Movie of the Week: The Hobbit

[jacey]

No movie of the week last week because we'd seen all we wanted to see and The Hobbit didn't open until Thursday. (Our cinema day being Wednesday.) So my cinebuddy, H, and I were really looking forward to seeing the Hobbit this week. And we were not disappointed. I know some of my friends will nitpick over some aspects of it and while I hear their criticisms I have to say that I just don't care. I loved every moment. Was it long? Yes. Did it drag? Not one bit.

Martin Freeman is a perfect Bilbo Baggins, Richard Armitage a powerful Thorin Oakenshield. (Is it just me or does anyone else think he looks and sounds like Sean Bean's younger brother?) Aidan Turner is just plain gorgeous as Kili the dwarf and Sylvester McCoy suitably batty as Radegast. Revisiting Rivendell and the Shire was a joy.

I'm not a Tolkien purist. I read the books in my twenties and one day I may re-read them, but I haven't yet. It means that though I remember the general gist, I've forgotten details. I'm not looking for differences between the book and the movies. Books are books and films are films and the medium makes different demands on the two, so I'm not going to get a ll huffy about Peter Jackson adding in stuff from elsewhere. If it means we get three films instead of two, then that's shiny. Bring on the next one and bring on the extended DVD editions.

A note on format. I saw the 2D version because I've always been disappointed with the way (most) filmmakers use 3D and resented being charged extra to have my eyeballs feel as though they've been whizzed around in a blender, but I might just persuade the family to a cinema outing this Christmas to see the 3D version. I certainly don't think the 2D version lacks anything, but I'm curious to see whether/how the 3D version enhances the production.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Richard Armitage. With long hair. SWOON!!!!

I'm a LOTR purist and therefore never saw the movies. Friends who know me well say this was the right decision for me.

I'm not a Hobbit purist, and on the whole, I enjoyed the film. Richard Armitage. With long hair. SWOON!!!

All the criticisms of it that I've read are true, but, like you, I liked the film all right anyway. Wouldn't say I loved it, but definitely liked it and felt it was time well-spent. I'll probably go see the others.

Also?

Richard Armitage. With long hair. SWOON!!!

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Richard Armitage a powerful Thorin Oakenshield. (Is it just me or does anyone else think he looks and sounds like Sean Bean's younger brother?)

No, it's not just you - and it actually sent me to the Wiki to check where Armitage comes from, and it's Leicester, which makes it even stranger because Bean's is pure Sheffield (it's my hometown, so, you know, I notice.) Armitage's sounds Sheffield here, and not Leicester at all.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I've often thought this about Armitage and Bean. Armitage does a good Yorkshire accent (has done in other things, too) and they look enough alike to be siblings. They missed a good opportunity to film the earlier Sharpe in India stories. Insead of sending Bean back as an older Sharpe and mashing the India stories together, they should have done justice to the whole thing with Armitage. Too late now, I guess because Armitage is probably beyond passing for 25. (Maybe they should have had Bean and Armitage as Boromir and Faramir.)

I'd still like to see/read the unwritten Sharpe story of him going back to Spain to find his daughter. She must be grown up by now.

[teriegarrison.livejournal.com]

Richard Armitage. With long hair. SWOON!!!!

I'm a LOTR purist and therefore never saw the movies. Friends who know me well say this was the right decision for me.

I'm not a Hobbit purist, and on the whole, I enjoyed the film. Richard Armitage. With long hair. SWOON!!!

All the criticisms of it that I've read are true, but, like you, I liked the film all right anyway. Wouldn't say I loved it, but definitely liked it and felt it was time well-spent. I'll probably go see the others.

Also?

Richard Armitage. With long hair. SWOON!!!

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

You may have just persuaded me that it is worth seeing after all. Perhaps if I pretend that it's pure coincidence that the characters bear the same names as the characters in the book I loved so much as a child, it might work? Because I do think the casting sounds brilliant.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, Richard Armitage with long hair!
:-)
If you liked this I'd be very surprised if you didn't like LOTR. Leave the purist-you locked in a cupboard while the Viggo Mortensen with long hair: SWOON!-you watches and appreciates the movies.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I think it's worth seeing. The main crits I've seen come from Tolkien purists and from writers whose main crit seems to be 'I wouldn't have done it that way!' If you just want to see a jolly good fantasy film with excellent actors and stunning cinematography then go. Leave your preconceptions at the door and collect them on the way out and I think you'll enjoy yourself.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Personally, I have criticisms of the special effects, the make-up, but, most of all, the pacing and the tone which varies from High Fantasy to fart jokes.

The main criticisms come from people who are more interested in film than in Tolkien (a 65% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes compared with 92% for The Fellowship of the Ring, for instance.) And me. But then I'm interested in both and not invested at all in The Hobbit. I gave it three out of five stars, and thought I was being generous.

On the other hand, Thorin is hot.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Thorin = hot!
Richard Armitage finally getting well-deserved recognition.
:-)

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

If the cinema was nearer, I'd definitely take a chance. As it is, it's going to depend on whether I fancy a day out in Llandudno with added Hobbit. From the reviews and comments I've heard, it doesn't strike me as something that's worth making a special trip for.