This visual realisation of a fantasy world of endlessly warring kingdoms is a technical tour-de-force: graphically state of the art with special effects to match. Simon Bright’s Art Direction aided by Andy McLaren and Ben Milson, together with Dan Hennah’s Production design and Ra Vincent’s set decoration have combined to create a cinematic work of art; massive in scale and ambition, and endlessly impressive throughout the 169 minutes of Peter Jackson’s latest labour of love for Tolkien.

Ignore the nonsense reported about the ‘Super HD’ HFR 48 frames/second process – to me it simply gives the images a consistently pin-sharp look that the eye, characteristically, very soon takes for granted. Jackson is also one of an increasing number of Directors who are beginning to get the hang of using 3D to serve an aesthetic vision rather than dominate it: not being afraid to go in close and taking full benefit of the depth of field 3D offers and being very judicious in his use of the unnatural illusory space between screen and viewer.

A technical triumph then: but for me a dramatic disaster; endlessly tedious with every chase and battle preceded and followed by swathes of exposition that try the patience and constantly destroy any momentum and pace the technical whizzkids dazzle us with. As the imagination soars with stunning imagery the turgid, nerdy screenplay constantly slows us down and drags us back to Earth – Middle or otherwise.

I should confess that not only did I find Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings unreadable; but I also failed The Hobbit: my hippie-loving, fantasy-chasing credentials lying in pieces at my winkle-picked, flare-trousered feet. It beggars my belief how in Gandalf’s name, Jackson is going to stretch this slight, fey little children’s story into 3 multi-million dollar epics – still less, Saruman save us – why.

I like Martin Freeman and I suppose he makes a lovable little Hobbitty, Bilbo Baggins – were not the wide-eyed, archly chirrupy little munchkin such an infuriating little twerp. While the hapless and mostly scriptless Freeman spends much of the movie staring into space and looking lovably bewildered, one sentiment I can wholly identify with, his mentor and agent provocateur Ian McKellen intones the most preposterous tosh about kings and wizards and wars and, well, stuff; with all the misplaced gravitas only a Shakespearian Knight of the Realm can muster. The clue’s in the name – Gandalf the Grey. Just so.

Apparently there’s a dragonny thingy called Smaug (all the names in Tolkien look like anagrams – (‘am Gus’ here perhaps) who’s nicked the land of Erebore (re-boree?) from the Dwarves – er Dwarfs, led by Hunky Thorin (Richard Armitage) after their King lost his head and thus his battle with a bunch of skin-headed Orcs with the kind of dogs our real-world skinheads would give someone else’s back teeth for. In revenge, and offering no decapitation allowance to the Orc leader Azog, Thorin renders him armless with a quick swish of his dwarvy sword. Thorin thinks the match ended Dwarf 1 – Orc 0: but he and we are soon thrillingly, I jest, to discover that this was only a half-time score.

Cheerful Charlie Bilbo is therefore dragged into the Quest to recover Erinmore, er Elsinore, sorry Erebor accompanied by 13 very hairy, very oddly dressed vertically challenged little guys. Who the hell is looking after Snow White while they’re all off enjoying themselves Director Jackson does not vouchsafe to tell us. Baggy is recruited as the team’s ‘Burglar’ a mystery of nomenclature that will perhaps not be explained for another 3-4 hours and a further couple of hundred million dollars.

Much running about, mostly up and down mountains ensues during which hundreds of exotic, fleshy little chaps are crushed, stabbed, thrown off bridges and mountains etc to their utterly unimportant, totally disposable deaths. While Gandalf drones, Bilbo moans and they all fetch up in the land of the Elves which I’m sure has an anagrammatic name – I just can’t remember it as I had just about lost the will to live at this point.

The deepest mystery of all in Jackson’s Tolkienian world is how the hell any of them got there – as the hundreds of thousands of Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Goblins (Gin Slob) and Orcs can scrape up only one female between them. Now I’m sure the feisty Cate Blanchett is more than up to the reproductive challenge this represents but her Elvy Galadriel (Radial Leg) wafts about so ethereally that she looks about to disappear in a wisp of smoke at any moment. Aided by her Head Elf Elrond (Del Ron - Hugo Weaving) Celestial Cate, as if fully aware of her token woman role, wears a constantly beatific, if vapid smile probably generated by how much she is going to get paid for doing so little. Good on yer Cate.

Leaving Elvish Presently, the doughty dwarves head across the mountains. Then, after a bruising quasi-genocidal encounter with another race of fleshy foes Azog catches up with them and challenges them to play off the second half of their match. More stunning special effects conflict kicks off though it has to be said that by this stage I was beginning to get a bit of awed wonder-fatigue.

Before the second half confrontation Billy-boy meets up with gobby goblin Gollum (L O Glum) who does a lot of hissing, I’m not sure why, possesses an odd wide-eyed evil demeanour and carelessly drops a magic gold ring that Billy Boy promptly snaffles – perhaps that’s why they called him the Burglar. Nice little gismo though – it makes the wearer invisible: what every happy Hobbit longs for – though I can’t see the attraction myself. Invisibility is no big magical deal anyway - in the real world you can achieve the same result just by reaching the age of 65.

All the ingredients safely in place for Hobbit 2 – The Journey Even Longer than Expected: we leave our chirpy chums perched precariously on the tip of a rock staring mystically and attractively into the distance – probably wondering where Professor Brian Cox disappeared to.

In accordance with my duty to you dear reader, I will return to the ring to battle manfully with the Big Bob Gains Baggy sequel. But I really don’t think I can get into the Hobbit.

WARNING

There are at least three versions of The Hobbit doing the rounds:

3D 48 frames/sec (HFR) - only in specially equipped cinemas
3D standard 28 frames/ sec
2D 28 frames/ sec

I'm not sure whether there is a 2D HFR.

If you can, the HFR version is well worth seeing but Cineworld staff didn't really know much about it and their advertising does not make it clear what version is been shown. They talk of 'super-hd'.

Coda – Cinema’s Cinderella

I was going to put this at the top of the piece but did not want to qualify my genuine admiration for The Hobbit’s technical excellence.

It is beyond reason, bewilderingly perverse, that after millions were spent on this movie to ensure the purest, highest quality of images, the sound balance between dialogue and musical score is absolutely abysmal for at least the first 30 minutes of the film: starting right up front with an at times occasionally inaudible voice-over.

Of course it could be that the cinema got this wrong but if the music comes through loud and clear it would suggest the fault lies within the film. The essence of the cinema experience is that it draws you in, almost as a silent witness to events. Here the sound level of dialogue especially is so low that it distances you from what is going on – it’s at about the frustrating level of having your favourite TV programme turned low because some fool has come round for a cup of tea. Or even, sorry ladies, trying to get into the atmosphere of the Manchester Derby with a low sound level competing for attention with the current progress of the Christmas shopping.

The Hobbit isn’t the first to display this deeply frustrating, culpably unacceptable fault – but given the technical brilliance, even excess of attention to graphics and visual imagery I do wonder whether anybody actual sat down to listen to the movie before finishing production. If so they weren’t listening properly.

It is not a matter of volume: it is a question of acuity, especially for the spoken word. This persistent weakness can be partially mitigated if you can get to a cinema with a Lucas THX sound system – infinitely better than the industry standard Dolby, especially at the higher, lighter end where the human voice plays.

Sadly this Cinderella of movies is neglected in different ways. Everything from the self-indulgent mumbling of say Joaquin Phoenix at the beginning of The Master; through lousy music/dialogue balance as here in The Hobbit; to erratic acuity in group dialogue that leaves key meanings unheard.

There seem to be two conceits at work here: the aforementioned UIOA (up its own arse) acting; and then the apparent indifference to words, dialogue, in contrast to the infinite pains taken with images. In fact it is at times as if Cinderella Sound has a twin sister, Cinderella Screenplay: both unjustly neglected in favour of the pushy ugly sisters – CGI and SFX.

Directors must know that sound is a critical part of the final experience so why they are so persistently deaf to its quality and effectiveness in their precious creations defies rational understanding.

One of the many reasons I love sub-titled films is that they completely eradicate this problem.


See this and other posts at:

http://zettelfilmreviews.co.uk
http://twitter.co./zettel23
http://pinterest.com/atthemovies

Z - your best review yet. I laughed out loud several times (the anagrams are genius, slying unlocking perhaps what really lives inside us Fantasy fans).

My first reaction to hearing this was going to be a trilogy was to decide not to see it. I actually liked the book (although I was a teenager when I read it) because it was a complete, compact story. Therefore, from a writer's perspective, there's no way it could be turned into 3 long movies while also preserving the effectiveness of the plot. Lord of the Rings, by contrast, is a proper 3-part story; therefore it made 3 good movies.

However . . . you are clearly not a Fantasy fan, Z; and I'm only half a one really, even though I write a fair amount of it (I love 'old' fantasy, the pre-Tolkein stuff, like Lord Dunsany). And what's happened since Tolkein, I believe, is that Fantasy as a money-making genre (which it wasn't in JRR's time) has established different rules for the trilogy. Now, most of them start by establishing the shape of the plot - which is usually quite a short section. The very end of the series will have a proper ending (although not always), and in-between is a very, very, very, long section of 'running around in the woods'.

Robert Jordan was(/is) possibly the best/worst example of this. Oddly, in his case, the first book was a complete story. But once it sold in helm-loads, he was persuaded to turn it into a series. If you want a laugh, check some of the Amazon reviews at around books 7,8,9, etc. There are loads with fans cursing Jordan for milking such a bloated cash cow (e.g. one of the books starts with a 150-page scene in which, I'm not kidding, all that happens is a bunch of women walk through a kind of teleportal device) but confessing that they have to keep buying anyway. They're compelled by some kind of loyal force that they don't understand.

Which brings me to the sobering thought, for a writer anyway, which is that there are tons of people who either voluntarily or dragged along by mysterious occult forces actually like this kind of thing. Harry Potter, for example: plot is set up in the first part of the first book; the final battle takes place at the end of the last book, and in-between is an endless procession of, well, I don't know really, since I gave up a long time ago.

I'm about to give up on Game of Thrones, too, for similar reasons. I'm about half way through the first book but the plot is clearly going to Jordan along forever until it's decided there's no more milk left ("I just can't write anudder one!" - sorry), and in the meantime I just don't care enough about most of the characterlesss characters. But millions do, and aggressively so, if you dare to criticise.

And didn't Terry Pratchett state many years ago that he just couldn't write another Disc World book. But now he's talking about passing on the series for one of his kids to write. By Gandalf's gonads, it's a strange business.

Thanks terry

You are quite right about me and fantasy but I can uinderstand why a genuine fantasy, as for example in some sci-fi-based books or Philip K Dick etc are both challenging and stimulating to the imagination. For me Tolkien's Hobbity bobbities are far too cute and twee however much quasi-knightly historical tosh he surrounds them with.

But surely the essence of fantasy is the opened-ended, unconstrained stimulation of the reader's own imaginative fantasies? Therefore Jackson's enterprise is as perverse as it is self-defeating - for he 'literalises' Tolkien's world: instead of having the visible but formless allusive effect of a swirl of smoke he grounds it in the concrete of precise visual representation. My impression is that The Hobbit is a children's book and an imaginative child will soar on the wings of his/her own fantasies, borne aloft by Tolkien's words far more satisfyingly than Jackson's literal, at times slightly absurd, naturalistic representations. And a good deal more cheaply.

Not my genre but it seems to me - if you understand fantasy wrapped in mystery - the last thing you'd do is film the book. Jackson offends William Golman's first rule of adaptation - you cannot, must not,be faithful to the book: but you must be utterly faithful to the spirit of the book.

Jackson stuffs into his film with nerdy precision and attention to detail absolutely everything of Tolkien - except the spirit.

best

Z

This is disappointing - I loved the LOTR films, but really couldn't see how 'The Hobbit' could stretch to three - looks like I was right.

Terry, I've ploughed my way through all the Game of Thrones books with every-increasing dismay - apparently Mr Martin says he knows where the plot's going, but I'm really not convinced. Such a waste of some really good characters, I think.

Z - You make a very good point re the stimulation of the reader's own imagination vs the literalisation of fantasy. There may also be an element of escape vs participation in this too. Which I think is a fine line; but these days I can't help feel that a lot of writers are only too happy to keep the story on the escape side; and perhaps too many readers too not self-activating enough to want more participation. What I really can't understand is when writers appear to prefer escaping to participating in the stuff they read.

Astrea, much as I quite enjoyed what I read of GoT (and may still read some more), right from the start it had the strong smell of make-it-up-as-you-go-along about it. Likewise Harry Potter, despite JKR's claims that she'd had all seven books planned out form the start. The problem with that is I find I can often think of better options than what appears in the book, which shouldn't be the case: I want to be surprised and amazed at the fantastic construction the author's taken the trouble to put together. Either that or characters so memorable I don't mind too much if the story is kind of linear. And at the moment, I just don't find enough GoT characters compelling enough. The dwarf is good, also the teen princess's journey to becoming a strong, proud leader amongst powerfully alien people - although, as I think I said before, the sex scenes are a little suspect to say the least.

The problem with that is I find I can often think of better options than what appears in the book, which shouldn't be the case: I want to be surprised and amazed at the fantastic construction the author's taken the trouble to put together.

Absolutely - it's too sprawling, too undisciplined and I can't help feeling he's painted himself into a corner with some of his characters. Also, he introduces the White Walkers, potentially really good monsters, and then doesn't seem to know what to do with them. It just feels...careless, and more than a little irritating.

Hang on, let me get this right - are you saying that you weren't too keen then, Zettel?

I have to admit that I didn't realise Jackson was going to drag The Hobbit out to three films. My initial reaction is - What the fleck! There's no way the book should be three films!

I read LOTR when I was 18 (a long time ago in a Middle Earth far away) and really enjoyed it - apart from the endless songs that went on too long and I had to skip a page or two. Afterwards, with a thirst for Middle Earth awakened, I read The Hobbit only to realise I should have read it ten years previously. Despite initial suspicion, I also enjoyed the LOTR films and was quite looking forward to seeing The Hobbit. I imagined that Jackson would adapt it from being simply a children's story and make it comparable in age genre to the previous films. Perhaps he has, but THREE films? No way.

I'm also disappointed to hear that they haven't overcome the audio deficiencies that featured in the first films. Visually stunning, yes, but in places it was hard to hear the dialogue. I would've hoped that they would've learned from that and addressed it in this new film.

I was thinking of going to see it with my wife, who is a keen Tolkien fan, but discovering that there will be three films we're both wondering whether to bother now. Maybe we'll just wait for the DVD and then a make a judgement as to whether we go to the cinema for the others. I just hope they don't do the same thing they did with LOTR and release the DVD only to reveal that an extended four disc version will appear a few months later. We bought them, and enjoyed them, but I'm not sure the same trick is going to work twice.

Hmmph, what's the matter with film-makers these days? You'd think they were only in it to make money.

I think what you say about audio/ screenplay is quite right, Zettel. I went to see the 2D version (in the hope it'd be less crowded) and I do remember it being hard to hear the dialogue in places.
Personally I went because I love Tolkein - I wasn't expecting it to be a great film, I just wanted to see those characters on the screen and recall the book in the process. I wasn't expecting much, just the filmic equivalent of comfort reading. And yet it still disappointed me.
1) I've seen all the battles before, and every hidden city looked exactly every other hidden city we've ever seen in CGI heavy films.
2) Tolkein essentially writes about land. The power inheres in the land. This was entirely lost because they turned everything into battle scenes. E.g. the stone giants fighting - in the book these aren't there, they are spoken of but never considered to be real - they are like the Yeti, shadowy myths - instead the mountain itself is trying to throw the travellers off it. Also, turning the trolls to stone - in the book Gandalf does this through cleverness and trickery, it's not a big battle scene (there is a short fight, that's all). Lots of changes that made it just another action film with CGI battles we've seen before.
2) the humour and domesticity of The Hobbit, was completely lost. They tried to make The Hobbit be The Lord of the Rings. It wasn't written that way. It's almost as if they've taken a deeply English book, rooted in the landscape of Britain, and tried to give it the epic scale of American landscape. TLOTR, as a book, has that sweeping epic scale. The Hobbit doesn't and isn't meant to. Smaug is a comic creation as much as a villain. All that was lost.
Sorry, typin in a rush!