Jackson's done it again.

Rating: 3/10 (31 December 2013)

And not in a positive way.
This movie is another good example for Peter Jackon's flawed style of film making.
When I was 17, the Fellowship was released and I was blown away. Not by the storytelling or the portrayal of the characters. No, it was the amazingly detailed illustration of Tolkien's world that got me hooked. I loved the books and already felt that some things in the way the characters were presented were off, but I didn't care because of the spectacle. I watched it three times in cinema alone and was totally hyped when the trailer for the Two Towers was released.
I went to the cinema with great expectations and I disliked the movie almost completely. Too many Hollywood clichés and more noise than substance or heart made this one already a big let down, as well as Jackson's disability to be subtle and remain meaningful. Add to that many scenes that are involuntarily funny, and you arrive at almost B movie quality plot devices.
The Return of the King continued in the same way, while leaving out some great scenes from the book and having quite a few questionable (and laughable) stylistic decisions (Lighthouse Sauron, the ghost army for example). Add to that the very anti-climatic solutions to the great battles and some really atrocious changes to the books characters (again) and I was left with an empty feeling to what I first thought could be an enjoyable movie going experience.
So, when it was said that some other director than Jackson would be responsible for the adaptation of The Hobbit, I must have been one of the few, who was a actually glad about this bit of news.
And then Jackson got in again and in addition to his already annoying direction goes all Lucas with The Hobbit.
And this time I just hate it. My main problems among many are:
1. Catering to lowest denominator: Cram in more action, more romance and childish humour and people will love it. 2. CGI Overuse: Much like Lucas' Star Wars prequels, this prequel trilogy is marked by an overuse of CGI. And it completely takes me out of the movie. While the first trilogy (especially FotR) made a sensible use of its SFX budget, Jackson now has apparently way to much money to spend on CGI sequences. Maybe I've become too sensitive in that respect, but I get sick when I see CG orcs doing conversation. Especially Azog looks so out of place, I can't imagine any reason why they decided against using masks and costumes. Especially when it worked so well in LotR. 3. Trying to be like LotR: The Hobbit is a completely different tale than The Lord of the Rings, but Jackson tries to make it as epic and meaningful and it just doesn't work for me. It also distracts heavily from the original story and its main character. More so than in AuJ, Bilbo as character and main protagonist is completely underused and subdued. Now, you would expect that time saved here is used to make the other characters more interesting and memorable. And indeed, with the amount of time Jackson reserved for the adaption, there should have been plenty of time, to give the dwarfs some character and actually improve on the book, where the dwarfs remain quite bland. Unfortunately, it's not better than in the novel. 4. Way too much over the top action: Combined with the CGI, this absolutely shattered my suspension of disbelief. There's no feel of tension or danger. Combine that with the problem that I don't care for the characters and all I get is big yawn from the prolonged fight scenes. 5. Copying from the Lord of the Rings: This trilogy doesn't bring in any new ideas. Kingsfoil, the way the Ring slips on Bilbo's finger, a Worm Tongue look a like... it's just so obvious.
Another thing that bugged me is that Jackson has to show us how evil the ring is with Bilbo as an example. Now, some people actually think that the scene in question is one of the best from the movie, but it just doesn't make sense in the long run. If the ring gets a hold on Bilbo this early, shouldn't Bilbo have changed drastically by the time his 111th birthday arrives? And it's not because Gandalf reminds him that killing is bad, that he doesn't take Gollum's life. It's because of his peaceful Hobbit nature (Murder is basically unheard of in the shire). All this makes Bilbo/Frodo so resilient against the influence of the ring. Now it just doesn't fit in the context anymore.
I could go on and on, there is so much that is off, but the typical moviegoer with his craving for action and show wont notice anyway.
The truth is, that these movies have become boring and stale. Sometimes less is more. A good story, told with heart and soul is much more compelling than this CGI extravaganza, hailed by the people who are satisfied with seeing Middle Earth on the big screen again. But sorry Peter, that alone wont make a good movie. At least not in my book.