THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

"The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" are very different books. The movies reflect these differences. The tone of "The Hobbit" is markedly different, much more light-hearted and at times, even funny. Couple that with the fact "The Lord of the Rings" movie is beloved by many and that I myself have watched it numerous times since it was released and the cards are already stacked against it. Finally, while this is a simple story of pride and greed, Peter Jackson has decided to take Tolkien's 300 page novel and stretch it over three movies. I think two movies would've sufficed but then again, I'm not a world famous director. Be prepared for some serious padding.

Let's begin, shall we? I enjoyed the movie but it's not great. This isn't due to the tone either; the juxtaposition of light-hearted fun and grim action (mostly) works well. Nor is it due to the slow first half of the movie (in my mind that was the stronger half). I loved the way "The Hobbit" began and how they tied it into "The Lord of the Rings". I loved the flashbacks to the dwarves in the mines (ala "LotR appendices). The design aesthetic is quite different from "LotR", a strange hybrid of the former and "World of Warcraft" or "WarHammer". This is reflected mostly in the dwarven culture. Thorin Oakenshield and 'his' 12 dwarves all look strange, some like Gauls (ala "Asterix and Obelix") and others almost like short men. Very few actually look like traditional dwarves. These outrageous differences in appearance do serve a purpose; they help the viewer differentiate between the dwarves. They each have distinct personalities, which is more than can be said for Tolkien's originals (most of them were forgettable).

“The Hobbit” includes two songs from the book, one of them is silly and playful and the other is a sombre, reflective ballad regarding their dwarven heritage– both are expertly performed. The background vistas and environments are phenomenal as per usual. There is much humour, most of it derived from the dwarves. Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo Baggins, hugely lovable but a real homebody. Andy Serkis reprises his role as Gollum and does a wonderful job being hilarious, tragic and creepy - sometimes all at once. His exchange with Bilbo (the Riddles in the Dark scene) is the highlight of the movie. Cate Blanchett is superb as Galadriel and the rest of the cast are very good.

“The Hobbit” is based on (roughly) the first-third of the book and includes some elements from the “LotR” appendices. Passing references have also been further developed. Since the original book is so short, the movie has been padded out to the extreme. These additions regularly help but sometimes hurt the flow and quality of the movie - I’d say 75% is very good, while 25% is mediocre to poor. Most of the latter scenes are understandably the screenwriters’ inventions.

Sylvester McCoy ("the Doctor" from the late 80's/early 90's) plays Radagast the Brown. He’s an eccentric lover of nature and very different to how I imagined but certainly not a show-stopper. His bunny-sled on the other hand was extremely stupid. There were other choice moments in the movie that reminded me of theme-park rides (clearly they were there to show off the 3D capabilities, rather than used to serve the story). Also, a scene featuring fighting stone giants made me shake my head in disbelief.

PJ and his team are well-known for doing practical effects and using prosthetics. Strangely enough, PJ has chosen to use far too much CGI (when it works, it works. When it doesn’t, it looks crap). This over-reliance on CGI creatures, rather than animatronics and people dressed as orcs etc. (ala “LotR”) hurts the movie, particularly in the long and arduous action scenes (which could've been substantially shortened). There’s no real weight to most of them and Azog, the orc, makes for a disappointing one-note villain (also he’s purely CGI, so he’s never truly believable or threatening). That said, the Wargs are ferocious beasts – a definite improvement on those found in the “LotR”. Finally, the soundtrack is enjoyable and catchy but sometimes works against scenes in the movie.

All in all, “The Hobbit” is quite good and a lot of fun. Here’s hoping the second movie is an improvement on the first.
7.5/10

Warning: Mature audiences – contains fantasy violence

Is anybody going to go see the Oz movie this weekend? I can't help but be curious about it because I'm a fan of the books.

I read an interesting story on it though. Apparently Warner Brothers still owns several bits from the Wizard of Oz movie and some Disney rep was complaining about not being able to show the Ruby Red Slippers. I was a little surprised as the book has Silver Shoes. Why not use those? Didn't exactly boost my confidence, but I still can't help but be curious.

I definitely plan on seeing it, the only problem is, it comes out here later this month, so I won't get to see it when it comes out where you are

i saw Oz on sunday! it was fantastic! i noticed there are a LOT of Narnian crew involved in that movie, it made me very thrilled and proud!! deffinately going to buy Oz when it is released! Also, i'm really excited about GI Joe 2 and Iron Man 3! both look like good sequels; GI Joe is my favorite movie to watch when i'm sick because all that action makes me feel better haha bruce willis and the rock are going to be great additions! yay for prince of persia's ben kingsley as the bad guy in Iron Man 3! may his evil plan be thwarted by my favorite sarcastic superhero!

My wife and I saw Oz last Friday. Neither one of us liked it however. The visuals are terrific, but the story not so much in our opinions. We both fell in and out of sleep during the movie, (something that never happens has never happened to me in a theater).

narnian1, are you a fan of the books or the original movie? I'm semi-interested in it, but after several reviews of the movie being ok but not great, I'm definitely waiting for the DVD on this one.

Given that I've only read one of the books, (not the first), when I was a kid. I have to say I'm a fan of the original movie, which probably makes all the difference for my experience with the Oz. I do have the books on my kindle, but I haven't had a chance to read them yet.

Went and saw Iron Man 3 tonight. Spoiler free: Darker and more violent than the other ones. Overall good storyline. I wouldn't recommend it for under 13 and even then I'd be careful about letting some younger teens watch it depending on how sensitive they are to violence levels.

I saw Iron Man 3 a couple days ago. The opinions i've seen on it seem to range all over the place -- friend of a friend hated it, friend didn't care for it, my sister and i enjoyed it, one review said it was the best Avengers-related film thus far, another two complained about a lack of depth to the story.

Personally, i thought it was fun, entertaining, and frankly i'm a little surprised it's managed to elicit such a variety of reviews. Sure, it was somewhat predictable and didn't have any deep subtext to it, but i rarely find myself reflecting on the ethos of a superhero film after i've seen it. Maybe i'm just unusual that way.

I saw Oz the weekend it came out. I didn't love it however there are lots of things I liked about it and some elements I didn't like concerning Oscar aka Oz.

Still worth checking out though and I will get it on DVD when it comes out

I saw Iron Man 3 a few nights ago. I liked it Spoilers below.

Spoiler

I loved Tony and Pepper's relationship, as well as Rhodey in the Iron Patriot armor and the way he and Tony joke around. Some of my other favorite parts were the scenes with Harley, the scene with 'Tony's biggest fan,' and the 'barrel of monkeys.'
Was I the only person who thought of Toy Story when that happened?

I also like that Tony got to have more scenes without the suit. It proves that he's not just a 'big guy in a suit of armor.' It shows some important character development on his part--now he actually tells Pepper when he has a problem, instead of hiding it.

Also, the trailer got me mixed up. From the trailer, when Tony was talking about revenge and all those people were trying to interview him, I thought he was talking about Pepper. Then I watched the movie and it turned out he was actually talking about Happy Hogan. Oops.

I liked the 'stinger' with Dr. Banner, and the way he fell asleep. And did anyone notice that Happy Hogan was watching Downton Abbey?

I do agree that it was darker than the previous films. Killian makes the other villains look like amateurs. But the fake Mandarin was hilarious!
Also, I liked the ending. It's so nice to see that Tony has finally learned how to give Pepper a decent present--instead of backless dresses, food she's allergic to, or 8-foot-tall stuffed bunny rabbits. I like that the ending is happy--for now-- and I love the bookend from the first film:

"I am Iron Man"

I thought Iron Man 3 was a very fun movie. But But all in all a great time!

My brother saw Iron Man 3 and wanted very much to tell me all about it. He enjoys dangling spoilers in front of me (what a dweeb) so I have to constantly tell him NOT to do that thing.

Wifester and I went to go see Star Trek: Into Darkness last night. There's been much talk about the film for the past year (or more) with lots of weird production stills, Benedict Cumberbund as a mysterious villain, and poster art of the Enterprise plummeting into the Earth's atmosphere. I've also avoided reading other people's reviews, so I went in without much advance knowledge on who was who and what was going on. This is NOT your daddy's Star Trek movie! I will say that the Abrams formula keeps things rolling at a nice clip, action-wise, and the film never really slows down. John Harrison (Cumberbatch) is a fairly interesting villain and it was a lot of fun watching Kirk (Chris Pine) deal with him. The plot revolves around Harrison's blowing up a Starfleet facility in London, and so the heads of Starfleet want him brought to justice. He's hiding out on the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, so the Enterprise has to go forcibly retrieve him while attempting to sidestep the potential war that would potentially follow. What comes after that is a ton of intrigue, action/adventure, and one heckuva reveal that I sure didn't see coming! Fans of the Original Series will very much enjoy this film. I was pleased most by watching the core trio (Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy) of TOS work together on screen and there's the beginnings of the legendary Spock/McCoy arguments (fun to watch). The movie is wide open for a sequel....actually the movie is wide open for a series if they chose to go that route. Imagine TOS completely redone. The whole thing made me want to go back and watch every episode of TOS again.

We thoroughly enjoyed it! Thumbs enthusiastically up for Star Trek: Into Darkness!

I took my brother to see Star Trek Into Darkness this past weekend...I loved it! I've been a fan of Benedict Cumberbatch ever sinc I saw the first preview for Sherlock; but I've got to say, he blew me away here. Without giving away name or nothing, he played the villian in such a chilling, frightning way, yet in such a way that I still had empathy for him.

Went to see Star Trek with a former NarniaWebber yesterday on the spur of the moment. I like it better than the first one. Wish they had left two scenes on the cutting room floor, but I thought it was a pretty good movie.

I wish we would get more variety in our movie choices though. Movies with a high body count are really getting on my nerves.