Maggie Kane
A
pale, balding creature stares through the screen with blue saucer eyes. He is
trying to answer a riddle told by Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit attempting to escape
an underground maze with a battle of wits. It’s the emotional high point of Peter
Jackson’s “The Hobbit,” as this violent but somehow endearing character eventually
realizes that Baggins stole his precious ring. He flies into a panicked rage,
beating himself up emotionally and threatening the hobbit.
Unfortunately
this captivating character is not the protagonist of the film. He does not
appear until late in the movie, barely rousing me after nearly two hours of slow
storytelling. I read “The Hobbit” as a young child, but remember little.
Looking for a light film with rolling country scenery, I decided to journey
into the shire once more and check out the movie.
Baggins,
a shy homebody who decides to go on an adventure after an elderly wizard boosts
his ego, is the story's main character. Martin Freeman plays him well, using subtle
tics like wringing his hands to physically express discomfort and nerves.
Baggins
joins a band of dwarves on a quest to reclaim their home. On the way, they battle
myriad roadblocks, or rather, myriad bands of identical beige monsters. Are
they trolls? Orcs? Goblins? Are these species interchangeable? The jury is
still out.
The
plot gets interesting late in the game, when Baggins discovers he has acquired
a sort of medieval lightsaber. It directs the group of adventurers into a cavern
that is aesthetically part Tim Burton, part Hayao Miyazaki. Ominous, bulbous
creatures shuffle around on dimly lit ledges connected by ziplines. It’s visually
impeccable.
At
this point, Baggins accidentally splits from the group and finds himself alone
with the ring-guarding creature. Eventually triumphant at mind games, he
escapes and rejoins the dwarves.
After
another scuffle or two—it’s hard to keep count of the rapid-fire action scenes
packed into the last third of the movie as if to make up for its lackluster
start—Baggins and the dwarves spy home in the distance. Apparently it will take
them two more movies to get there.
If I were better versed in Middle Earth, I might eagerly await the
resolution to the story. Instead I wish Jackson luck with stretching the
journey out for another six hours.
Lightsaber?
ReplyDeleteI like your true feelings and thoughts on the film. I share the same sentiment: why the hell is Peter Jackson splitting a comparatively short book into 3 movies. It was a children's book.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I want to see MORE of your feelings regarding the film. And I want to see it sooner, and with less summary.
You should clearly include your "but" statement earlier in your review. If your argument is that the film's story telling was slow, for example, state it then give background or examples.
Some questions worth considering and answering:
-Did Jackson's pastoral Middle Earth live up to your expectations (or to your childhood memories)?
-What did you think of the characters?
Good first review. I want to see less summary and more of what YOU have to say.