Firstly, I've discovered that I never want to go to another movie I actually care about at any showing BESIDES the midnight premier. Ever again. Because for years, I've been damaging my blood pressure over the fact that people sit stoically and unaffected in a theater, mindlessly consuming a masterpiece as if it was the world's job to entertain them, and leave without so much as putting their hands together a few times in honor of cast, writer, director, producer, or whatever a 'best boy' is. These people spent years of their lives and long, agonizing, sleepless nights into making the movie you just spent two hours watching, the least you could do is clap, right? (Can you tell I've got a pet peeve?). The midnight premier, however, is an entirely different story. People, like, care. Not only did they clap AFTER the movie, they clapped when the lights went down and the commercials started. They clapped at the opening credits. And they clapped, lo and behold, during the movie too. And cheered. And hooted. And so on. Whenever there was a particularly great scene. So, no more. If I don't make it opening night, I might just wait for the DVD from now on.
On the topic of the movie itself, I was completely blown away. It's difficult to find anything else to say. Peter Jackson and the lot have done it again, as far as I'm concerned. It was well imagined, well cast, and so on. Visually, it lived up to the expectations of viewers looking for the same level of excellence as the previous films. The writing was tight, picking up and cutting off (oh, that cliff hanger) at exactly the right points. The first film fills the role of setting the scene for the trilogy. Major characters, major conflict, enough character development to get things rolling. For readers of the book, it left off just before one would expect the introduction of Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt). I'm a little befuddled, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, over the decision to make three movies of one book. With that kind of pacing, The Lord of the Rings series could've taken up about ten movies (maybe then Tom Bombadil would've been welcome. Yes, I'm still sore about that.). I've heard it said that they wanted to give themselves the space to work artistically. Whether it was that or money, I guess, depends on how good the other two turn out.
 |
| "brighter, fresher color" |
And there was some of the innocence and simplicity of the book, at least in comparison with the Lord of the Rings movie. A brighter, fresher color scheme, a lighter musical score, and altogether more light; plus everybody looked younger. Not sure how they managed it, when it's been ten years since Fellowship, but all the returning characters looked believably younger. Even Gollum (Andy Serkis) was a lighter, more likable character, as evidenced by the scattered bouts of laughter during the Riddles in the Dark scene, which may or may not've been the best part of the entire movie; and Ian McKellan returning as Gandalf made it all worth while.
As for dwarves, there were an awful lot of them. Far too many for each one to get a memorable character. There were moments when one would show up in a scene, and my thought was, "Alright, now they're just making this up, 'cause I know he wasn't there before." As for the ones that did get developed, you've got Thorin. Thorin has to be taller than the lot, and more intense. I'm not sold on Richard Armitage's performance yet (maybe I just need to watch it again), because in my mind, he was less tall and intense, more eye-candy and irritable. On the topic of eye candy, one wonders if he and Kili (Aiden Turner) exist to satisfy the Aragorn-and-Legolas corner of the market. Then you've got Bombur, who's usually stuffing something in his mouth. When he's not breaking furniture. It's okay, though. They've got two more movies to work on Dwarves. And then there's Bofur. Bofur, top, third-from-the-left, pretty blue eyes, funny hat, big smile. Just in that picture, he stands out, doesn't he? He stood out in the movie, too, just about stole the show. He was a little more down-to-earth, a little more complex. He had a scene, one-on-one with Bilbo, that I won't go into detail on for the sake of spoilers, but it was a spectacular performance. My favorite dwarf, hands down, and maybe my favorite character. And I swear to you, I didn't notice for a second that it was James Nesbitt. If I'd ever known he was in the movie, which I'm sure I must've, I'd forgotten it entirely, and I didn't notice it. I loved him in the dual title role of Steven Moffet's Jekyll miniseries. Jekyll stole your heart and Hyde was utterly despicable. It's got to say something about his acting (or maybe just the make-up department) that I've loved his work before, but didn't recognize him.
When I say he almost stole the show, I do only mean almost. Because it was almost impossible to watch anybody else when Bilbo was on the screen. And not in the way of the gaggle of girls who sat in front of us (and I quote, "I don't even really want to see this movie. I'm just here for Martin Freeman." Further eavesdropping confirmed that they were Sherlock fans.) I'm with Peter Jackson in the opinion that he was the only choice for Bilbo. The slightly bumbling, big-hearted everyman who's yet do discover his real strength. It's Freeman's niche, but that didn't make it repetive or predictable. It was an absolutely gorgeous performance. I've still got goosebumps.
There's much to look forward to, with this series. Characters and relationships, conflicts, villains. It'll be a treat to see more of the Necromancer than a growling shadow and more of Smaug than a tail, an eye, or a nostril (Benedict Cumberbatch, in both cases). I'm a little worried, of course; will it feel anything but belaboured by the third movie? But I'm on my toes for next Christmas, nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment