To be honest, I wasn't too excited to see The Hobbit. Would there be anything new here? How can it possibly be cooler than The Lord of the Rings? I mean, The Hobbit, even the title sounds weak~! And exactly what is J.R.R. Tolkien's fascination with puny leads is beyond me. Okay fine, that IS how most stories go, finding true power in unlikely places... how even a simple Hobbit could change the course of history.
Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. That is not what I've found. I found it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk, that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins? Perhaps it is because I'm afraid, and he gives me courage. (It still has its power lines I'll give you that.)
There they set forth on a journey to reclaim the Dwarven Kingdom.
So I went to see The Hobbit on theaters anyways, if not just to see what the hype was all about. Now with Peter Jackson on the helm once again, you can pretty much expect the same feel as LOTR (less other epic characters like Aragorn and Legolas that I came to love in the series).
Now I wasn't blown away or anything like that, but it had its amusing moments. It had music, magic, fighting, wizards, elves, dwarves, mystical animals, legends, mountains, scenery, purpose, adventure, riddles, a ring, a humongous budget-- just how can you go wrong with that combination? Be warned though, after a while it becomes really predictable, and the story will go something like this: continue on their journey--> sense danger--> get in a tight pickle--> be saved by Gandalf--> continue on their journey--> sense danger--> get in a tight pickle--> be saved by Gandalf-->continue on their journey--- well you get the picture. Don't get me wrong, Gandalf was pretty cool and everything, but couldn't they have changed it a little, like maybe add Legolas into the mix? I swear, apart from Gandalf, this movie really lacked cool characters!
3 X 3
Then as a lot expected, there were some moments that seemed prolonged, maybe even unneeded. The dwarves cleaning the pots and pans? It can be cute, but maybe they could have saved that for a Disney movie? I guess that's part of having all the time in the world, The Hobbit IS a book split into three parts for the movie, and here I am hoping though that there's more to that decision than just for the extra pocket money. Rather than the Hobbit, it would have been nice if they spent that amount of time for the Harry Potter movies, now that's a movie that needs a few more hours.
If you have read this far, then you'd know I haven't read the books. It's just so long and winding that I thought I should just watch the movie to get it over with. I know for sure though that The Hobbit wouldn't be as epic and necessary, as say, the Star Wars prequels, and that it wouldn't need three whole movies to get its point across.
In all, contrary to how it might have sounded in my review, it wasn't a bad movie. And although the next movies won't be that high on my must-watch list, I'd still watch it just to see how it all wraps up and connects with The Lord of the Rings. So with that, this movie gets a so-so 60%.
60% - Just enough to be mildly entertaining, but not so much. Okay. Not original. Predicatable story-line.
No comments:
Post a Comment