other than PJ's desire to have only one identifiable major villain for the entirety of the story, until we get to Smaug, that is. As the feud gets passed down from Thror to Thorin, I saw no reason why they could not have stuck to what Tolkien wrote and passed the torch from Azog to Bolg. In fact, and though we briefly got a glimpse of Bolg in that battle, I wonder what his importance and relevance will be to the final story since it seems like everything is leading to a major confrontation between Thorin and Azog at the end. Why even bother with Bolg then? The other half of this is the revelation that everything bad that is happening to the party on their journey is being orchestrated by Azog. Again, I see the purpose as it relates to film technique in having an adversarial menace on your tail, rather than a series of seemingly disconnect random obstacles, but I must say I prefer the latter. Like Bilbo said, he is going on an adventure, which, by its very definition, includes surprises, randomness, and the une xp ected. This is what holds so much charm for me in the novel: the main obstacle of adventure is Smaug. The path to him is not easy, but it is a series of challenges, interesting on their own, each and every one of them, and I did not see the need to be told or shown that there was a master plan at work, pulling all these strings behind the scenes. It actually took some of the magic away for me. If, in the second movie, we see Azog hold some secret council with the Necromancer, connecting the two and further complicating this web of puppet-masters, then I will know for certain that PJ took it way too far.
The Une xp ected Party, and Thorin & Co.: Loved it, loved it, loved it. The Shire, Freeman as Bilbo, Ian playing Gandalf the Grey again, Armitage as Thorin, and all the dwarves with their unique looks and identities, which I hope will shine more in the two movies to come. This part of the movie did not drag on at all for me, and I think they got all in there that they needed to except for something I pointed out in an earlier post: when Gandalf gives the map and key to Thorin, there should have been a flashback with Gandalf going into Dol Guldur and finding Thrain, obtaining these two things from him before the maddened dwarf dies. The exclusion of this golden opportunity and the fact that we have seen teaser scenes with Gandalf in Dol Guldur fighting what appears to be a dwarf make me fear that PJ possibly not only altered this event from what was written, but also thinks he found a better place to put it. Even worse, it is an event which will occur in 'real time,' concurrent with the events of the story. This departure will be tough to swallow if it happens.
Trolls and Rivendell: I had a lot of misgivings about how the scene with the trolls would be handled, but aside from being a bit overly long, it was fine, snot et all. The changes from the original worked, Gandalf shared the glory with Bilbo, necessary for the development of our burglar throughout the film, and the discovery of the swords in the cave was spot on. My one pick for a glaring error with the sword scene was this: Gandalf makes a generalized statement when he gives Sting to Bilbo, saying that because it is a blade of elvish make, it will glow blue when orcs are near. Well, sorry Gandy, but so are Glamdring and Orcrist, as e xp lictly stated by yourself and Elrond later on, but do they glow blue? Uh, no. Speaking of Sting though, I like the new glowing effect much better than the one in LOTR. The very metal itself now glows a beautiful shade of blue, rather than that filmy pale glow that we saw in the previous movies. Another instance where CGI was an improvement rather than a detriment.
Onwards to the orc/warg attack, and the elven rescue. I was very ok with this, didn't feel like it was filler, my only gripe being that it is the beginning of the connection to the Azog string-pulling (which actually begins a bit earlier at Weathertop, but whatever.) Seeing elves in action is always cool (except at places they would never be, like *cough Helm's Deep cough*,) and it was fitting in this instance because they did patrol the area around Imladris. Elrond seemed to know that Gandalf would be nearby, so it was fitting. I'm glad PJ refrained from having Arwen show up and perform the rescue a second time. So far, my barf bag remains clean. The rest of Rivendell, Lindir, Elrond, the rune-reading, sword examination: loved it all. Did you guys spot those shiny versions of the Elven Warrior Helms? Very cool!
Radagast: As a student of the Istari, I've always had a very soft and totally sentimental spot in my heart for the Brown Wizard. I figured pretty much that PJ would literally have to make him dress up in a Jar-Jar Binks suit for me not to like his portrayal. Well, rest easy fans of movie Radagast, for I am one of your number. Rhosgobel was just as I pictured it, the scenes showing his concern for the animals and plants were very touching, including his reviving of Sebastian the hedgehog. I nearly teared up when the little guy died. Was not bothered at all by the bird-poop or his absent-mindeness. It all works and was very much in keeping with a being who had lost focus of his overall mission, becoming so enamoured instead of the defenseless flora and fauna of Middle-earth that other concerns seem like a far away thing for him. Still, he retains enough presence of mind to go to Dol Guldur and to then warn Gandalf later. Though the trip to the fortress is a departure from history, it works here, and Radagast was oft cited as being a messenger for the Council anyway. That he was already in southern Mirkwood and thus extremely close to Dol Guldur helped to e xp lain the change. Bunny-sled? Too much? Perhaps. Did I care that it was there? Not at all. Did it fit the character as portrayed? Most certainly.
One minor aside on the Istari: on the road, when questioned, Gandalf says that his order numbers five. When mentioning the two blue wizards, he claims that he does not remember their names. I found this to be a disservice to Gandalf and his intelligence and wisdom. Considering the importance of what they were sent to do, and the enormity of their mission, there is simply no way that one of the Maiar would forget the names of two others of his own kind, sent to do the same thing he was. They were Alatar and Pallando and Gandalf would never forget that. Why were they not named in the movie? The simple answer is that these names appear only in Unfinished Tales and PJ did not have the rights to use them. However, to get around this, Gandalf could have simply mentioned them in passing like he did, leaving out the part about forgetting the names, then moving on to Saruman and Radagast as the two names that are important to this story. It makes Gandalf look stupid, and I did not like that at all, but that's the purist in me.
The White Council and Dol Guldur: This is where things went south for me, and the majority of the 10% of my dislike for this movie lies. Deimos said it best in his last post (and loosely quoted from PJ and crew themselves): when they stick to the story, it is masterful. When they take artistic license and start to invent crap, that's what you get: more crap. I'm not talking about the White Council itself, as I loved seeing those four together. Weaving, Ian, Lee, and Blanchett were superb as always, and Lee just stood out. I wasn't too keen on Gandalf's pained look when Saruman is both mentioned and appears, and even Elrond intimates that he shares some of that misgiving. Were they already suspicious that the White Wizard was up to something? They shouldn't have been at this point in time: he was the head of both the Istari and the White Council. Why be led by the counsel of someone you are so obviously uncomfortable with? It seemed that the reactions were not only disrespectful, but also out of sync with the timeline. Yes, we know that Saruman was already out for himself at the time, but the others had no inkling of this, and the audience didn't need to be hit over the head with a bat that said "See? we told you Saruman was bad and you'll thank us again when we kill him later!"
Then comes the complete and utter crap story about the Witch-king. Honestly, what were PJ and his writers thinking of with this drivel? Did they completely forget that the nature of the Nazgul had been firmly established in their first three movies and in the minds of fandom in general? Did they forget about the prophecy and Eowyn? What was this nonsense about a death, a burial, and a tomb? No, no, and no. Did I forget to say no? Made up dreck for no purpose other than to e xp lain the presence of the Morgul blade, the appearance of the Witch-king at Dol Guldur, and the inevitable connection to the Necromancer being Sauron. To top it all off, and what is scaring me the most in all this foolishness are all the signs and comments to the fact that this Necromancer does indeed have the power to raise the dead, and that we are going to see this at work at some point, completely breaking one of the most fundamental laws of Eru, Arda, and Tolkien's writings. What, may I ask, is so wrong with the established history (already reinforced by what PJ himself showed us in his own movies - duh!) that the Nine are immortal by virtue of their rings, not by some cheap fantasy novel spell that enables Sauron to bring them back to life over and over again, at will? The Witch-king did not die! Period! Therefore, he cannot be buried and then resurrected! We know from history that Khamul, the second of the Nine was in charge of Dol Guldur while Sauron hid there to regain power and search for the Ring. I can accept Khamul being changed to the Witch-king, we are already familiar with him. I can also accept Radagast fending off the leader of the Nine and bringing back the Morgul blade as proof. What I cannot and am going to wilfully ignore is this ridiculous story they concocted to alter history in the most non-sensical of ways, destroying a lot of things in the process for those that know how wrong it all is. What I witnessed was the height of hubris when it comes to bad writing, plain and simple.
And now I must be off to a Christmas Eve dinner with family, so I must bid you adieu and leave you with Part 1 of my review to chew on. More in the next couple of days. In the meantime, feel free to agree, disagree, or cuss me out... just mind that filter!
. And hopefully those cringe scenes will be for me also, not more than 10% of the movie.
On a side note, Merry Christmas! I hope you all received many Hobbit-related gifts.
