Indiana Hobbit

Rating: 6/10 (12 July 2013)

I am a Tolkien fan having read LOTRs and The Hobbit many times (over 20). I loved Peter Jackson's LOTRs trilogy despite his skateboarding Legolas and slapstick version of Gimli. Gollum was one of the greatest characterisations I have ever seen.
So full marks for The Hobbit then? No - not at all.
The pre-release posters gave a strong hint of what was to come. The Hobbit is a childs book but the lighting on the posters was like something out of Gone With The Wind. Uh-oh, I thought. Jackson's gone epic.
To begin with think Martin Freeman was a mistake. He does a great job at being Martin Freeman the Hobbit - but he just isn't Bilbo. The dwarfs a pretty good but they don't really come over as grim tough fighting types. More like comic stuntmen. Was it really necessary to 'personality' them up to that extent? Thank God that Del Toro didn't get his steam punk way so I will forgive Jackson for things like axes sticking out of heads and Thorin's 'I just come from the hairdressers' look. The Hobbit book is funny but for me the humour in Jackson's version just doesn't match the tone of the movie. A bit like all the Gimli jokes in the LOTR. It's just out of place. The special effects are terrific with Gollum the star again. - but there's too many of them necessitated by Jacksons need to 'big' everything up. Hollywood pressure? The dishwashing scene could have been done with clever camera work and loads of unbreakable dishes instead Jackson felt the need to turn it into a football trick session with the CGI obvious. There was no tension to the scene as we all knew the dishes weren't real. Small effects also seemed hamfisted. Bilbo running to catch the dwarfs seemed to be wearing swimming flippers instead of Hobbit feet. I don't ever remember thinking that in LOTR. Why oh why must there always be sliding scenes ala Spielberg. There have been three already. And the done to death ' grab on by one hand and amazingly pull someone to safety' stunt. I'm not sure Jackson has an original bone in his directing body. Everything in the movie I've seen a thousand times before. I guess my biggest complaint against the movie is the starring of characters that have almost no part in the book. Talking Radagast the Brown and the Pale Ork here. Ridiculously overplayed and turned me from a Jackson fan to a Jackson doubter. Was it really necessary to have completely new characters in the film? Only if there's a need to increase the drama - a need to add special effects to appeal to an audience used to seeing explosions and chases and baddies. And why oh why did the head goblin have a posh accent? For God sake. I could go on - the Troll who was feminine - Galadriel turning on some kind of potters wheel and almost falling over her spiralling dress. The sledge race - and so on and so on. When you think about it Jackson hasn't made a great movie since LOTRs. King Kong was awful, Lovely Bones a flop - The critics don't like the Hobbit - look at the Meta score and I agree. I'm not so sure he's anything more then a average director carried along by his success with LOTR. Which is disappointing, 'cause he's a Kiwi - like me. Final verdict? Could do so much better (I hope)