Thursday, December 27, 2012

An Expected Journey (To The Movie Theater)

So, I finally got out to see The Hobbit. Objectively, I'm sure it's a flawed movie. I've heard criticisms about it being too slow, and I'm sure they're valid. I strongly suspect that if I were coming to this story for the first time, I'd find the movie badly paced for the adventure tale it is, and way too full of expository backstory. But, fortunately for me, I have neither the ability nor the desire to be objective. The Hobbit is a story I've loved since I was a kid -- I first read it long before I ever encountered The Lord of the Rings -- and seeing it up there on the big screen looking so awesome, with or without added bits, was an absolute treat for me. The riddle scene with Gollum was particularly thrilling; that was always my favorite part of the book, although I suppose that's probably true for most people.

And, wow, that really, really did not feel like three hours. Heck, I didn't even have to pee when it was over. I could happily have sat there for another hour or two.

When's the next one out, again?

5 comments:

  1. My enthusiasm for it pretty much disappeared when it went from one movie, to two, to three. Maybe I could have recaptured some of it had the reviews been less mixed, but I don't have an overwhelming love of Tolkien to steer me past my dwindled interest.

    The book was assigned reading the summer before my freshman year in high school, and I both liked and loathed it. I think I'd like it better now, if my reaction a decade ago to the Fellowship books is any indication, but I also don't think I'd fall head over heels for it. Which I think I'd have to, if I'm going to sit through three three-hour movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, dear, there's nothing nearly as effective at ruining a book as making it a school assignment.

      Delete
  2. I don't think that's what did it, and I think my reaction to Tolkien would have been about the same had I encountered him on my own or not. Some people love him. I'm just not one of those people.

    My lack of enthusiasm for the film has nothing to do with my reaction to the book, which I liked more than not. It's the idea that, to tell Tolkien's shortest and fastest-paced story, we need three 3-hour movies. That seems both a money-making ploy and Peter Jackson's unwillingness to stop playing in a game that's played itself out.

    I would not be surprised if next is a fifteen-hour version of The Silmarillion. You know, just because.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thing is, I would watch a fifteen-hour version of The Silmarillion. And probably quite enjoy it. So I can't actually complain, whatever Jackson's motivations might be. :)

      Delete